CAR_Public/161021.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 211




                            Headlines

5 STAR FLASH: "Redman" Suit Sent to Cook County Circuit Court
50 EGGS INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Brock" Suit
ADVANCED EQUITIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fisker Auto Demise
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Trilegiant Case
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Case vs. Webloyalty Underway

ALLERGAN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS: Court Affirms Denial of Radandt Claim
AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Carrico Bid to Intervene Denied
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Fla. App. Court Affirmed $18 Million Judgment
AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces "Harris" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA

ANADIGICS INC: Faces "Elortegui" Lawsuit Over 2016 Tender Offer
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: C.D. Cal. Securities Litigation Dismissed
AUVIL FRUIT: Faces "Martinez" Wage and Hour Class Action
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: "Tanski" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued in D.C. Over Deceptive Business Practices

CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: May Deposit $15,000 but Class Cert Bid Proceeds
COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Rasberry Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
COMCAST CORP: Faces "Adkins" Class Suit Over Phony Fees
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Accord in Stamps Brothers' Suit Okayed

CRYO-CELL: Plaintiff Awarded $50,000 in Attorneys' Fees
CTBC BANK: XPEC's Self-Help Group to Sue Over Share Sale
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Blue" Suit Over ADA Violation
DAYTON, MN: Objection to Discovery Order in "Orduno" Overruled
DEL TACO: Settlement in "Tomasulo" Suit Approved, Case Dismissed

DEL TACO: Class Cert. Trial Looms in 2013 Wage & Hour Suit
DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in 2014 Suit by Ex-Employee
DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. to Review Class Cert. Ruling in Bag Fee Suit
DENVER, CO: First Hearing Held in Homeless Sweeps Class Action
DIAMOND CANDLES: Guzman Suit Dismissed, Discovery Bid Denied

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Jan. 19 Hearing on $50MM Settlement
DS HEALTHCARE: Prasant Shah Class Action Goes to Mediation
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Settlement in "Palmer" Suit Has Initial OK
EI DUPONT: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Over Unpaid OT
ELITE INTERACTIVE: Faces "Herron" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ELITE INTERACTIVE: Faces "Moran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
F & F INTERESTS: Faces "Canales" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Hansen" Sues Over Share Price Drop
GO-STAFF INC: "Armenta" Suit Alleges FLSA, Cal. Law Violations
GRADY RENTALS: "Conover" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

GRANITE COFFEE: "Hernandez" Sues Over Denied Overtime, Pay Slips
HALCON RESOURCES: Paid $430,000 to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
HANSON AGGREGATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in NEI Class Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Scams Senior Citizens, Class Action Says
HEALTH CARE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Court Certifies 4 Classes in "Priddy" Suit
HIRERIGHT INC: Court Approves $715,000 in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
ILLINOIS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Odonist Inmates
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Secretly Records Fans, Class Suit Says
INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: "Fischer" Sues Over Flawed Merger Deal

JESPER ANDERSEN: Faces "Dorn" Suit Over US$1.6BB Proposed Merger
JTEKT CORP: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $62.5 Mil.
KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Andbanc Appeals Ruling in Madoff-Related Suit
KOCH FOODS: Ferraro Foods Sues Over Broiler Price-Fixing
KOLBE & KOLBE: US Fire Seeks Review of Decision in "Haley" Suit

LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Issa" Denied
LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Bentley Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
LYFT INC: "Nokchan" Suit Over Background Checks Dismissed
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Timeshare Class Action
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Harrington Seeks to Certify Driver Classes

MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Wage & Hour Suit in Sacramento
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Trims Mislabeling Claims in "Carias" Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Courtney Sues Over Athletes' Head Injuries
NATIONAL MILK: Belle Foods Dismissed From First Impressions Suit
NESTLE USA: Gyorke-Takatri Suit Again Remanded to Superior Court

NEW YORK: NYPD Faces Class Action Over Misusing Nuisance Law
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Zingerman Seeks to Certify Two Classes
NORTEK GLOBAL: Defeats Class Suit over Defective HVAC Units
NORTH AMERICAN: TCPA Ruling Not Boon for Plaintiffs' Lawyers
NORTHLAND GROUP: Bogatzki, et al. Seek Certification of Class

OH INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid in "Abante" Suit Denied
PDR NETWORK: Judge Tosses Carlton & Harris Junk Fax Suit
PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Faces Class Action Over Natural Label
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued Over Illegal Speeding Citations
PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Meal Break Class Certified in "Ehmann"

PRIDE: December Hearing Set in Mobility Scooter Class Action
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Deck Resurfacing Product
PRIVATE ADVISORY: "Farr" Files Securities Class Action
QUALITY RESOURCES: Pierluca, et al. Seek Certification of Class
QUICKEN LOANS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Newhart"

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Accepts Bazinet Expert Testimony
RL REPPERT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Askew" ERISA Suit
SAMSUNG: 9th Cir. Trial Begins in Suit Over Galaxy S4 Phones
SLATER& GORDON: To Vigorously Defend Shareholders' Class Action
SONY: PS3 Owners Can Submit Claims in Linux Class Action

SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in Ponce De Leon Case
SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Lincoln" Suit Over Prop. Sale to Enbridge
STATE FARM: 7th Circuit Seeks Review of Class Certification
STRAIGHT PATH: Reply Brief to Support Dismissal Bid Due Oct. 31
SUNEDISON INC: "Church" Securities Suit v. CEO Moved to S.D.N.Y.

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Bid to Produce Documents
TE CONNECTIVITY: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Beltran" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bennett Sues Over Soy-Based Wiring in Vehicles
TROJAN HORSE: Ascensus Trust Appeals Order in "Longo" Class Suit

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Thorne Withdraws Class Certification Bid
UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Bid in "Ocampo" Continued
UNITED CREDIT: Merkovich Seeks Certification of Class
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Immigration Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in 2nd "Flora" Suit

UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in 1st "Flora" Suit
URANIUM ENERGY: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal on Case Dismissal
VEOLIA WATER: PWSA Files Arbitration Suit Over Faulty Meters
VOLKSWAGEN: $15-Bil. Accord in Emission Suit Nears Final Approval
WEST VIRGINIA PAVING: Faces Class Action Over Asphalt Scheme

YAHOO INC: Faces "Hirt" Suit Over Alleged Customer Data Theft

* U.S. Supreme Court to Tackle Class Certification Issues


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Stone Allowed To Appear Pro Hac Vice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Government's Bid to Junk Habeas Petition Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $9MM Past Pain Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $5MM Future Pain Award

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $6MM Past Pain Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington High Court Junks Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Bell" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seneca Officials Questions Asbestos Finding

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandfather Dies After Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indianapolis Facility Fined $50K for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Report Ends Kilgore College Asbestos Saga
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pleads Guilty to Fake Certification
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parliament Electrical Engr. Killed by Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher With Asbestos Cancer Blames School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits Need To Be Filed Quickly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: University of Maryland Bldgs. Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Gypsum Sinks Due to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employer Fined $87K for Asbestos Violations


                            *********


5 STAR FLASH: "Redman" Suit Sent to Cook County Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis has remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook
County the case captioned SCOTT D.H. REDMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 5 STAR
FLASH, INC., an Illinois corporation; E & E TAXI COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation; BOULEVARD CORP., an Illinois corporation;
MIKHALIACABS SIX, INC., an Illinois corporation; BLUE RIBBON TAXI
ASSOCIATION, INC., an Illinois corporation; SBJ CAB CO., an
Illinois corporation; and CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a New
York limited liability company; and VERIFONE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, each individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Defendants, No. 16 C 5771 (N.D. Ill.).

Scott D.H. Redman brought a putative class action suit against 5
Star Flash, Inc., E & E Taxi Company, Boulevard Corp., Mikhalia
Cabs Six, Inc., Blue Ribbon Taxi Association, Inc., SBJ Cab Co.,
Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC (CMT), and Verifone, Inc. in the
Circuit Court of Cook County.  Redman alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or
alternatively, unjust enrichment, arising out of the defendants'
collection of an extra fee when Redman and the putative class
members paid for their taxi fares by non-cash, electronic means.
Redman sought actual and punitive damages, in addition to
attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

CMT removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA).  Redman moved to remand the case to the Circuit Court
of Cook County, arguing that the Court should remand the case to
state court because CMT, as the removing party, has not carried
its burden to establish the amount in controversy or that the
local controversy exception does not apply.

Judge Ellis noted that Redman's complaint did not demand a
specific amount in damages or limit the amount he sought to
recover on behalf of the putative class.  As a result, the judge
stated that CMT needed to include "a plausible allegation that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold" in its
notice of removal.  Judge Ellis found that, regardless of whether
analyzed as a pleading deficiency or as an issue of proof, CMT has
not properly alleged or shown the amount in controversy meets
CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional minimum and instead has left the
amount open to speculation.  Because CMT has not properly
established that the Court has jurisdiction over the case under
CAFA, Judge Ellis remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Cook
County.

A full-text copy of Judge Ellis' October 5, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/cA4BW8 from Leagle.com.

Scott D.H. Redman, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Markoff --
paul@markleinlaw.com -- Markoff Leinberger LLC, Karl G. Leinberger
-- karl@markleinlaw.com -- Markoff Leinberger LLC.

Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen Mary McDonough -- kathleen.mcdonough@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Lamis Ghassan Eli --
lamis.eli@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.

5 Star Flash,Inc., E&E Taxi Company, Blue Ribbon Taxi Association,
Inc., SBJ Cab Co., Defendants, represented by Michael Murphy
Tannen, Tannen Law Group, P.C. & c, Tannen Law Group P.c..

Verifone, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Lee Applegate --
dla@willmont.com -- Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd., John George
Papianou -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- Montgomery Mccracken Walker &
Rhoads, Llp, pro hac vice, Jordan Douglas Shea -- jds@willmont.com
-- Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd. & Megan Ashley Zmick --
maz@willmont.com -- Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.


50 EGGS INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Brock" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH BROCK, the Plaintiff, v. 50 EGGS,
INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20294-JAL (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Joan A. Lenard entered an order granting in part
Plaintiff's motion to certify collective action and facilitate
notice to potential class members.

The court conditionally certifies the following class:

   "all persons who worked for Defendants as servers at their
   restaurant Swine during the 3 years preceding this lawsuit and
   who, as a result of Defendants' policy of not paying servers
   for all hours worked and requiring servers to share their tips
   with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive
   tips, earned less than the applicable minimum regular and
   overtime".

Within 10 days of the date of the Order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended motion to facilitate notice to potential class members
with a revised notice of collective action and opt-in consent form
that complies with the order.

Within 30 days of the date of the order, the Defendants shall
identify and produce to Plaintiff's counsel a list containing the
name(s), job title(s), dates of employments, and last known
addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses, for persons
identified in the class stated above.

The Court will solicit a new joint scheduling form after the opt-
in period.

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


ADVANCED EQUITIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fisker Auto Demise
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that now-defunct Chicago investment bank Advanced Equities Inc.
raised millions in venture capital for Fisker Automotive to build
a high-end hybrid electric car despite knowing the car would
likely never make it to market, an investor class action claims.

Orgone Capital III sued AEI founder Keith Daubenspeck, executive
Peter McConnell, and two venture capital firms in Cook County
Court on October 14.

Fisker Automotive was a green energy "media darling" startup,
backed by a $528 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy,
with a goal of producing luxury hybrid electric cars.  It intended
to go public and become a viable rival of Tesla Motors, a Palo
Alto, Calif.-based automaker that rolled out its first electric
sports car in 2008, and its first electric luxury sedan four years
later.  But after raising more than $1.3 billion in private
capital, Fisker folded in 2012 in the "largest venture capital-
backed debacle in U.S. history," according to the complaint.

The company declared bankruptcy, and a whistleblower complaint
revealed that Fisker deceived the government to get the DOE grant
by knowingly understating the cost of producing its cars, the
complaint claims.

Orgone, which purchased approximately $7 million in Fisker
Automotive securities, says it never would have invested in the
company if it had not received the federal grant.

The investment firm purchased its preferred shares through AEI,
which raised approximately $800 million for Fisker Automotive
between August 2009 and September 2012.

However, AEI also had a large stake in the company itself, owning
18 percent of its preferred stock as of December 2011, and
therefore had a substantial interest in the outcome of the
fundraising process, the complaint says.

Orgone says AEI knew that the production schedule of Fisker's
$100,000 "Karma" sports car had been repeatedly delayed due to
faulty parts and last-minute engineering changes, and that the
company lied to the Energy Department when it claimed to have met
a key milestone under the terms of the loan.

AEI allegedly also knew when the department discovered the lie,
and froze the loan, creating a cash crisis at Fisker, which had
wasted hundreds of millions on useless parts due to the
engineering changes.

"Fisker Automotive and defendants were trapped," Orgone says. "If
Fisker Automotive's suppliers were not paid, the manufacturing
assembly line would fall apart, thereby forcing Fisker Automotive
into bankruptcy. Thus, defendants never disclosed the
aforementioned material facts to plaintiffs and the class, as the
company and defendants raised hundreds of millions of dollars from
unsuspecting outside investors to prevent Fisker Automotive from
collapsing immediately."

At the same time, the DOE did not publicly disclose Fisker's true
financial state because it would "cause a huge political
embarrassment," Orgone claims.

From Sept. 2011 to Sept. 2012, Fisker Automotive remained alive by
raising more than $500 million from investors when it knew the
company was on the brink of collapse, the complaint says.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined AEI $250,000 in
2014 for its role in misleading investors with regards to Fisker
Automotive, Orgone says.

With its lawsuit, Orgone seeks to recoup the total loss of its
investment and the losses of other class members from AEI
directors. AEI no longer exists, and is not a party to the
lawsuit. Orgone seeks damages for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The investment firm is represented by Kenneth Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- with Wexler Wallace LLP.


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Trilegiant Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. and Affinion Group, Inc. said in
their Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 17, 2016, that with respect to the
consolidated class action lawsuits filed against Affinion Group
and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant"), which commenced on June
17, 2010, on August 23, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion for Summary Judgment as to all remaining claims against the
Defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 21,
2016.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Case vs. Webloyalty Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. and Affinion Group, Inc. said in
their Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 17, 2016, that with respect to the class
action lawsuit filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations, which commenced on August
27, 2010, the court held oral argument on September 14, 2016, but
it has not yet issued a decision regarding Plaintiffs' appeal.


ALLERGAN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:14-CV-02004-DOC-KESX (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the case as a
class action, appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.

The class is defined as:

   "all persons who sold Allergan common stock contemporaneously
   with purchases of Allergan common stock made or caused by
   Defendants during the period February 25, 2014 through April
   21, 2014, inclusive (Class Period) and were damaged thereby
   (collectively, the Class)".

The case arose from an alleged unlawful insider trading scheme
involving Valeant's hostile takeover and tender offer for rival
pharmaceutical company, Allergan.  According to the lawsuit, the
scheme was straightforward: (i) cashed-strapped serial acquirer
Valeant tipped off notorious hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman
about its undisclosed plan to acquire Allergan; (ii) Ackman and
his Pershing Square funds covertly acquired a massive 10% stake in
Allergan stock in violation of their legal duty to "disclose or
abstain" from trading; (iii) Valeant carried out its plan
resulting in a significant increase in Allergan's stock price; and
(iv) Ackman sold his shares for billions in illicit profits
-- and kicked back $400 million to Valeant as a reward for the
inside information.

On February 18, 2015, the company formerly known as Actavis, Plc
announced its intention to change its name to Allergan, Plc. This
was completed as of June 15, 2015.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sltvt9qo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. Gluck, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          Edward G. Timlin, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: rich.gluck@blbglaw.com
                  markl@blbglaw.com
                  Jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com
                  edward.timlin@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Paul A. Breucop, Esq.
          Rupa Nath Cook, Esq.
          Darren Check, Esq.
          Lee Rudy, Esq.
          Josh D'ancona, Esq.
          Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400 3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400 3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com
                  pbreucop@ktmc.com
                  rcook@ktmc.com
                  dcheck@ktmc.com
                  lrudy@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  jreliford@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488 0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488 0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  murray@mmmb.com


AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS: Court Affirms Denial of Radandt Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed an order
denying a claim by Tammy Radandt for supplemental Matrix benefits
in the case captioned, IN RE: DIET DRUGS  (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION). THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 1203, Civil Action No. 99-20593
(E.D. Pa.)

Tammy Radandt (Ms. Radandt or claimant), a class member under the
Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement (Settlement
Agreement) with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement
Trust (Trust). In October 2013, claimant submitted a supplemental
Green Form to the Trust signed by her attesting physician, Martin
G. Keane, M.D. (Dr. Keane). Based on an echocardiogram dated
February 3, 2002, Dr. Keane attested in Part II of Ms. Radandt's
Green Form that claimant had severe mitral regurgitation, surgery
to repair or replace the aortic and/or mitral valve(s) following
the use of Pondimin(R) and/or Redux(TM), New York Heart
Association Functional Class II symptoms, and a left ventricular
ejection fraction < 40% at any time six months or later after
valvular repair or replacement surgery. Based on such findings,
claimant would be entitled to Matrix A-1, Level IV benefits in the
amount of $966,820.45.

The Trust forwarded the claim for review of its auditing
cardiologists. Drs. Waleed N. Irani and Zuyue Wang who both found
that there was no reasonable medical basis for Dr. Keane's finding
that claimant did not have mitral annual calcification. Based on
the findings, the Trust issued a post-audit determination that Ms.
Radandt was not entitled to supplemental Matrix Benefits.

In contest, Ms. Radandt argued that there was a reasonable medical
basis for finding that she was entitled to Matrix A, Level IV
benefits. In addition, claimant stated that "a mere difference of
opinion is not sufficient to deny this claim." She also argued
that the auditing cardiologist substituted her subjective opinion
for the opinion of the attesting physician.

The issues presented for resolution of this claim are whether
claimant has met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable
medical basis for the attesting physician's findings that Ms.
Radandt (1) had an ejection fraction less than 40% at any time six
months or later after valvular repair or replacement surgery and
(2) did not have echocardiographic evidence of a rheumatic mitral
valve.

In his Memorandum dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/MWVqa4 from Leagle.com, Judge Bartle, III concluded
that claimant has not met her burden of proving that there is a
reasonable medical basis for her claim for Matrix A-1, Level IV
benefits. First, claimant has failed to meet her burden with
respect to establishing a reasonable medical basis for the
attesting physician's Green Form representation that Ms. Radandt
had an ejection fraction of less than 40% six months or later
after valvular repair or replacement surgery. Second, claimant has
failed to meet her burden with respect to establishing a
reasonable medical basis for the attesting physician's Green Form
representation that Ms. Radandt did not have a rheumatic mitral
valve. Finally, claimant's attempted reliance on her
representation that she was never diagnosed with rheumatic fever
also is misplaced.

Heather C. Giordanella is represented by Heather C. Giordanella,
Esq. -- heather.giordanella@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

In Re: Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine)
Products Liability Litigation is represented by Andrew A. Chirls,
Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
PC -- Arnold Levin, Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN
SEDRAN & BERMAN -- John Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
john.d.fitzpatrick@gmail.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC -- Jules
S. Henshell, Esq. -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSBY
GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC -- Robb W. Patryk, Esq. --
robb.patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- and Theodore V. Mayer, Esq. --
ted.mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED -- Robert
A. Limbacher, Esq. -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL, DEVRIES,
LEECH & DANN LLP -- Robert N. Spinelli, Esq. --
rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP


AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Carrico Bid to Intervene Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case captioned, CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and
as parent and next friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and
A.M.S. and MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and as parent of her
unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER,
WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA
HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES
DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC,
and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/a DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS
SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, and WEST
VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN
WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P. FARRELL, Defendants, Case
No. 2:14-01374 (S.D. Va.), plaintiffs bring a number of claims
relating to a spill of the chemical Crude 4-
methylcyclohexanemethanol (Crude MCHM) into the Elk River in
January 2014 and the resulting interruption of water service to
residents and businesses in the affected area. On October 9, 2015,
the court certified a class for liability purposes, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), to determine the fault
of defendants and the comparative fault of non-party Freedom
Industries, Inc.

By order entered December 16, 2015, the court approved class
plaintiffs' proposed notice plan, providing for notice to class
members describing the certification of the action and the
proposed settlements between the class and the two individual
defendants, Gary Southern ($350,000) and Dennis P. Farrell
($50,000).

Pending before the Court are motions challenging the adequacy of
the notice provided to class members, filed by movant Rachel
Carrico on February 11, 2016, and by movants Paula J. Compston,
Charles Justice, and Cindra Justice on February 12, 2016. The
motions seek an extension of time to opt out of the class and the
issuance of an additional notice to class members. Movants are
represented by counsel who also represent many of the
approximately 2,100 individuals and businesses that have opted out
of the class.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016
available at https://is.gd/W6ldyK from Leagle.com, Judge John T.
Conpenhaver, Jr. of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Virginia denied the motions, holding that
movant Carrico may not intervene because she has not shown that
class counsel are inadequately protecting the interests of the
class, cannot show prejudice because she had notice of these
proceedings and the opportunity to opt out during the opt-out
period, and allowing intervention would cause undue delay. The
court also concluded that the movants' objections to the adequacy
of notice lack merit, and that the notice sent has satisfied the
requirements of due process and Rule 23.

Named movants may file, no later than 10 days following the entry
of the order, a latter opting out of the class consistent with the
instructions in the class notice.

Crystal Good, et al. are represented by Michael J. Del Giudice,
Esq. -- CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON -- Michael G. Stag, Esq. --
smcems@roadrunner.com -- Sean Cassidy, Esq. --
smcesq@roadrunner.com -- Stuart H. Smith, Esq. --
smcess@roadrunner.com -- SMITH STAG; Van Bunch, Esq. --
vbunch@bffb.com -- BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT

Good et al. are also represented by:

       W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
       D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
       THE CALWELL PRACTICE
       433 N Doheny Dr Unit 208
       Beverly Hills, CA 90210
       Tel: (310)828-1196

American Water Works Service Company, Inc., et al. represented by
Albert F. Sebok, Esq. -- asebok@jacksonkelly.com -- Brian R.
Swiger, Esq. -- brswiger@jacksonkelly.com -- Laurie K. Miller,
Esq. -- lmiller@jacksonkelly.com -- Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Esq. --
thurney@jacksonkelly.com -- and L. Jill McIntyre, Esq. --
jmcintyre@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON KELLY -- Steven L. Leifer,
Esq. -- sleifer@bakerbotts.com -- and Alton Kent Mayo, Esq. --
kent.mayo@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS

Eastman Chemical Company is represented by Marc E. Williams, Esq.
-- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- Melissa Foster Bird, Esq. --
melissa.fosterbird@nelsonmullins.com -- and Robert L. Massie, Esq.
-- bob.massie@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH -- Marquel S. Jordan, Esq. -- MJordan@BlankRome.com --
Robert Scott, Esq. - Rscott@BlankRome.com -- and Lance D. Leisure,
Esq. -- Lleisure@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Fla. App. Court Affirmed $18 Million Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas Partners said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2016,
that in late September 2016, the Florida Second District Court of
Appeals affirmed an $18 million judgment against AmeriGas in a
class action proceeding commenced in November of 2005.

The Company said, "Prior to the appellate court's decision, we
believed that the likelihood of the appellate court affirming the
lower court's judgment was remote. As a result of this adverse
development, as well as adjustments to general liability reserves
identified late in fiscal 2016, AmeriGas increased its reserves
for these matters by approximately $30 million."

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. (NYSE: APU) on Oct. 12 announced a
revision to its full year earnings guidance.  The Company said,
"For the year ended September 30, 2016, we expect net income
attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. to be in the range of $205
million and Adjusted EBITDA to be in the range of $540 million.
The Adjusted EBITDA guidance is below the previous guidance range
of $575 million to $600 million. The decrease in the earnings
guidance is primarily due to an increase in reserves associated
with litigation and general liability matters. In addition,
weather was 47% warmer than normal during the month of September,
the effects of which were not included in previous guidance."

Jerry E. Sheridan, president and chief executive officer of
AmeriGas, commented, "We are announcing reduced earnings guidance
for fiscal 2016 primarily due to the timing and magnitude of the
litigation and general liability reserve adjustments. With regard
to the Florida appeals court ruling, we are disappointed with the
decision but continue to believe we have valid arguments and are
exploring our options for further appeal."

Sheridan continued, "We remain pleased with the progress we have
made on our key strategic objectives despite the headwinds brought
about by the extremely warm year. This progress will ensure that
we start fiscal 2017 in a strong position. Assuming normal weather
patterns, we expect to report Adjusted EBITDA of $660 million to
$700 million for fiscal 2017 for the Partnership and its
subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. We look forward to
discussing our final results for fiscal 2016, as well as our
guidance for fiscal 2017 during our upcoming earnings call on
November 10th."

AmeriGas Partners is a retail propane marketer, serving
approximately two million customers in all 50 states from
approximately 2,000 distribution locations. UGI Corporation,
through subsidiaries, is the sole General Partner and owns 26% of
AmeriGas Partners and the public owns the remaining 74%.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces "Harris" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY HARRIS, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-81723-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
October 12, 2016), alleges that Defendant Amerigroup repeatedly
sent (or directed to be sent on its behalf) unsolicited text
messages, without consent, to cellular phones while using an
automatic telephone dialing equipment having the capacity to store
and dial telephone numbers, en masse in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant AMERIGROUP CORPORATION is a health insurance and managed
health care provider. Defendant Amerigroup is the wholly owned
subsidiary of Anthem, Inc. Defendant Amerigroup provides insurance
coverage for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, low-
income families and other state and federally sponsored
beneficiaries, and federal employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
     KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
     Ross A. Appel, Esq.
     4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: 954-842-2021
     Fax: 954-416-6223
     E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
             raa@komlossylaw.com

        - and -

     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             kas@consumersadvocates.com

        - and -

     Robert L. Teel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
     207 Anthes Ave, Suite 201
     Langley, WA 98260
     Phone: (866) 833-5529
     Fax: (855) 609-6911
     E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com


ANADIGICS INC: Faces "Elortegui" Lawsuit Over 2016 Tender Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE ELORTEGUI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ANADIGICS, INC., RON MICHELS, DENNIS STRIGL,
RICHARD KELSON, DAVID FELLOWS, HARRY REIN, and RONALD ROSENZWEIG,
Case No. 12818 (Del. Ch., October 10, 2016), relates to alleged
disclosure violations Defendants made in the Company's
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D9 filed
publicly with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 2, 2016, regarding stockholders' appraisal rights in
connection with the transaction with II-VI Incorporated
consummated on March 14, 2016 through a tender offer.

ANADIGICS, INC. provides power amplifiers for wireless and
broadband applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
     ANDERSEN SLEATER LLC
     3513 Concord Pike, Ste. 3300
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: 302-595-9102
     Fax: 302-595-9321


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: C.D. Cal. Securities Litigation Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Consuelo Marshall dismissed with prejudice the case
IN RE ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION, SECURITIES LITIGATION, No.
2:14-cv-07890-CBM-ASx (C.D. Cal.), and entered judgment in favor
of Defendants.

On March 29, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the operative complaint in its entirety with
leave to amend to file a second amended complaint no later than
April 8, 2016.

On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Local Rule 7-18, which the Court denied on August 18,
2016, giving Plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended
complaint no later than September 7, 2016, and advising that a
failure to file a second amended complaint by that date could
result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint on or before
September 7, 2016, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
on September 12, 2016.

The parties then filed a joint stipulation requesting the Court to
enter judgment in this case reflecting that the Court has granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss, denied Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

In her October 7 ruling available at https://is.gd/3yybgH from
Leagle.com, Judge Marshall approved the Stipulation.

In an October 3 order, a copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/WMyCQe from Leagle.com, Judge Marshall approved a
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismiss[al] Without Prejudice in a
derivative case captioned, SEAN JOHNSON, DERIVATIVELY AND ON
BEHALF OF ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.
CHRISTOPHER R. ANZALONE, BRUCE GIVEN, DOUGLAS GIVEN, EDWARD W.
FRYKMAN, MAURO FERRARI, CHARLES P. McKENNEY, MICHAEL S. PERRY,
Defendants, and ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00446-CBM-ASx (C.D. Cal.).  Plaintiff and
Defendants will bear their own fees and costs.

Zhongmin Wang, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP; and Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Noelle M Strogoff, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel
Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP, Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.  Sol M.
Eskinazi, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay
and Murray LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC & Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Christian Stout and Julia Stout, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Avi N. Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm.

Defendants Arrowhead Research Corporation, Christopher R Anzalone,
Bruce D Given, Kenneth A Myszkowski, Charles P McKenney, and David
L Lewis represented by Alexander K. Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Audrey Karen Tan --
atan@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher D. Dusseault, and Dean J.
Kitchens -- dkitchens@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher LLP.


AUVIL FRUIT: Faces "Martinez" Wage and Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN BARRIENTOS MARTINEZ and JESUS MARTINEZ GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AUVIL FRUIT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00356 (E.D. Wash.,
October 10, 2016), alleges a systematic scheme of wage and hour
violations against farmworkers under the Washington employment law
and the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.

AUVIL FRUIT COMPANY, INC.  -- http://www.auvilfruit.com/-- is a
fruit grower.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc C. Cote, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     E-mail: mcote@terrellmarshall.com


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: "Tanski" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the Eastern District New
York denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case TIMOTHY TANSKI,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situation, Plaintiff,
v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. Defendant, No. CV 15-6260 (AKT)
(E.D.N.Y.).

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a Maryland corporation duly
organized under the laws of the state of New York with its
principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia. AvalonBay
develops, owns, operates, and maintains luxury apartment
communities in New York and elsewhere throughout the United
States. AvalonBay owns multiple properties throughout New York
State, including two properties in Coram, New York.

Plaintiff Timothy Tanski is a former employee of AvalonBay and a
resident of Suffolk County, New York. Plaintiff worked for
AvalonBay as a maintenance supervisor from March 17, 2014 to May
25, 2015. Plaintiff was assigned to two of AvalonBay's properties
in Coram, New York, the Avalon Pines property and the Avalon
Charles Pond property Plaintiff's responsibilities included the
day-to-day maintenance of the Coram properties and responding to
tenant maintenance requests.

Plaintiff alleges that he was a salaried, non-exempt full-time
employee of AvalonBay hired to work a regular schedule of 40 hours
per week. Plaintiff claims that he and other members his
maintenance staff were regularly required to attend staff
meetings, training sessions, employee lunches, and other work-
related events. Plaintiff asserts that, while the meetings were
work-related, conducted during business hours, and often
mandatory, AvalonBay improperly labeled the time spent during
these meetings as non-productive hours. Moreover, plaintiff was
not required to clock in or out in order to record his
participation in the meetings.

Plaintiff alleged that AvalonBay actively schemed to prevent their
employees from earning overtime, which was accomplished through
AvalonBay's non-productive hours policy. Specifically, plaintiff
and his co-workers noticed how AvalonBay would schedule the non-
productive meetings/events more frequently during weeks where it
looked like the employees' hours were going to exceed forty hours.

Plaintiff states that he was never made aware of AvalonBay's
policy concerning non-productive hours prior to being hired by
AvalonBay and that the offer letter he received upon hiring
neglected to mention that AvalonBay would be labeling certain work
hours as either productive or non-productive hours, or that non-
productive hours would not be eligible for overtime pay.

Plaintiff brought an action, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against AvalonBay asserting claims for failure
to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. and New York Labor Law and failure to
provide proper wage statements pursuant to NYLL Section 195(3).

AvalonBay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a
claim and  a motion for reconsideration and/or modification of the
court's January 26, 2015 case management and scheduling order to
permit bifurcated discovery and limited depositions.

Judge Tomlinson denied defendant's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and also denied defendant's motion for reconsideration
and/or modification of the case management and scheduling order
without prejudice, and with the right to renew.  Judge Tomlinson
finds the allegations sufficient to state a claim for inaccurate
wage statements under NYLL Section 195(3) as it adequately
describes specific weeks when plaintiff allegedly worked
misclassified non-productive hours that resulted in an
underpayment or non-payment of overtime hours.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Tomlinson's memorandum order dated
September 30, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/OpKRPC from
Leagle.com.

Timothy Tanski, Plaintiff, represented by Frank R. Schirripa --
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- John Anthony Blyth -- jblyth@hrsclaw.com
-- Timothy James Staines -- tstaines@hrsclaw.com -- at Hach Rose
Schirripa & Cheverie LLP

AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick G.
Brady -- pbrady@ebglaw.com -- Linda B. Celauro --
lcelauro@ebglaw.com -- Michael Thompson -- mdthompson@ebglaw.com
-- at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.


BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued in D.C. Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONIDAS EMERSON 2321 13lh Place, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20018
Plaintiff, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 4425 Ponce De Leon
Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146, the Defendant, Case No. 16-
0007312 (D.C. Super. Ct., Oct. 4, 2016), seeks redress for
violations of the Defendant's respective statuary and common law
obligations due to (a) its untimely and inadequate failure to
provide information in response to "qualified written requests
(QWR), made by him; (b) its failure to remove information
regarding any alleged overdue payments, owed by Plaintiff,
to any consumer reporting agencies, pursuant to the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (c) et seq., (c) its violations
in regard to the collection of debts, pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and (d) Defendant's
engagement in deceptive business practices pursuant to the
District of Columbia deceptive practices.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's action were and continue
purposeful, systematic, and in deliberate circumvention and
contravention of the abovementioned statutes, constituting a
pattern or practice of noncompliance with regard to statues. As a
direct result of these violations by Defendant, the Plaintiff has
suffered, and is entitled to statutory damages, as well as actual
damages (resulting from Defendant's tortious acts).

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and
representatively on behalf of all others similarly situated.

Bayview Loan operates as a mortgage loan servicer and debt
collector in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: May Deposit $15,000 but Class Cert Bid Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Defendants' motions in the case captioned, PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., an Illinois corporation, individual and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. CIRQUE DU SOLEIL INC., CIRQUE DU SOLEIL (US), INC.
AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 14 C 2032 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Practice Management Support Services, Inc. commenced a
class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.  It seeks damages from Defendants Cirque du Soleil,
Inc., and Cirque du Soleil (US), Inc. arising from an allegedly
unsolicited facsimile transmitted on July 7, 2009 advertising the
show "A New Twist on Vaudville" at the Chicago Theater. Practice
Management claims the advertisement was a "junk fax," sent by
Defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

Days before Plaintiff's class certification brief was due,
Defendants sent counsel an email offering to settle the case for
the maximum amount of statutory damages, costs, and a stipulated
injunction. Plaintiff rejected the offer and timely filed its
extensive class certification papers. Defendants moved to stay
briefing on the motion for class certification pending a ruling by
the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 768 F.3d 871,
875. the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald, 136
S.Ct. 663 (2016) and the Court denied the motion to stay as moot
and instructed Defendants that if they wished to file a motion
based on the ruling in Campbell-Ewald, they had 14 days to do so.

Defendants filed the Rule 67 motion to deposit funds and
corresponding second motion for summary judgment that are now
before the Court. The Rule 67 motion seeks leave to deposit
$15,000 -- $3,000 to satisfy the "maximum possible statutory
damages for Plaintiff's alleged individual claims" of two TCPA
violations, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3), plus an additional
$12,000 "so the funds are readily available" to satisfy
Plaintiff's allowable costs, excluding attorneys' fees, to be
identified in a later-filed fee petition. On the basis that the
Rule 67 tender purportedly moots Practice Management's individual
claims and thus the claims of the as-yet uncertified class,
Defendants move for entry of judgment for Plaintiff and an order
dismissing the case as moot.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016
available at https://is.gd/g0WUd0 from Leagle.com, Judge Durkin
granted Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks to deposit
$15,000 pursuant to Rule 67 and denied the motion insofar as it
requests entry of judgment for Plaintiff and denies the motion for
summary judgment on the basis of mootness.

Defendants are directed to file a response to the pending motion
for class certification by October 21, 2016, with Plaintiffs'
reply due November 4, 2016. The case is set for a status hearing
on January 4, 2017 at 9:00 am.

Practice Management Support Services, Inc. is represented by Brian
J. Wanca, Esq. -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
-- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- Ross Michael Good, Esq. --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Wallace Cyril Solberg, Esq. --
WSolberg@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON WANCA -- Max G. Margulis,
Esq. -- MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- MARGULIS LAW GROUP

Cirque Du Soleil Inc., et al. are represented by Eric L. Samore,
Esq. Molly Anne Arranz, Esq. -- and Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner, Esq.
-- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC


COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Rasberry Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the Defendant, Case No. No. 1:16-cv-1074-SOH
(W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify
a class of:

   "all salaried jailors (or similar positions) employed by
   Defendant Columbia County, Arkansas who worked in the State of
   Arkansas at the Columbia County Jail at any time after August
   04, 2013".

The Plaintiff brought the case to recover overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among
other claims.

Columbia County is a county located in the U.S. state of Arkansas.
As of the 2010 census, the population was 24,552. The county seat
is Magnolia. The county was formed on December 17, 1852, and was
named for Christopher Columbus.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ECLUm0Tq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Stacy Gibson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


COMCAST CORP: Faces "Adkins" Class Suit Over Phony Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action claims in San Francisco, Comcast has
bilked cable TV customers out of $1 billion a year since 2014 by
charging phony fees for broadcast and sports channels.

Plaintiffs from seven states -- California, Washington, New
Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, Florida and Ohio -- sued the cable
giant on October 17, alleging consumer fraud, unfair competition,
unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

Lead plaintiff Dan Adkins, of California, says Comcast started
using "a shady backdoor way to increase prices" in January 2014.
He says the company added a "newly invented" Broadcast TV fee to
cable bills without clearly disclosing the price hike to customers
or updating its advertisements to reflect the new prices.

"Comcast not only charged the fee to new customers, but also added
the charge to the bills of existing customers in violation of
their contracts which had promised a flat monthly rate for the
term of the contract," Adkins says in the 79-page complaint.

Since 2015, Comcast has raised its Broadcast TV fee by 333
percent, from $1.50 to $6.50 in several markets. The company also
started charging a regional sports fee last year, which increased
by 350 percent, from $1.00 to $4.50 in multiple markets starting
on Oct. 1, according to the lawsuit.

The lengthy complaint features examples of direct mail ads, screen
shots from the company's website, service confirmation emails and
online chats with sales reps promising customers lower rates than
what they allegedly were charged.

In one online chat, a Comcast agent tells a customer the broadcast
fee is "intended to offset a portion of the costs of
retransmitting broadcast television signals."

The lawsuit cites a July 2015 notice from the Federal
Communications Commission, which questions how such fees are
calculated, how they are disclosed to customers and "in what way,
if at all, are specific fees tied to specific programming
changes?"

Adkins says arbitration clauses in customer contracts are
unenforceable because deceived customers were not clearly informed
of nor did they clearly agree to the arbitration provisions.

All eight named plaintiffs opted out of arbitration clauses in
their Comcast service contracts.

Estimating that Comcast has earned more than $1 billion per year -
- 15 percent of its total revenue -- since adding the "bogus
fees," Adkins says the company will not stop perpetrating the
scheme until it is forced to do so.

"Comcast will continue deceiving and cheating its customers with
this broadcast TV fee and regional sports fee scheme until it is
forced by law to stop," Adkins says. "The scheme is far too
profitable."

Adkins seeks to certify classes in all seven states and to
permanently enjoin Comcast from charging the allegedly fraudulent
fees, plus restitution and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel M. Hattis of Bellevue,
Wash., and Jason Skaggs -- Jason@skaggsfaucette.com -- of Skaggs
Faucette in Palo Alto, Calif.

Earlier this month, the FCC hit Comcast with a $2.3 million fine
for mischarging customers, the largest fine the agency has ever
levied against a cable operator.

Comcast is the nation's largest cable-media company and the 35th
largest publicly traded company on the planet, with $74.5 billion
in annual revenue and $148.2 billion in market capitalization as
of May 2016, according to Forbes.

Comcast spokeswoman Jennifer Khoury Newcomb did not immediately
return an email request for comment on October 17, afternoon.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and motion to strike in the
case captioned, In Re CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 14-CV-5628 (PGS) (D.N.J.).

Lead Plaintiff, Arkansas Teacher Retirement Systems commenced the
securities class action on September 10, 2014.  On March 19, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On December 17, 2015,
the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. Specifically, the Court ruled that while Plaintiff
alleged sufficient facts pertaining to the confidential witnesses,
Plaintiff's "cookie jar" accounting theory was not sufficiently
alleged. In so ruling, the Court determined that the allegation
that Defendants violated GAAP through its "cookie jar" accounting
is "an issue that requires some technical support in the pleading
in order to support the allegation."

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint
(SAC).  Plaintiff relied upon the declarations of Harvey L. Pitt,
the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
Harris Devor, a Certified Public Accountant, both of whom
explained what the First Amended Complaint described loosely as
"cookie jar accounting," and constitutes a GAAP violation.

Defendants filed (1) the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); and (2) the Motion to Strike the Expert Declarations
attached to Plaintiffs' Seconded Amended Complaint. Defendants
contend that it is improper at the pleading stage for Plaintiffs
to include the declarations of experts in order to "fill factual
voids" in the Complaint.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/54mwZb from Leagle.com, Judge Sheridan found that
the Pitt and Devor declarations are proper at the pleading stage,
especially because the Court specifically indicated that technical
support was required to support the GAAP violation and the
allegations regarding the loss of Dell, juxtaposed with
Defendants' representations to the investing public that they had
replaced Dell's business, are sufficient to make out a claim that
Defendants made false or materially misleading statements.

Nexpoint Credit Strategies Fund is represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Esq. -- ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS LLP

Nexpoint Credit Strategies Fund is represented by William J.
Pinilis, Esq. -- wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- PINILIS
HALPERN

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is represented by James E.
Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

Commvault Systems, Inc., et al. are represented by Joshua N.
Howley, Esq. -- jhowley@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS
P.C.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Accord in Stamps Brothers' Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STAMPS BROTHERS OIL & GAS, LLC, the
Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
CIV-14-0182-HE (W.D. Okla), the Hon. Joe Heaton entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion for an order certifying the class for
settlement purposes and preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

The Court directed the parties to file copies of the revised
documents and submit proposed orders with proposed dates to the
court within ten days.

The Court also approved the form and manner of notice, appointment
of both class representative and class counsel for the settlement
class, and hearing date for final approval of the settlement.

Continental Resources is an American oil and natural gas
exploration and production company based in Oklahoma City. The
company is currently headquartered in the building that was
formerly known and occupied by Devon Energy.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G9rCUt5D


CRYO-CELL: Plaintiff Awarded $50,000 in Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that a Delaware
Court has awarded a class action Plaintiff $50,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On January 20, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company
and certain current officers and directors of the Company (Case
No. 11915-VCG). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
and sought appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory
judgment against defendants that a certain provision of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through
September 22, 2014, violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law relating to the removal of directors. The
plaintiff amended the complaint on March 4, 2016 to remove the
breach of fiduciary duty count and to move forward only on its
claim that one provision of the Bylaws violated Section 141(k).

On March 18, 2016, the Company announced that the Board of
Directors had amended the Bylaw in question. Plaintiff filed a
stipulation dismissing the action as moot on June 2.

The Court retained jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's request for
$200,000 in attorneys' fee associated with mooting the litigation.
The Court heard argument on plaintiff's request for attorneys'
fees on September 29, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the Court issued
its order awarding Plaintiff $50,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses which is reflected in the accompanying consolidated
statements of comprehensive (loss) income. The Company's maximum
deductible under its Directors and Officers insurance policy for
this claim was $500,000.


CTBC BANK: XPEC's Self-Help Group to Sue Over Share Sale
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauly Li, writing for Taipei Times, reports that XPEC
Entertainment Inc.'s self-help group is to file a class-action
lawsuit against CTBC Bank Co and CTBC Securities Co over the game
developer's failed share sale, members of the group said.

The decision was made on Oct. 12 after the group's second round of
negotiations with CTBC Bank and CTBC Securities, mediated by the
Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center (SFIPC),
collapsed after CTBC refused to bear financial responsibility over
the botched deal.

CTBC Bank served as the depository bank for Bai Chi Gan Tou
Digital Entertainment Co's NT$4.68 billion (US$148 million) offer
to acquire a 25.17 percent stake in XPEC, while CTBC Securities
was its financial consultant.

The group has asked the center to file a class-action suit against
the bank and the brokerage to see damages and compensation, a
group member surnamed Liu told the Taipei Times.

"CTBC [bank and securities] should fulfill Bai Chi's NT$4.68
billion payment to investors because they failed to oversee the
deal properly," Liu said.

SFIPC vice president Michael Chao said the center would abide by a
resolution passed by the legislature's Finance Committee on Sept.
29 to file a class-action lawsuit against CTBC.

"Given that the group decided not to seek a third round of
negotiation with CTBC, we will start to prepare a class-action
lawsuit," Mr. Chao said by telephone.

A legal expert said it would be difficult for the center to
establish a solid legal claim against CTBC, because there is no
direct relationship between CTBC and investors who sold their
stake to Bai Chi.

"Bai Chi and the investors have a contract relationship, but there
is not one between CTBC and the investors," the expert, who
declined to be named, said by telephone.

The group is also planning to hold a demonstration against the
Financial Supervisory Commission and the Investment Commission for
approving Bai Chi's tender offer.

Several members of the group said they bought stakes in XPEC after
the Investment Commission gave the green light to the deal on July
22, a month before Bai Chi dropped the transaction.

"The Investment Commission's approval was the reason I had faith
in this transaction.  It should shoulder responsibility for not
examining Bai Chi," a member surnamed Yu said.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Blue" Suit Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
JACKIE BLUE, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00844-FL
(E.D.N.C., October 10, 2016), alleges on her behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals similarly situated that Defendant has
discriminated against her by denying her access to full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public
accommodation or commercial facility in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public
accommodation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher D. Lane, Esq.
     3802-A Clemmons Rd.
     Clemmons, NC 27012
     Phone: 336-766-0229


DAYTON, MN: Objection to Discovery Order in "Orduno" Overruled
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Samantha Orduno, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Richard Pietrzak,
in his individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of
Dayton; City of Dayton; John and Jane Does (1-120), acting in
their individual capacity as supervisors in the City of Dayton,
Defendants, Civil No. 14-1393 ADM/JSM (D. Minn.), Judge Ann D.
Montgomery overruled the objection filed by the defendants, City
of Dayton and Richard Pietrzak to Magistrate Judge Janie S.
Mayeron's August 29, 2016 Order granting in part Samantha Orduno's
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.

Orduno filed the putative class action on May 2, 2014, alleging
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  Orduno
served as City Administrator for the City of Dayton, Minnesota
from 2005 until she was terminated in 2013.  During her tenure
with the City, Pietrzak served as the Dayton Chief of Police.
Orduno alleged that while Pietrzak was employed as Chief of
Police, he accessed from the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services
database (the "DVS Database") Orduno's personal information and
that of at least 850 others for a purpose not permitted under the
DPPA.  She further alleged that the City of Dayton, through its
supervisors, knew of Pietrzak's unlawful accesses and failed to
monitor and prevent the accesses.  Orduno's requested relief
includes punitive damages for the defendants' "willful or reckless
disregard of the law."

On November 10, 2015, the Court denied Orduno's Motion to Certify
Class Action.

In June 2016, Orduno obtained an audit from the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety (the "DPS Audit") that listed all of
Pietrzak's accesses of driver's license and motor vehicle
information from the DVS Database from April 1, 2003 through
December 21, 2012.  Pietrzak made 15,870 accesses of 5,747
different individuals during that time period.  The day after
obtaining the DPS Audit, Orduno served the defendants with a
second set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents requesting the reasons for each one of the 5,747
accesses listed in the DPS Audit.  The defendants objected to the
discovery request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
irrelevant.  Orduno filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.

On August 11, 2016, Judge Mayeron orally granted in part Orduno's
Motion to Compel.  Judge Mayeron's August 11 ruling is
memorialized in the August 29, 2016 discovery order, which
required the defendants to provide an explanation for Pietrzak's
purpose for accessing the drivers records of 200 individuals,
rather than 5,747 individuals.

The defendants objected to the discovery order, arguing that the
limited discovery request is still overly broad and unduly
burdensome.  The defendants contended that the discovery request
is an attempt by Orduno to conduct class discovery seven months
after the class certification motion was denied.

Treating the discovery order with the appropriate deference to
which it is entitled, Judge Montgomery held that she cannot say
that she is left with the "definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed" or that the discovery order is
contrary to law.

With respect to relevance, Judge Montgomery found that the
accesses are probative of Pietrzak's defense that he accessed
Orduno's private information for a permissible law enforcement
purpose -- namely, to determine whether Orduno was using an alias
and hiding her legal name to withhold potentially criminal
information.  The judge explained that in the context of the case,
Pietrzak's access patterns as to these individuals are relevant to
whether Pietrzak's defense is credible.

Judge Montgomery further found that the information ordered by
Judge Mayeron is also relevant to the issue of punitive damages,
which are permitted under the DPPA "upon proof of willful or
reckless disregard of the law."

Regarding proportionality, Judge Montgomery found that Judge
Mayeron was mindful of proportionality when she narrowed Orduno's
discovery request from the driver's records of over 5,000
individuals to 200.  Judge Montgomery held that under the
circumstances of the case, the number of individuals and accesses
is proportional because Orduno is seeking to demonstrate a pattern
of misuse over a period of several years.

Additionally, Judge Montgomery found that the narrower discovery
request is not overly burdensome, particularly given the
repetitive nature of many of the accesses on the list.

A full-text copy of Judge Montgomery's October 5, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/ATrn6T from
Leagle.com.

Samantha Orduno, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M. Montpetit --
jeffrey.montpetit@knowyourrights.com -- SiebenCarey, Jonathan A.
Strauss -- jons@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law Group PLLC,
Lorenz F. Fett, Jr. -- larryf@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law
Group, Marcia K. Miller -- marcia.miller@knowyourrights.com --
SiebenCarey, Sonia L. Miller-Van Oort -- soniamv@sapientialaw.com
-- Sapientia Law Group & Susan M. Holden --
susan.holden@knowyourrights.com -- SiebenCarey, P.A..

Richard Pietrzak, City of Dayton, Defendants, represented by Jon
K. Iverson -- jon@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon, Stephanie
A. Angolkar -- stephanie@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon &
Susan M. Tindal -- susan@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon.

James R. Nobles, Movant, represented by Alethea M. Huyser,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


DEL TACO: Settlement in "Tomasulo" Suit Approved, Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that an Illinois
court has approved the Stipulation of Settlement and entered a
final judgment dismissing the action by Jeffery Tomasulo.

On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative
complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F.
Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari
B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings,
Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"),
relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purported to be brought as
a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's
common stock, generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by
facilitating the then proposed Business Combination and that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement that was filed with the SEC
on April 2, 2015 was materially misleading and/or incomplete.

On May 19, 2016, Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and members of a
settlement class entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the
defendants pursuant to which the plaintiff class broadly released
claims relating to the Merger, including all claims that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement or definitive proxy
statement were misleading or improper. Under the settlement,
defendants were not required to make any payment to the plaintiff
or the plaintiff class but agreed to pay a portion of the hourly
fee accrued by plaintiff's counsel.

On July 26, 2016, the Court held a final hearing and then
certified a settlement class, approved the Stipulation of
Settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the action.

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DEL TACO: Class Cert. Trial Looms in 2013 Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that in July 2013, a
former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint
alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime wages and has
not appropriately provided meal breaks to its California general
managers. Discovery has been completed and the parties are
preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco
has not recorded any amount for the claim as of September 6, 2016
(Successor).

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in 2014 Suit by Ex-Employee
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 6, 2016, that in March 2014,
a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action
complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided
meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly
employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert
all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the
individual claims.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco
has not recorded any amount for the claim as of September 6, 2016
(Successor).

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. to Review Class Cert. Ruling in Bag Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted the defendants'
petition for immediate review of the order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the First Bag Fee
Antitrust Litigation.

In May-July 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust
lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways ("AirTran"),
alleging that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based
upon certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's
CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked
bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on
November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on
November 12, 2008. The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on
behalf of an alleged class consisting of passengers who paid the
first bag fee after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief
and unspecified treble damages. All of these cases have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Northern District of
Georgia.

On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 7, 2016,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the
defendants' petition for immediate review of this order, and that
review remains pending.

The defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, which also
remain pending. Delta believes the claims in these cases are
without merit and is vigorously defending these lawsuits.


DENVER, CO: First Hearing Held in Homeless Sweeps Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Zitzman, writing for Fox31, reports that the first hearing
in a class-action lawsuit filed by the homeless against the city
of Denver was held at the federal courthouse on Oct. 12.

The homeless say the city's so-called sweeps earlier this year
violated their constitutional rights.

The judge during the Oct. 12 hearing offered advice to help
streamline the process.  That included dismissing claims against
individual defendants such as Mayor Michael Hancock because can
claim individual immunity.

Instead of focusing the lawsuit against the city, the attorney for
the homeless plaintiffs said he will make the suggested changes by
the end of the week.

He said his goal is to help the homeless he believes whose rights
were violated.

Homeless camps have become a common scene across the city, with
them popping up on sidewalks and in parks.

Local businesses and residents complained, upset over littering,
fights and drug use.  That prompted the sweeps by the city.

But during the sweeps, many of the homeless complained about
losing their tents and other belongings.  The American Civil
Liberties Union said the city went too far.

It said it's one thing to make arrests for assault or drug use,
but it's another to ban sleeping in public parks.

"That is the job of the city to try to find the balance and I
think they have tipped over in favor of the businesses and done
nothing for the civil liberties of those that are homeless," ACLU
spokeswoman Denise Maes said.

Nine of the homeless are part of the lawsuit.

City officials said the sweeps are well within the law, using the
park curfew ordinance that was put in place in 2012 to clear out
the camps.


DIAMOND CANDLES: Guzman Suit Dismissed, Discovery Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted Defendant
Diamond Candles, LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
denied Plaintiff Josephine Guzman's motion for interim discovery
in the case captioned, JOSEPHINE GUZMAN and TIFFINY ROBERSON,
individually and as representatives of a class of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND CANDLES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:15CV422 (M.D.N.C.).

Josephine Guzman and Tiffany Roberson bring claims against Diamond
Candles for unjust enrichment and violations of North Carolina's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 75-1.1, et seq. They contend that the Ring Reveal
promotion is an illegal lottery.

Diamond is a candle manufacturer headquartered in Durham, North
Carolina. It sells its products exclusively through its website.
Inside every candle is a ring worth approximately $10 and a code
the purchaser can enter on Diamond's website to discover whether
she has won an additional ring worth up to $5,000.

Initially, Guzman was the only named Plaintiff, and Diamond moved
to dismiss the action on the grounds that the promotion is not an
illegal lottery and that Guzman's claims are not cognizable under
North Carolina law. In response, Guzman moved for immediate
discovery and for leave to amend the complaint to add a North
Carolina plaintiff. The court held oral argument on the motions on
March 23, 2016, and, as a consequence, granted leave to amend the
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Roberson as an
additional Plaintiff, to which Diamond responded with a new motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Guzman contends that
Diamond should be bound by a disclosure on its website that any
dispute related to the website will be governed by North Carolina
law. She argues that the provision supports applying North
Carolina law to her claims because all her interactions with
Diamond occurred via the website.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016
available at https://is.gd/5XwVmy from Leagle.com, Judge Schroeder
concluded that New York, and not North Carolina, law applies to
Guzman's claims because the amended complaint is silent as to the
location of Guzman's bank accounts and the computer from which she
purchased her candle and since she is a New York residence, any
economic injury most likely occurred there, Guzman's claims will
be dismissed without prejudice to her ability to file her claim in
an appropriate court under the appropriate law.

Josephine Guzman is represented by Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. --
DanaLGottlieb@aol.com -- and Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. --
NYJG@aol.com -- GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES

Guzman is also represented by:

      John S. Hughes, Esq.
      Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
      WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
      525 N. Main St.
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Tel:(704)633-5244

Tiffany Roberson is represented by:

      John S. Hughes, Esq.
      WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
      525 N. Main St.
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Tel:(704)633-5244

Diamond Candles, LLC is represented by Douglas Marshall Jarrell,
Esq. -- djarrell@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Fitz E. Barringer, Esq.
-- fbarringer@robinsonbradshaw.com -- and Robert Walker Fuller,
III, Esq. -- rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com -- ROBINSON BRADSHAW &
HINSON, P.A.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Jan. 19 Hearing on $50MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
DreamWorks said it's willing to pay $50 million to settle claims
that it colluded with other studios to fix the wages of animators.

DreamWorks filed a motion for a preliminary settlement in Federal
Court on October 17, agreeing to pay a class of animation workers
the largest sum to date in a case that implicates nearly all of
the studios that create animated films.

"The settlement here was reached after arm's length negotiations,
drawing on the expertise of informed, experienced counsel who have
been deeply involved in this litigation since its inception, and
it reflects the risks associated with both parties continuing to
litigate this case," DreamWorks said in the motion.

A hearing for preliminary approval of the motion is set for
January 19, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Lucy H. Koh.

The proposed agreement used two previous settlements as a
template, both of which were preliminarily approved by U.S.
District Court Judge Lucy Koh in early July.

Blue Sky Studios and Sony Pictures agreed to pay animators and
visual effects producers nearly $19 million under the approved
agreement. The court stipulated Blue Sky will pay about $6
million, while Sony will pay approximately $13 million under the
terms.

The agreements stem from a 2014 class action brought by Robert
Nitsch -- who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks
and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures
Imageworks -- claiming major animation studios colluded to fix
wages and restrict career opportunities for artists.

Nitsch was joined by other plaintiffs who said the scheme was
essentially industry-wide, with nearly all the major studios
conspiring to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for
animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical
workers.

Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney and ImageMovers Digital are also named as
defendants, but have yet to come to terms on a settlement.

The studios mounted a fight against class certification, but the
settlements began rolling in once Koh agreed to allow plaintiffs
to sue as a class.

Nitsch's lawsuit mirrors a class action filed against Apple,
Google and others in 2010, which claimed their CEOs made
"gentleman's agreements" to restrict competition, and companion
wage-setting mechanisms, by not poaching each other's employees.

Pixar and Lucasfilm were defendants in that case as well and
settled for $9 million collectively last year, but Koh has
rejected a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple, Google, Intel
and Adobe.

Nitsch claims the animation studios acted in much the same way as
the tech companies, conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of
dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines."

He adds in the lawsuit: "It did so at the same time the films
produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated
billions in the United States and abroad."

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs
bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in
1986 and created Pixar.  Nitsch says Jobs, Lucas and Pixar
president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold-call each other's
employees.  Neither Lucas, Catmull nor Apple are defendants in
Nitsch's complaint.

Nitsch claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to notify each other when
making an offer to an employee, and to not offer higher pay if the
employer made a counteroffer. He says Jobs and Catmull spread this
kind of anticompetitive agreement throughout the animation
industry.

Dreamworks was founded in 1994 by major entertainment players
David Geffen, Stephen Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and has
since made 32 major motion pictures.

The studio has produced the Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar and
Monsters franchises, among other hits.

Blue Sky is a computer animation film studio based in Connecticut.
It is famous for making the films "Ice Age," "Rio" and "The
Peanuts Movie."

Sony Pictures Animation has a few high-profile films under its
belt, including "Open Season," "Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs," "The Smurfs" and "Hotel Transylvania."

The case is IN RE ANIMATION WORKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master
Docket No. 14-CV-4062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Co-Lead Class Counsel are:

Daniel A. Small (pro hac vice)
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com

Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Marc M. Seltzer (54534)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com


DS HEALTHCARE: Prasant Shah Class Action Goes to Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
DS Healthcare Group, Inc. (dba DS Laboratories) said in its Form
10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016,
that a mediation concerning the class action and the derivative
demands was scheduled for October 17, 2016, in Miami, Florida.

On March 29, 2016, DS Healthcare, Mr. Khesin, and certain former
members of the Board of Directors were sued in a class action
styled, Prasant Shah v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 16-60661, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  A later-filed class action
has been consolidated.

The class action arises from the Company's March 23, 2016 and
March 28, 2016 8-K filings, which stated, in pertinent part, that
the audit committee had concluded that the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the two
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 (the
"June and September 2015 Quarters"), should no longer be relied
upon because of certain errors in such financial statements, and
that Daniel Khesin had been terminated for cause and removed as
Chairman and a member of the Board of Directors.

Plaintiffs have until November 2, 2016 to file an Amended
Complaint, which DS Healthcare must respond to no later than
December 19, 2016.

The Company also received the first of three related shareholder
derivative demands on March 29, 2016.  A mediation concerning the
class action and the derivative demands was scheduled for October
17, 2016, in Miami, Florida.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Settlement in "Palmer" Suit Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RAY PALMER, JR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS LLC and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
6:15-cv-00059-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon Paul G. Byron entered
an order granting the parties' renewed joint motion for class
certification and preliminary approval of class settlement

The following Class is certified:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom
   Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to be
   sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the
   Complaint on behalf of Defendant Cascade Capital LLC; (iii) in
   an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank of
   America; (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged
   debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original
   creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household
   purposes; (v) on which the last payment was made five or more
   years prior to the date of mailing of the letter in the form
   of Exhibit A; (vi) during the year prior to the filing of the
   original complaint in this action through the date of
   certification".

The Court appoints Plaintiff, Ray Palmer, Jr., as lead Plaintiff
and Class Representative, and appoints Donald E. Petersen and O.
Randolph Bragg as lead Class Counsel. The Court also finds that
the proposed class settlement agreement is reasonable, fair, and
adequate.

The parties have addressed deficiencies in their revised
settlement by doubling the amount of money payable to the class,
decreasing the incentive award payable to the named Plaintiff from
$2,000 to $500, and confirming that they have engaged in the
discovery necessary to duly resolve the Class's claims in the
case. The Court finds that these changes remedy the problems found
in the parties' initial settlement.

A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement and
whether final approval shall be given to it will be held before
the Court on December 19, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. The final fairness
hearing will be conducted before the Honorable Paul G. Byron in
the United States Courthouse, 401 West Central Boulevard, Orlando,
Florida, Courtroom 4B. The Court has set aside 2 hours to conduct
the hearing.

The Court approves the proposed form of notice to the Class, which
shall be directed to the last known address of the Class members
as shown on Defendants' records, as updated by a National Change
of Address update. Defendant's counsel will arrange for third
party administrator, First Class, Inc., to mail the notice to
Class members on or before October 26, 2016, and upon the Court's
entry of an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Settlement, for
payment to be distributed pursuant to the Agreement to those Class
members.

Class members shall have 45 days from the date Notice of the Class
Settlement is initially mailed to opt out or request exclusion,
enter an appearance, or file an objection.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kFvN5XAa


EI DUPONT: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Over Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for Pennlive.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against E.I. DuPont Co. filed by workers at a Pennsylvania
plant who claim they are being stiffed on overtime pay has been
revived by a federal appeals court.

The recent precedential ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit overturns a decision by U.S. Middle
District Judge James M. Munley.

Judge Munley dismissed the workers' suit in 2014 after finding
DuPont was adequately compensating the employees at its Towanda
manufacturing facility in Bradford County by paying them for lunch
breaks even though it wasn't obligated by law to do so.

The workers claim DuPont should be paying them overtime for the
time they spend before and after their 12-hour shifts donning and
removing their uniforms and protective gear and briefing workers
on incoming shifts.  Those pre- and post-shift tasks take 30
minutes to an hour per shift, they contend. DuPont requires them
to be on-site to suit up for work before their shifts start.

In the appeals court's opinion, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell
concluded Judge Munley was wrong in finding DuPont could
substitute the meal break pay for overtime compensation.  The
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and other regulations "compel the
opposite result," she wrote.

The appeals judges sent the case back to Judge Munley's court for
further action.

The Towanda plant makes X-ray screens and coated films for DuPont.
More than 160 workers there opted to participate in the class-
action suit, Judge Rendell noted.


ELITE INTERACTIVE: Faces "Herron" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Herron v. Elite Interactive Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-50,
Case No. BC636429 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated members of the general
public, seek full restitution and disgorgement of monies, as
necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies
withheld, acquired or converted by the Defendants by means of the
Defendants' unfair practices.

Elite Interactive Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing security guard services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


ELITE INTERACTIVE: Faces "Moran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Moran v. Elite Interactive Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-50,
Case No. BC636428 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated members of the general
public, seek full restitution and disgorgement of monies, as
necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies
withheld, acquired or converted by the Defendants by means of the
Defendants' unfair practices.

Elite Interactive Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing security guard services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


F & F INTERESTS: Faces "Canales" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO ESPINAL CANALES AND JESUS ALBERTO JOYA, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. F & F
INTERESTS, INC., SKF INTEREST, INC., and GARY FARINE, Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00288 (S.D. Tex., October 12, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own multiple Pilgrims Cleaners in Galveston, La Marque,
League City, Friendswood, Alvin, Houston, South Houston, Katy,
Sugarland and Dickinson, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Hansen" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hansen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
Ferrellgas, Inc., Stephen L. Wambold and Alan C. Heitmann,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07840 (S.D. N.Y., October 6, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, interest, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees and such
other and further relief for violation of the federal securities
laws.

Ferrellgas is primarily engaged in the retail distribution of
propane and related equipment sales, and midstream operations,
mostly crude oil logistics. The Company's crude oil logistics
segment, Bridger, provides domestic crude oil transportation and
logistics services, connecting crude oil production in the U.S. to
downstream markets.

Ferrellgas announced a fiscal year 2016 net loss of $665.4
million, compared to net earnings of $29.6 million in the full
fiscal year 2015. Ferrellgas' share price fell $3.50 per share, or
21.2%, to close at $13.00 per share on September 28, 2016, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff is a shareholder of Ferrellgas and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


GO-STAFF INC: "Armenta" Suit Alleges FLSA, Cal. Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FLORA ARMENTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; Plaintiff, vs. GO-STAFF, INC., a California corporation,
dba GO-STAFF and dba GOSTAFF; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02548-JLS-WVG (S.D.
Cal., October 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants failed to
compensate its employees as required by California law, Industrial
Wage Commission Wage Orders, California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professional Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

GO-STAFF, INC. -- https://go-staff.com/ -- is a family-owned and
operated, full-service staffing service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
     Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
     David G. Greco, Esq.
     NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
     225 Broadway, 19th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 325-0492
     Fax: (619) 325-0496
     Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
     Email: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
     Email: dgreco@nicholaslaw.org

        - and -

     Noam Glick, Esq.
     GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
     225 Broadway, Suite 2100
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 382-3400
     Fax: (619) 615-2193
     Email: noam@glicklawgroup.com


GRADY RENTALS: "Conover" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Conover, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Grady Rentals, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00214 (W.D. Penn., October 6, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Grady Rentals, LLC is an oilfield equipment rental company.
Defendant rents, for example, light towers, generators, water
transfer pumps, loaders, backhoes, and frac tanks. Plaintiff
worked for Defendant as a roughneck or manual laborer, moving
equipment, maintaining equipment and other such tasks.

Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor,
thus denying him the usual benefits, such as overtime, due a
regular employee.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


GRANITE COFFEE: "Hernandez" Sues Over Denied Overtime, Pay Slips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Granite Coffee Shop, Inc. and Guss
Karasakalidis, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05589, (E.D. N.Y., October 6, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation, compensation for record-keeping violations under New
York Labor Laws, liquidated damages, compensatory damages and all
other penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.

The Granite Coffee Shop, Inc. operates a restaurant and deli,
Garden Grill Coffee Shop, owned by Guss Karasakalidis. Plaintiff
worked as a dishwasher. He claims to be denied wages statements
and overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jeanne E. Mirer
      MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET JULIEN & CHICKEDANTZ, PLLC
      150 Broadway, Suite 1200
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 231-2235
      Email: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com


HALCON RESOURCES: Paid $430,000 to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Resources Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2016,
that the Company has agreed to pay $430,000 to lead plaintiffs'
counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees
and expenses in the action.

The members of the board of directors of Halcon Resources
Corporation (the "Company") and HALRES LLC ("HALRES") were named
last year as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by shareholders of the
Company challenging the approval of the issuance of additional
shares of the Company's common stock to HALRES upon conversion of
its 8.0% senior convertible note and the exercise of its warrants.
The 8.0% senior convertible note and warrants have since been
cancelled pursuant to the Amended Joint Prepackaged Plan of
Reorganization of Halcon Resources Corporation, et al. under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was approved by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on
September 8, 2016 and became effective on September 9, 2016.

The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders of the Company by recommending
that the stockholders approve the issuance of the additional
shares.

On April 7, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits into a
single action captioned In re Halcon Resources Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10849 and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On April 14, 2015, lead plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
stockholder vote on Proposal 4 of the Company's Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A filed on April 2, 2015.  On April 24,
2015, lead plaintiffs determined to withdraw that motion in view
of the supplemental disclosures made in the Company's Form 8-K
filing on April 24, 2015.

On July 13, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved a
stipulation under which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
action with prejudice only as to the plaintiffs in the action.
The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating lead plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
The Company subsequently agreed to pay $430,000 to lead
plaintiffs' counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the action.  The Court of Chancery
has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the
payment of a fee or its reasonableness.


HANSON AGGREGATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in NEI Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in its lawsuit entitled NEI Contracting and
Engineering, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-80060, in the 3:12-cv-01685-BAS-JLB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 6,
2016, District Judge Cynthia Bashant entered judgment in favor of
Defendant Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. and against
the Plaintiff.  In her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
dated September 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/f6sWEP from
Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found that NEI lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief because (1) NEI has failed to show a real and
immediate threat that it will be wronged again; and (2) NEI has
failed to show that Hanson recorded the November 21, 2011 call
without NEI's consent.

NEI filed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
alleging Hanson unlawfully recorded and intercepted cellular
telephone communications pursuant to California Penal Code Section
632.7 and requesting injunctive relief pursuant to California
Penal Code Section 637.2(b).

The appellate case is captioned as NEI Contracting and
Engineering, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-56498, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on October 19, 2016;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 10, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 12, 2016;

   -- Appellant NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc.'s opening
      brief is due on January 19, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Hanson Aggregates Pacific
      Southwest, Inc., Hanson Aggregates, Inc. and Lehigh Hanson,
      Co. is due on February 21, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant NEI CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC., on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented
by:

          Douglas James Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
          17150 Via Del Campo
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

               - and -

          Richard Eron Grey, Esq.
          GREY LAW GROUP, APC
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 543-9307

Defendants-Appellees HANSON AGGREGATES PACIFIC SOUTHWEST, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, HANSON AGGREGATES, INC., and LEHIGH HANSON,
CO., are represented by:

          Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq.
          Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Esq.
          Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          550 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          E-mail: jhannah@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Scams Senior Citizens, Class Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that senior citizens claim in a
class action in Hartford, Conn., that Hartford Financial Services
Group adds optional coverage to their car-insurance policies
without notice, and then cancels their policies for unpaid
premiums.


HEALTH CARE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
state appeals panel has ruled in favor of the parent company of
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, finding a Cook County judge
was correct in dismissing a class action lawsuit arguing the
health insurer should have spent more of its $10 billion in "cash
surplus" for the betterment of its members.

On Oct. 11, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District
Appellate Court upheld the decision of Cook County Circuit Judge
Neil H. Cohen, allowing the Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC)
to survive another round in the breach of contract legal challenge
over HCSC's earnings brought by Babbit Municipalities.

Justice Mary L. Mikva wrote the opinion; justices Maureen E.
Connors and Sheldon A. Harris concurred.

Babbitt's case centered on its contention that HCSC, while
formally a nonprofit company, accumulated "a large cash surplus,
rather than spending any amount exceeding a reasonable reserve for
the benefit of its members," as Babbit argued was its
responsibility as a nonprofit.

Judge Cohen's decision to grant HCSC's motion for dismissal found
"Babbitt's second amended complaint failed to cure the defects
identified in its prior pleadings," namely that Babiitt "did not
adequately allege a specific contractual provision that HCSC
breached, a concrete injury, an actual controversy based on HCSC's
present conduct, or facts that, if proved, would rebut the
presumption of good faith afforded by the business judgment rule."

What Babbitt did do was cite HCSC financial statements from 2009
through 2013 showing combined net income of more than $4 billion.
Babbitt then accused HCSC of "generating 'enormous fees' for the
administration of its members' health care benefits and using its
'ever increasing accumulation of profits' to 'expand its business
operation without corresponding mutual benefit to its members.'
"By the end of 2013, Babbitt said, HCSC "had accumulated $10.29
billion," a figure it said was excessive compared to certain
fiscal benchmarks.

In appealing the dismissal, Babbitt said HCSC's own bylaws
establish the duty it accused the company of violating, and that
the legal proceedings of the case would have "illuminated the
character and extent of HCSC's breach."  The appellate justices
disagreed, with Justice Mikva writing Babbitt is obligated to
allege facts instead of conclusions.  The HCSC bylaws, she
continued, are broadly written and "do not impose upon HCSC a
specific, legally enforceable duty to limit the amount of the
company's reserve fund or to take any specific action with respect
to its net earnings."

Judge Cohen, according to Justice Mikva, observed the HCSC bylaws
gave no amount or formula for the degree of surplus it could
maintain without conflicting its stated motion to be a nonprofit
entity. Babbitt countered that's "beside the point . . . the
proper inquiry is whether HCSC is using its money for the mutual
benefit of (its) members."  But, Justice Mikva wrote, Babbitt did
not allege HCSC spends none of its money in that fashion,
ultimately arguing, "HCSC spends some money on its members, just
not enough."

Babbitt also wanted the court to declare HCSC was not operating as
a nonprofit corporation or a legal reserve company.  Again,
Cohen's dismissal held Babbitt failed to "point to a specific
provision of the Articles or Bylaws that HCSC had violated and
Babbitt's allegations concerning only HCSC's past conduct did not
support the existence of an actual controversy between the
parties."  The absence of that controversy, Justice Mikva wrote,
makes declaratory relief legally improper.

Finally, the appellate justices note the business judgment rule
did not provide "an alternative basis for dismissing Babbitt's
claim." Justice Mikva cited a 2005 Illinois Appellate Court
opinion in Willmschen v. Trinity Lakes Improvement Association,
which held that even though it might be a sound decision to walk
away from a contract, that does not provide an entity defense from
a breach claim.  However, since HCSC did not breach "an
enforceable contractual obligation," the business judgment rule
does not apply, she said.

Babbitt Municipalities was represented in the action by attorneys
with the firm of Kamber Edelson, of Chicago.

HCSC was defended by the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, of Chicago.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Court Certifies 4 Classes in "Priddy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSAN PRIDDY, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES CORPORATION, an Illinois Mutual Reserve
Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-03360-RM-TSH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Richard Mills entered an order certifying
these four classes:

   "all individuals who sponsored benefit plans providing
   themselves and any of their employees with healthcare coverage
   obtained by the purchase of insurance coverage or
   administration of self-funded plans by Defendant, HCSC, or
   through a benefit plan underwritten, administered or otherwise
   provided by Defendant, HCSC, in the States of Illinois, Texas,
   Montana, New Mexico and Oklahoma";

   "all individuals and their beneficiaries who are or, at all
   times relevant to this cause of action, were recipients of
   health care coverage provided to them and their beneficiaries
   through their employers by health care coverage plans
   underwritten, administered, or otherwise provided by Defendant
   HCSC in the States of Illinois, Texas, Montana, New Mexico and
   Oklahoma";

   "all individuals and their beneficiaries who, at all times
   relevant to this cause of action, obtained health care
   coverage by individual purchase of such coverage from
   Defendant, HCSC, or through a benefit plan underwritten,
   administered, or otherwise provided by Defendant, HCSC, but
   not subject to ERISA in the States of Illinois, Texas,
   Montana, New Mexico and Oklahoma"; and

   "all individuals and their beneficiaries who are, or at all
   times relevant to this cause of action, were covered by health
   care insurance solely within the borders of the State of
   Illinois and therefore are protected by the power of the
   Illinois Department of Insurance to regulate policies issued
   within its borders by a health care insurer such as Defendant
   HCSC";

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and
those entities' current and former employees, officers, and
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a
timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any person who
has had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or
otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors
and assigns of any such excluded person.

The Plaintiffs Susan Priddy and Michael Beiler are appointed as
representatives of the Class. The Counsel for the Named Plaintiffs
are appointed as Counsel for the Class.

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


HIRERIGHT INC: Court Approves $715,000 in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion
for attorneys' fees, costs and service award in the case
captioned, BLANCA WATKINS, SPENCER HOYT, individually, on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. HIRERIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 13-CV-1432-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

On May 24, 2013, Blanca Watkins filed a civil class action in San
Diego Superior Court, which Hireright removed to federal court.
Plaintiffs allege Hireright violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") when it failed to include certain emails when consumers
requested copies of their files.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Spencer Hoyt as a named Plaintiff. After extensive discovery,
including several litigated discovery disputes, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion to Certify the Class. On September 11, 2014, Blanca Watkins
settled her individual claims with Hireright, and, therefore, she
was dismissed from the case.

On November 10, 2014, the parties attended mediation with a
neutral mediator and reached a preliminary settlement agreement.
On January 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2015,
Hireright filed a Notice of Bankruptcy, and the case was stayed.
After additional negotiation with the assistance of bankruptcy
counsel, on October 9, 2015, the parties requested that the Motion
for Preliminary Approval be reinstated which was granted.

Plaintiff's counsel has filed an unopposed Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Service Award requesting $655,000 in attorneys'
fees; $60,000 reimbursement for costs; and $10,000 as a service
award for the named Plaintiff Spencer Hoyt.

In her Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/iaglMP from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found that the
billed number of hours is reasonable by all three law firms given
the fact that this case has been pending for three years, involved
extensive discovery work, and even after a settlement had been
negotiated, required additional hours expended in light of
Defendant's bankruptcy.  The Court said the requested $655,000 in
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of $60,000 in costs appropriate.
The Court also awarded named Plaintiff Spencer Hoyt $10,000 as a
service or incentive award since he shouldered the entire burden
of being the named Plaintiff when Blanca Watkins withdrew from the
litigation.

Spencer Hoyt is represented by Anna P. Prakash, Esq. --
aprakash@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP

Hireright, Inc. is represented by Jennifer L. Mora, Esq. --
jmora@littler.com -- Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com
-- Amanda N. Fu, Esq. -- afu@littler.com -- and William J.
Simmons, Esq. -- wsimmons@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


ILLINOIS: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Odonist Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Matthew Smith, the Plaintiff, v. Eldon
Kennel, the Defendant, Case No. 16-3119-JES (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all 305 Odonist prisoners within the Illinois Department of
   Corrections (IDOC) who suffered constitutional and RLUIPA
   violations".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint his Counsel to
represent the Class.

According to the complaint, all Odonist prisoners within IDOC are
denied possession of Wooden Futhark Runes and a White Rune Casting
Cloth as well as Pork on Odinist Holy Days

Odinism is the ancient religion dedicated to the gods of the Norse
pantheon. Odinists also refer to themselves as followers of
Asatru.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q4xQndBI


INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Secretly Records Fans, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that
football fans sued the Indianapolis Colts in a class action in
Pittsburgh, claiming its smartphone app secretly recorded them
without their consent even when the app and the phone were off, to
collect data for targeted ads.

Lead plaintiff Alan Rackemann also sued Linzcam, which developed
the app, and Lisnr, which allegedly helped the Colts integrate
"beacon technology" into the app.

A similar class action was filed against the Golden State Warriors
basketball team and Linzcam in August in San Francisco Federal
Court. The third defendant in that case was Sonic Notify dba
Signal360.

In the Oct. 14 lawsuit in Federal Court, Rackemann claims the
Colts used the app to "systematically and surreptitiously
intercept . . .  consumers' oral communications without their
consent," using the interactive app to track their behavior and
send targeted ads to their phones.  He says the app recorded users
or was capable of recording them all the time, even while the app
was idle and the phones were in lock mode.

Rackemann says the defendants secretly recorded him for four
years, and did the same to a class of thousands.  The team pushed
the app as "the official mobile app of the Indianapolis Colts," to
deliver scores, updates and video clips to users.  When he
downloaded it, Rackemann says, he received a popup asking him to
grant the program access to his phone's microphone -- but no
notification that the device would be used to record him.

"Defendants do not provide any context or information regarding
the microphone," the complaint states. "A reasonable customer
would view the permission, which is requested right after
'Photos/Media,' as relating to media, one of the primarily
advertised features of the app."

This lawsuit and the one against the NBA team both accuse the
defendants of misusing audio beacon technology.

"Consumers' microphones were activated no matter where they were -
- in church, in their cars, at work or in their homes," without
any message or other indication that the customers were being
recorded, Rackemann says.  He says the "inherently invasive"
nature of beacon tracking should require consumers to opt in,
rather than opt out.  He seeks class certification and punitive
damages for violations of the Electronics Communications Privacy
Act, which "prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting
any oral communication."

The Lisnr CEO denied the allegations in a Tuesday e-mail to
Courthouse News.

"The allegations are false, as we are an ultrasonic protocol and
don't use or record audio," LISNR founder and CEO Rodney Williams
said in the email. He said his company's recording technology
cannot pick up the sounds of human voices.

"We are stewards of consumer privacy and will defend all
allegations vigorously," Williams said.

The Indianapolis Colts did not respond to requests for comment by
email and telephone. Yinzcam did not reply to an e-mail request
for comment.

Rackemann also wants an injunction ordering the defendants to stop
using the app to record conversations.

His is represented by David Senoff -- dsenoff@anapolweiss.com --
with Anapol & Weiss in Philadelphia, and Rafey Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- with Edelson P.C., in San Francisco.


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: "Fischer" Sues Over Flawed Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT FISCHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc.,
Donald E. Brown, Mitchell E. Daniels, Edward L. Hamburg, Michael
C. Heim, Mark E. Hill, and Richard A. Reck, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02666, (S.D. Ind., October 6, 2016), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger.  The suit also
seeks an award of rescissory damages should the merger push
through, damages sustained, costs of this action, including
reasonable attorney's and expert's fees and such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just.

Interactive Intelligence will be acquired by Genesys
Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Giant Merger Sub Inc. Stockholders of Interactive
Intelligence will receive $60.50 in cash for each share of
Interactive common stock.  The merger allegedly denies the
shareholders to share proportionately and equitably in the future
growth of the company in profits and earnings and that the
consideration amount is not an adequate or fair value of the
Interactive Intelligence common stock.

Interactive Intelligence is an Indiana corporation and maintains
its principal executive offices at 7601 Interactive Way,
Indianapolis, Indiana. It provides unified business communications
solutions for call centers, enterprise IP telephony, and business
process automation. Donald E. Brown, Mitchell E. Daniels, Edward
L. Hamburg, Michael C. Heim, Mark E. Hill, and Richard A. Reck
serve as its board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

William N. Riley, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 633-5270
      Fax: (317) 426-3348
      Email: wriley@rwp-law.com
             jpiatt@rwp-law.com

             - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: srowley@zlk.com


JESPER ANDERSEN: Faces "Dorn" Suit Over US$1.6BB Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE DORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JESPER ANDERSEN, RICHARD E. BELLUZZO, LAURA C.
CONIGLIARO, PHILIP FASANO, FRED M. GERSON, DANIEL J. PHELPS, and
EDZARD OVERBEEK, Case No. 12817 (Del. Ch., October 10, 2016), is a
stockholder suit over a proposed merger through a tender offer
that values the company at approximately $1.6 billion.

Defendant Jesper Andersen has been the President and the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company since December 2014.  The other
Defendants are members of the Board of Directors.

Infoblox, Inc. manufactures a device that allows users to create
and manage dynamic computer networks. The device provides
automated network control, which allows real-time network
discovery and visibility, scalability, device configuration, and
policy implementation. The Company sells its products through
distributors, integrators, and managed service providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
             dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
             mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     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 Fl.
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


JTEKT CORP: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $62.5 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hernandez McGavin, writing for Automotive News, reports
that automotive-parts supplier JTEKT Corp. agreed to pay $62.5
million to settle class-action lawsuits over price-fixing
allegations.

JTEKT will pay $47.5 million to U.S. consumers, the company said
on Oct. 12, and the remaining $15 million is expected to be paid
to dealerships in two suits.

The two suits are the result of individual plaintiffs who decided
to combine cases on behalf of consumers and dealerships, saying
they paid inflated vehicle prices because the supplier fixed
original parts prices.  The combined civil suits were filed in
December 2015 in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

A JTEKT executive, Masakazu Iwami, was indicted on charges of
conspiring to fix prices in 2014.  The Japanese company pleaded
guilty to price-fixing in 2013 and paid a $103 million fine.

The settlement must still be approved by U.S. District Court in
Detroit.

JTEKT, a major supplier of vehicle bearings and steering systems,
ranks No. 15 on Automotive News' list of top global auto
suppliers.

Twenty-three global suppliers have been accused by consumers and
dealers in antitrust probes that started in 2011.

Total settlements from consumer lawsuits now exceed $650 million.

As of September, the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI charged 65
individuals and 46 companies and fined them more than $2.8 billion
in the investigation.


KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Andbanc Appeals Ruling in Madoff-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andbanc, BBF Trust, BG Valores, S.A., Banca Arner S.A.,
Alvaro Castillo, Criterium Capital Funds B.V., Eithan Ephrati,
Lucien Geldzahler, Jaques Lamac, Nitkey Holdings Corporation,
Silvana Worldwide Corporation and Wall Street Securities, S.A.,
filed an appeal from a District Court judgment dated September 26,
2016, entered in and relating to the litigation titled In re:
Kingate Management Limited Litigation, original Case No. 09-cv-
5386, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City)

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Kingate Management
Limited Litigation, Case No. 16-3450, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs are individuals and entities, each of which purchased
shares in Kingate Global Fund, Ltd. and/or Kingate Euro Fund,
Ltd., and continued to hold their shares until the exposure in
December 2008 of the Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard L. Madoff
and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, a broker-dealer
founded and run by Madoff.  The Madoff Ponzi scheme resulted in
the loss of the great majority of the Funds' assets.  The
Complaint asserts a class action on behalf of all shareholders in
the Funds (with the exception of Defendants and certain affiliates
of Defendants) as of the time Madoff's fraud was exposed.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Criterium Capital Funds B.V., BBF Trust,
Wall Street Securities, S.A., Banca Arner S.A., Alvaro Castillo,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Eithan
Ephrati, Andbanc, Silvana Worldwide Corporation, BG Valores, S.A.,
Lucien Geldzahler, Jaques Lamac and Nitkey Holdings Corporation
are represented by:

          David A. Barrett, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dbarrett@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Devore, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant-Appellee Kingate Management Limited is represented by:

          Peter R. Chaffetz, Esq.
          CHAFFETZ LINDSEY LLP
          1700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 257-6961
          E-mail: peter.chaffetz@chaffetzlindsey.com

Defendants-Appellees Tremont (Bermuda) Limited and Tremont Group
Holdings, Inc., are represented by:

          Seth Schwartz, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2710
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2710
          E-mail: seth.schwartz@skadden.com

Defendants-Appellees FIM Advisers LLP and FIM (USA) Incorporated
are represented by:

          Jodi Aileen Kleinick, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 318-6751
          E-mail: jodikleinick@paulhastings.com

Defendant-Appellee CITI Hedge Fund Service Ltd. is represented by:

          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr.,
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com

Defendants-Appellees Graham H. Cook, John E. Epps and Charles
Sebah are represented by:

          Bruce M. Ginsberg, Esq.
          DAVIS & GILBERT LLP
          1740 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-4820
          E-mail: bginsberg@dglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Sandra Manzke is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Cogan, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 488-1200
          E-mail: jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com

Defendant-Appellee Christopher Wetherhill is represented by:

          Erin Valentine, Esq.
          CHAFFETZ LINDSEY LLP
          1700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 257-6960
          E-mail: erin.valentine@chaffetzlindsey.com

Defendant-Appellee Michael G. Tannenbaum is represented by:

          Laura Grossfield Birger, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6453
          E-mail: lbirger@cooley.com

Defendant-Appellee Pricewaterhousecoopers Bermuda is represented
by:

          Dennis Henry Tracey, III, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3524
          E-mail: dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com


KOCH FOODS: Ferraro Foods Sues Over Broiler Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
FERRARO FOODS, INC. and FERRARO FOODS OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. KOCH FOODS, INC., JCG FOODS OF ALABAMA, LLC, JCG
FOODS OF GEORGIA, LLC, KOCH MEATS CO., INC., TYSON FOODS, INC.,
TYSON CHICKEN, INC., TYSON BREEDERS, INC., TYSON POULTRY, INC.,
PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, PERDUE FARMS, INC., SANDERSON FARMS,
INC., SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOODS DIVISION), SANDERSON FARMS,
INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING
DIVISION), WAYNE FARMS, LLC, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE
FARMS, LLC, MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., PECO FOODS, INC.,
FOSTER FARMS, LLC, HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., SIMMONS FOODS,
INC., FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION, GEORGE'S, INC., GEORGE'S FARMS,
INC., O.K. FOODS, INC., O.K. FARMS, INC., and O.K. INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09684 (N.D. Ill., October 12,
2016), alleges that Defendants conspired and combined to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broilers.

KOCH FOODS, INC. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is an American
poultry processor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Robert G. Eisler
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 214-0000
     E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

        - and -

     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (646) 722-8500
     E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

        - and -

     Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
     HEINS MILLS&OLSON PLC
     310 Clifton Avenue
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Phone: (612) 338-4605
     E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

        - and -

     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 519-8306
            (973) 623-3000
     E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


KOLBE & KOLBE: US Fire Seeks Review of Decision in "Haley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor United States Fire Insurance Company filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mary Haley, et al. v.
Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00099-
bbc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the windows they
purchased from Defendant Kolbe & Kolbe are defective.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Haley, et al. v. Kolbe &
Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3648, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 26, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 21, 2016,
      for United States Fire Insurance Company.

Intervenor-Appellant UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          David E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          111 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: dschoenfeld@shb.com

Plaintiffs MARY HALEY, MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS, JAMES HAL
BANKS and ANNIE BUINEWICZ are represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

Defendant-Appellee KOLBE & KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., is
represented by:

          Susan G. Schellinger, Attorney
          DAVIS & KUELTHAU
          111 E. Kilbourn Avenue
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-6613
          Telephone: (414) 225-1492
          E-mail: sschellinger@dkattorneys.com


LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Issa" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KHADIDJA ISSA, Q.M.H., a minor,
individually, by and through his parent, Faisa Ahmed Abdalla,
ALEMBE DUNIA, ANYEMU DUNIA, V.N.L., a minor, individually, by and
through her parent, Mar Ki, SUI HNEM SUNG, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
LANCASTER, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03881-EGS (E.D. Penn.),
the Hon. Edward G. Smith entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs' ability to file an amended motion after the completion
of class-related discovery.

The Court further ordered that the Defendant's motion to amend
their answer to the complaint is granted. The Defendant shall file
an amended answer within 14 days of the order.

The School District of Lancaster is a large, urban school district
of 11,300 students educated in 19 schools in central Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jpfjEwN1


LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Bentley Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BENTLEY, CECIL MCNEIL, DEVON HALL, KEON PERSON, KUWAND
CARPENTER, LEONARD ODELL HINES JR., and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, Case No. v. LECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and
LECOM, INC., collectively d/b/a, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
13640-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 12, 2016), alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the plaintiffs time and one-half their regular rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

LECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. contracts with Comcast, a cable
company, to perform telecommunication installations and repair
services for Comcast's customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Peter M. Delano, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994 - 5800

        - and -

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 North Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: (734) 929-4313


LYFT INC: "Nokchan" Suit Over Background Checks Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the motion filed by Lyft, Inc. to
dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL NOKCHAN, Plaintiff, v. LYFT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03008-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Michael Nokchan brought the putative class action under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California state law against Lyft,
alleging that he was employed by Lyft as an hourly, non-exempt
employee working in the State of California.  According to
Nokchan, when he applied for employment with Lyft, he was required
to "fill out and sign a document requiring background check."  He
alleged that the disclosures required under the FCRA were embedded
in the document, which contained "extraneous information," and
therefore, that Lyft failed to comply with the FCRA and other
State laws.  He further alleged that Lyft failed to inform him at
the time of the disclosures that he had a right to request a
summary of his rights under the FCRA.  Nokchan alleged that Lyft
procured his credit and background reports based on these
inadequate disclosures and that in doing so, it injured him by
violating his privacy and statutory rights under the FCRA and
state law.

Lyft brought a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, asserting that Nokchan lacks standing under Article III
of the U.S. Constitution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016).

Under Spokeo, a plaintiff who seeks to assert a claim under the
FCRA is required to allege facts showing a concrete injury.  Judge
Spero found that, while procedural violations that have resulted
in real harm -- or even a risk of real harm -- may be sufficient
to meet this requirement, the plaintiff in this case has alleged
no such injury.

"He has not alleged that he suffered any real harm as a result of
the fact that he did not receive required disclosures in a
separate document or that he did not receive a summary of his
rights under the FCRA. In particular, he does not allege that as a
result of Lyft's failure to provide the disclosures in a separate
document or to notify him of his right to receive a summary of his
legal rights he was confused about his rights or that he would not
have consented to the background checks had he understood his
rights.  Nor does he allege that he was harmed by the background
check in any way.  Rather, based on the allegations in the
complaint, Nokchan was hired by Lyft after he successfully
completed its background investigation and he continues to work
for Lyft.  Under these circumstances, the Court can find no real
harm, or a threat of such harm, that gives Nokchan standing under
Article III to pursue his claims in federal court," said Judge
Spero.

A full-text copy of Judge Spero's October 5, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/irKveR from Leagle.com.

Michael Nokchan, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh,
Setareh Law Group, Thomas Alistair Segal, Setareh Law Group.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Peter Zaimes --
jzaimes@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Archis Ashok
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro
hac vice, Barrett L. Schreiner, Mayer Brown LLP & Ruth Zadikany --
rzadikany@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Timeshare Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 13, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 9,
2016, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss a class
action complaint related to the Marriott Vacation Club
Destinations(TM) ("MVCD") program and a motion to stay the case
pending referral of certain questions to Florida state regulators.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we and certain of our
subsidiaries were named as defendants in an action filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by
Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a putative class
action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD points, from inception
of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as well as all
individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts for which
weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs challenge
the characterization of the beneficial interests in the MVCD trust
that are sold to customers as real estate interests under Florida
law. They also challenge the structure of the trust and associated
operational aspects of the trust product. The relief sought
includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an unwinding of
the MVCD product, and punitive damages.

"On September 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain
questions to Florida state regulators. We dispute the material
allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against the
action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range
of the potential liability, if any, at this time."

According to the Web site -- http://www.marriottvacationclub.com/
-- with a one-time purchase, the purchaser will become an Owner in
the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (TM) Ownership Program --
a points-based, deeded real estate ownership program -- and
receive an allotment of Vacation Club Points every year.  The
purchaser may use the Vacation Club Points for thousands of
vacation options, including resorts, hotels, adventure travel and
exchange resorts.


MARTEN TRANSPORT: Harrington Seeks to Certify Driver Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled DONALD HARRINGTON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the
Plaintiff, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01419-MWF-
AS (C.D. Cal.), seeks to certify these proposed classes and
subclasses:

1. Driver Class:

   "all of Defendant's current and former California-based driver
   employees at any time during the period beginning December 1,
   2010 to the present. "California-based" refers to employees:
   (i) who had a residential address in California, and/or (ii)
   who were associated with a terminal located in California at
   any time during the period beginning December 1, 2010 to the
   present;

1.1. Mileage Rate Driver Subclass:

   "all members of the Driver Class paid by the mile";

1.1.1. Mileage Rate Driver Rest Break Subclass:

   "all members of the Mileage Rate Driver Subclass who spent
   more than three and one half hours continuously driving and/or
   on duty in California in a workday";

1.1.1.1. Mileage Rate Driver Unpaid Rest Time Subclass:

   "all members of the Mileage Rate Driver Rest Break Subclass
   who spent more than three and one half hours continuously
   driving and/or on duty in California in a workday without
   compensation separate from their mileage-based pay";

1.1.2. Pay Stub Subclass:

   "all members of the Mileage Rate Driver Subclass who received
   a pay stub ("settlement details(") that does not state total
   hours worked for the weekly pay period.

1.2. Day Rate Driver Subclass.

   "all members of the Driver Class paid by a flat day rate";

1.2.1. Day Rate Driver Rest Break Subclass.

   "all members of the Day Rate Driver Subclass who spent more
   than three and one half hours continuously driving and/or on
   duty in California in a workday";

1.2.1.1. Day Rate Driver Unpaid Rest Time Subclass:

   "all members of the Day Rate Driver Rest Break Subclass who
   spent more than three and one half hours continuously driving
   and/or on duty in California in a workday without compensation
   separate from their flat rate-based pay";

1.3. Driver Meal Break Subclass:

   "all members of the Driver Class who spent more than five
   continuous hours driving and/or on duty in California in a
   given workday";

1.3.1. Mileage Rate Driver Meal Break Subclass:

   "all members of the Mileage Rate Driver Subclass who spent
   more than five continuous hours driving and/or on duty in
   California in a given workday";

1.3.2. Day Rate Driver Meal Break Subclass:

   "all members of the Day Rate Driver Subclass who spent more
   than five continuous hours driving and/or on duty in
   California in a given workday";

1.4. Pre-April 2016 Driver Class:

   "all members of the Driver Class up to April 27, 2016 (when
   Defendant implemented its new compensation plan to comply with
   California Labor Code section 226.2)";

1.4.1. Pre-April 2016 Mileage Rate Driver Class:

   "all members of the Pre-April 2016 Driver Class paid by the
   mile";

1.4.2. Pre-April 2016 Day Rate Driver Class:

   "all members of the Pre-April 2016 Driver Class paid by a flat
   day rate";

2. FCRA Class:

   "all of Defendant's driver employees in the United States who
   received an offer letter from Defendant for employment and
   were subjected to a background check at any time during the
   period beginning December 1, 2009 to the present ("Background
   check" refers to any reports prepared by a "Consumer Reporting
   Agency" per Defendant's request);

2.1. 2-Year FCRA Subclass:

   "all members of the FCRA Class who were subjected to a
   background check after December 1, 2012".

According to the complaint, the Defendant Marten Transport used a
mileage-based or day rate-based compensation system to pay its
California resident drivers. This compensation system did not
separately pay for numerous tasks which Defendant required its
drivers to perform, nor did it separately pay for at least ten
minutes of rest period time every four hours worked, or major
fraction thereof, as required by California law. Additionally, the
Defendant failed to provide its drivers with meal and rest periods
required by California law.

Marten Transport specializes in protective service transportation
of foods, chemicals and other products requiring temperature
controlled or insulated carriage.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, California 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: Shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  Louis@benowitzlaw.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Wage & Hour Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action claims in
Sacramento, Massage Envy Franchising violates minimum wage and
overtime laws for as many as 3,000 masseurs, in Sacramento
Superior Court.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Trims Mislabeling Claims in "Carias" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan M. Azrack of the Eastern District of New York,
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss
the case MIQUEL CARIAS, VALERIE GENTILE, JANET RAMIREZ, MICHAEL
PICONE, EVELYN FLECHA, ZENA MATOS, on behalf of KAILEI MATOS, a
minor, JAIME NINO, and HALONA JAFFE, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 15-CV-
3677 (JMA) (GRB) (E.D.N.Y.).

Monsanto Company markets, advertises and distributes Roundup, the
world's most popular herbicide. The label on Monsanto's Roundup
products states that "Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in
plants, but not in people or pets". The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has approved Roundup and its labeling.

In 2015, despite the EPA's approval of Roundup, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably
carcinogenic to humans.

Plaintiff Miquel Carias and seven others allege that, in reliance
on the "plants not people" statement, they purchased Roundup on
several occasions over the past four years and used and/or were
exposed to the use of Monsanto's Roundup products in their
intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. They allege that their
exposure to glyphosate caused various maladies, including non-
Hodgkins lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, renal pelvis cancer, a
pituitary gland tumor, leukemia, irritable bowel syndrome/leaky
gut disease, diabetes, and kidney disease. According to them, the
statement on Roundup's label that "Glyphosate targets an enzyme
found in plants, but not in people or pets" is false.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges various common law products
liability claims. Plaintiffs also raise claims under New York
General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350, seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' failure-to-warn and GBL
claims, arguing that those claims are preempted by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
Section 136 et seq.  Defendant also contends that the GBL claims
fail, in the sense that the safe harbor provisions of the GBL
preclude plaintiffs' claims, that plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege a false or misleading statement, that GBL claims
cannot be premised on personal injuries and plaintiffs' injuries
are unrelated to their purchases of Roundup for their lawns and
gardens. Finally, defendant contends that plaintiffs have failed
to plausibly allege a design defect claim.

Judge Azrack granted defendant's motion to dismiss as to
plaintiffs' design defect claim, and request for injunctive relief
under GBL Sections 349 and 350.  The judge held that plaintiffs'
design defect claims are pled in conclusory fashion and nothing in
the complaint plausibly suggests the feasibility of a safer
alternative design for Roundup.  The EPA has the exclusive
authority to approve changes to Roundup's label, and the Court
cannot order Monsanto to alter its labeling in order to remedy a
violation of state law. Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief under GBL Sections 349 and 350 are dismissed.
Defendant's motion is denied as to plaintiff's remaining claims.

A copy of Judge Azrack's memorandum and order dated September 30,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/tUYsUu from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
Gabrielli Levitt LLP
2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 210
Bronx, NY 10469
Telephone: 718-708-5322
Facsimile: 718-708-5966

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Adam S. Nadelhaft --
anadelhaft@winston.com -- Christopher Clinton Costello --
cccostello@winston.com -- George C. Lombardi --
glombard@winston.com -- John J. Rosenthal --
jrosenthal@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn LLP; Eric G. Lasker
-- elasker@hollingsworthllp.com -- Joe G. Hollingsworth --
jhollingsworth@hollingsworthllp.com -- Katharine R. Latimer --
klatimer@hollingsworthllp.com -- at Hollingsworth LLP


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Courtney Sues Over Athletes' Head Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Courtney, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02674 (S.D. Ind.,
October 6, 2016), seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured
by the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
student-athletes.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
athletic association with its principal place of business located
at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

Plaintiff played NCAA Division II football, serving as a starting
receiver during the 1987 and 1988 football seasons. He alleges
that NCAA ignored the debilitative, long-term dangers associated
with concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries of the players during the course of the game.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
      HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS
      201 W. 103rd Street, Suite 500
      Indianapolis, IN 46290
      Phone: (317) 818-3100
      Fax: (317) 818-3111
      Email: rdassow@hovdelaw.com

             - and -

      Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      One Logan Square
      130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Phone: (215) 790-4550
      Fax: (215) 875-7733
      Tel: Sweiss@Anapolweiss.Com
           Dsenoff@Anapolweiss.Com


NATIONAL MILK: Belle Foods Dismissed From First Impressions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FIRST IMPRESSIONS SALON, INC., ROY MATTSON,
BELLE FOODS TRUST, GERRY WHITING, KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES d/b/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., and PIGGLY WIGGLY MIDWEST, LLC, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, COOPERATIVES WORKING TOGETHER,
DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., LAND O'LAKES, INC., and AGRI-MARK,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-454-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge
Nancy J. Rosenstengel granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion filed jointly by all defendants seeking to dismiss the
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and to strike
certain class allegations.

The Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed by the
plaintiffs First Impressions Salon, Roy Mattson, Belle Foods
Trust, Gerry Whiting,2KPH Healthcare Services, and Piggly Wiggly
Midwest alleged that the defendants National Milk Producers
Federation, Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of
America, Land O'Lakes, and Agri-Mark engaged in a nationwide
conspiracy to prematurely slaughter dairy cows thereby limiting
the production of raw milk and driving up prices for milk and milk
products.  More specifically, it was alleged that the National
Milk Producers Federation is a trade association of dairy
cooperatives that created CWT in order to "strengthen and
stabilize milk prices."  The plaintiffs brought the putative class
action on behalf of themselves and all other direct purchasers of
raw milk, cheese, and butter, against the defendants for
violations of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The defendants argued that Belle Foods Trust and the Bankruptcy
Estate of Yarnell's Ice Cream Company are not adequate class
representatives under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(d)(1)(D) and therefore
allegations to that effect in the complaint should be stricken.
However, Judge Rosenstengel held that whether Belle Foods Trust
and Yarnell's/Whiting are adequate class representatives is an
issue of law that goes to the propriety of certifying a class, and
cannot be decided on a motion to strike under Rule 12(f).

A majority of the arguments in the motion to dismiss related to
the plaintiffs' standing to assert their claims.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs Belle Foods Trust, Inc.
and KPH Healthcare Services failed to sufficiently allege that
they were direct purchasers and therefore they lack anti-trust
standing to sue.

Judge Rosenstengel agreed as to Belle Foods Trust because it is
undisputed that Belle Foods is an indirect purchaser -- the
complaint alleged that Belle Foods purchased butter and cheese
from C&S Wholesale Grocers, who had previously purchased those
products directly from the defendants.  The judge also cannot
conclude that the cost-plus exception to the indirect purchaser
rule applies, as argued by the plaintiffs.  Thus Belle Foods was
dismissed as a plaintiff in the case.

Judge Rosenstengel, however, disagreed as to KPH Healthcare
Services.  The defendants argued that KPH failed to properly
allege antitrust standing because it did not plausibly allege a
direct purchase from any defendant.  Judge Rosenstengel found that
KPH purchased butter and/or cheese from defendant Agri-Mark and
CWT member Upstate Niagara, and that KPH was assigned claims from
Shadow Cross Farms, Monument Farms, and Spragues Dairy, Inc., all
of whom bought butter and cheese from Agri-Mark.  The judge held
that these facts cure any infirmities in the complaint and
demonstrate that KPH was a direct purchaser and therefore has
standing to sue.

The defendants, interpret the allegation in the complaint to mean
that each plaintiff is stating a claim for damages based on
purchases of raw milk, purchases of butter, and purchases of
cheese, contended that the plaintiffs do not have antitrust
standing to bring claims for products they did not purchase.
Judge Rosenstengel disagreed with the defendants, finding that the
defendants appeared to over-analyze and unnecessarily complicate
the highlighted allegation.  The judge held that a fair reading of
that allegation, in the context of the complaint taken as a whole,
simply reflects that the plaintiffs and the putative class members
are seeking to recover damages for their collective purchases of
raw milk, butter, and cheese at inflated prices.

The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs do not have
standing to seek an injunction.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct
from 2003 until 2010, when the herd retirement programs were
stopped.  According to the defendants, the plaintiffs do not have
standing to seek an injunction because they have not set forth any
allegations that suggest that the defendants' conduct is likely to
cause them harm in the future.  The plaintiffs argued that even if
the defendants do not resume herd reduction programs, expert
studies indicated each round of herd retirement that was conducted
"has effects that extend forward years into the future," making it
plausible that plaintiffs and other direct purchasers are still
paying supracompetitive prices and the defendants are still
profiting from previous herd retirements.  Judge Rosenstengel thus
concluded that the complaint contains enough factual information
to plausibly suggest the plaintiffs may continue to suffer
injuries in the future and therefore may be entitled to injunctive
relief.

The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the filed-rate doctrine.  Judge Rosenstengel disagreed,
stating that most courts have found the filed-rate doctrine does
not apply to any aspect of milk pricing aside from the minimum
rates.  The complaint made clear that the plaintiffs are not
seeking damages based on the increases to the regulated minimum
prices; they are only seeking damages based on increases to the
over-order price of raw milk, the price of butter, and the price
of cheese.  Judge Rosenstengel pointed out that neither the over-
order price of milk nor the price of butter and cheese is set,
approved, or otherwise regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture,
but are determined by market forces.

Lastly, the defendants argued that under the Sherman and Clayton
Acts, the plaintiffs can only recover damages they incurred in the
four years before they filed suit.  In the complaint, the
plaintiffs claimed to represent a class that made purchases dating
back to December 6, 2008, but the lawsuit was filed on May 10,
2013.  Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs can
recover only for damages dating back to May 10, 2009.

The plaintiffs disagreed, believing the class period can reach
back to December 6, 2008, because the statute of limitations was
tolled during the pendency of another previously-dismissed
putative class action: Blakeman v. National Milk Producers
Federation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-1246-GPM-PMF (S.D. Ill.).
Blakeman was filed on December 7, 2012, and tolled the statute of
limitations for all unnamed class members until the suit was
dismissed.

Judge Rosenstengel is unable to determine whether the raw milk,
cheese, and butter purchases that the plaintiffs sought to recover
would have been part of the Blakeman class.  Therefore, the judge
held that she is likewise unable to determine the applicable
statute of limitations for the plaintiffs' claims, and the portion
of the defendants' motion to dismiss regarding the statute of
limitations was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's October 5, 2016
memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/aBLEoi from
Leagle.com.

First Impressions Salon, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John W.
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Linda P. Nussbaum --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Charles F.
Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC, Debra Gaw Josephson --
debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us -- Roberts Law Firm, P. A.,
Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Erin C. Burns
-- eburns@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Jana K. Law --
janalaw@robertslawfirm.us -- Roberts Law Firm, P. A., Joseph
Michael Vanek -- jvanek@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek, Vickers & Masini,
P.C., Michael D. Fishbein -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com -- Levin,
Fishbein et al., Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P. A. &
Stephanie Egner Smith -- stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us --
Roberts Law Firm, P. A., pro hac vice.

Roy Mattson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Neal &
Harwell, PLC, John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Linda P.
Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Michael D. Fishbein, Levin,
Fishbein et al., Debra Gaw Josephson, Roberts Law Firm, P. A.,
Jana K. Law, Roberts Law Firm, P. A.,Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek,
Vickers & Masini, P.C., Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P.
A. & Stephanie Egner Smith, Roberts Law Firm, P. A., pro hac vice.

Belle Foods Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum,
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., D. Christopher Carson --
ccarson@burr.com -- Burr & Forman LLP, Jana K. Law, Roberts Law
Firm, P. A., Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C.,
Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P. A., William E. Hoese,
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. & Charles F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell,
PLC.

Gerry Whiting, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Neal
& Harwell, PLC, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini,
P.C., Mark Randy Rice, Rice & Associates, P.A., Michael L.
Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P. A. & Jana K. Law, Roberts Law Firm,
P. A..

KPH Healthcare Services, a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., Piggly Wiggly
Midwest, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Jana K. Law, Roberts Law
Firm, P. A., Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P. A. & Charles
F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC.

National Milk Producers Federation, Cooperatives Working Together,
Defendants, represented by John J. Kavanagh, Steptoe & Johnson &
Kenneth P. Ewing, Steptoe & Johnson.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven
R. Kuney, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, W. Todd Miller,
Baker & Miller, PLLC,Amber L. McDonald, Baker & Miller, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Carl Rowan Metz, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher W. Byron, Byron Carlson Petri & Kalb, LLC, Ishai
Mooreville, Baker & Miller PLLC & Lucy S. Clippinger, Baker &
Miller, PLLC.

Land O'Lakes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer,
Eimer, Stahl et al., Bart C. Sullivan, Fox Galvin, LLC, Benjamin
E. Waldin, Eimer Stahl LLP, Daniel D. Birk, Eimer, Stahl et al.,
John E. Galvin, Fox Galvin LLC, Scott C. Solberg, Eimer, Stahl et
al. & Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Eimer, Stahl et al..

Agri-Mark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Diane C. Polletta,
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Jill M. O'Toole, Shipman & Goodwin LLP,
Christopher J. Cahill, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Eric Goldstein,
Shipman & Goodwin LLP.


NESTLE USA: Gyorke-Takatri Suit Again Remanded to Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand in the case captioned, MICHELLE GYORKE-TAKATRI,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

On July 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against
Nestle USA, Inc. (NUSA) and Gerber in Superior Court, asserting
seven state law claims related to allegations that the images of
fruits and vegetables on the front label of Gerber Puffs Cereal
snack products misled consumers into believing Puffs were "fruit-
or-vegetable-packed" snacks. Plaintiffs seek, among other forms of
relief, "an award of restitution, including disgorgement pursuant
to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17203, 17535."

Gerber first removed this case to federal court on August 13,
2015, arguing that there was federal jurisdiction under CAFA and
that the amount in controversy, which Gerber presumed was the
retail price consumers paid, exceeded $5,000,000. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, concluding
that Gerber's only evidence of the amount in controversy was
inadmissible hearsay and that Gerber had not met its burden of
demonstrating CAFA jurisdiction.

Gerber moved for reconsideration and for leave to file additional
evidence to support its amount in controversy argument. The court
denied Gerber's motion, concluding that "Gerber does not indicate
that it intends to present facts that, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, it could not have presented in its
opposition to the remand motion" and has therefore failed to show
grounds for reconsideration.  The Gonzalez Rogers said Gerber had
failed to provide admissible evidence that the amount in
controversy met CAFA's $5,000,000 requirement.

After plaintiffs moved for class certification in Superior Court,
Gerber removed the case to federal court again, arguing once more
that the case meets CAFA's jurisdictional requirements. Plaintiffs
move to remand a second time, arguing that Gerber's second removal
is procedurally improper and that Gerber has failed to demonstrate
any new facts or circumstances that would justify permitting a
successive removal.

In his Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/DphoPi from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick concluded that
Gerber has failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances that
justifies its second removal.

Michelle Gyorke-Takatri, et al. are represented by:

      Matthew Joseph Zevin, Esq.
      Amanda Marie Howell, Esq.
      Stephen Henry Gardner, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      6116 N. Central Expressway
      Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel:(214)443-4300

Gerber Products Company is represented by Bryan Alexander, Esq.
-- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- MERRYMAN, WHITE & CASE LLP; and
Rachel J. Feldman, Esq. -- rfeldman@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND
CASE LLP


NEW YORK: NYPD Faces Class Action Over Misusing Nuisance Law
------------------------------------------------------------
John Riley, writing for Newsday, reports that a Manhattan laundry
owner and two apartment tenants filed a class-action suit in
federal court on Oct. 12 charging the NYPD with misusing nuisance
laws to bully hundreds of people into waiving their constitutional
rights to avoid evictions.

The suit, filed by the Institute for Justice in Arlington,
Virginia, targets laws that give officials the power to shut down
a location used for criminal activity. It says the threat of
closure is used in situations where there is no proof of
wrongdoing to get people to comply with police demands.

One of the plaintiffs, Sung Cho, was allegedly pressured to allow
police access to his security cameras and consent to future fines
and searches after a 2013 police undercover sale of stolen
electronics in his Inwood laundry.

Two Bronx residential tenants who joined the case were forced to
exclude family members from their apartments after police drug
searches that led to no criminal charges, because they didn't want
to face a court proceeding on short notice to evict everyone, the
suit said.

One of the tenants was allegedly targeted although police found
only crushed eggshells during their search, and the city later
settled a wrongful arrest lawsuit.

"City attorneys churn out hundreds or even thousands of these
actions every year, using form legal documents that are filled out
based on stale and unreliable information provided by police," the
suit said.  "City attorneys conduct no independent investigation
to ensure that their allegations are true or that eviction is
warranted."

Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city's law department, said,
"The complaint is under review."

The case is SUNG CHO, NAGLE WASHRITE LLC, DAVID DIAZ, and JAMEELAH
EL-SHABAZZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, BILL DE BLASIO, in his
official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, NEW YORK CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES P. O'NEILL, in his official capacity as
New York City Police Commissioner, NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT,
and ZACHARY W. CARTER, in his official capacity as Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
07961 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ana-Claudia Roderick, Esq.
     GOLENBOCK EISEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOE LLP
     711 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 907-7300
     Fax: (212) 754-0330
     Email: aroderick@golenbock.com

        - and -

     Robert Everett Johnson, Esq.
     Darpana M. Sheth, Esq.
     Robert Everett Johnson, Esq.
     Milad Emam, Esq.
     INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
     901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
     Arlington, VA 22203
     Phone: (703) 682-9320
     Fax: (703) 682-9321
     Email: dsheth@ij.org
            rjohnson@ij.org
            memam@ij.org





NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Zingerman Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled L. ZINGERMAN, D.D.S., P.C., d/b/a Niles
Family Dental, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-07835
(N.D. Ill), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes:

Consumer Fraud Class:

   "all persons and entities that leased or were the original
   purchaser of a 2014 Q50, for end use and not for resale, in
   Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York"; and

Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities that leased or were the original
   purchaser of a 2014 Q50, for end use and not for resale, in
   Illinois".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff as Class
Representative; appoint Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.,
and Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, as Class
Counsel; and enter any other such relief that the Court deems just
and appropriate.

According to the complaint, Nissan engaged in a calculated
consumer fraud. In an attempt to distinguish the Infiniti 2014 Q50
("Q50") from the vehicle's competitors, Nissan advertised and
represented through various marketing materials that Q50s were
equipped with an InTouch infotainment system (the "InTouch
System"), through which users could display and use certain
popular mobile phone apps, including Facebook, Google Search,
Pandora, and iHeartRadio, access and have their emails read aloud,
and access a calendar ("Promised Apps/Functions").

Q50s never functioned as promised. Nissan began selling Q50s in
August 2013. As of this filing, the InTouch System remains
incapable of accessing Pandora and iHeartRadio as promised. Nissan
concedes that these popular audio apps will never be accessible
through Q50s InTouch System. It was not until September 2014 that
a small fraction of the Facebook App became accessible via the
InTouch System-users can only check-in, all other functionality
for the Facebook App is disabled. The Google Search App, ability
to access and have emails read aloud, and the calendaring feature
were also inaccessible via the InTouch System until September
2014. Nissan has offered owners and lessees of Q50s nothing to
compensate them for the failure to deliver these crucial features.

Nissan North America designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=loEgK9BF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621 2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641 5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD, HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619)338 1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


NORTEK GLOBAL: Defeats Class Suit over Defective HVAC Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case
JEREMY AND ELIZABETH BAUER, MATTHEW AITKEN, LARRY POORE, and
STEVEN HILL, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTEK GLOBAL HVAC LLC, NORTEK GLOBAL
HVAC LATIN AMERICA, and NORTEK, INC., Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-1940
(M.D. Tenn.)

Nortek Global HVAC LLC, formerly called Nordyne, Inc., is a
manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment for residential and light commercial use in North
America. Nordyne is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
in O'Fallon Missouri. Nordyne, L.L.C. is the parent company of
Nordyne, Inc. Nordyne, L.L.C.'s business activities include
engineering, manufacturing, assembling, marketing and distributing
HVAC and related products. Nordyne, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
O'Fallon, Missouri. Nordyne International, Inc. engages in
designing, developing, and manufacturing heating and cooling
products for the HVAC market worldwide. Nordyne International,
Inc. is headquartered in Miami, Florida with manufacturing and
distribution facilities in Poplar Bluff and Boonville, Missouri;
and Dyersburg, Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Jeremy and Elizabeth Bauer are residents and citizens
of Brentwood, Tennessee. In June 2009, they had a new Nordyne
NuTone Split Unit installed in their residence. In the five years
since they installed the Nordyne HVAC system in their home in June
2009, the Bauers have spent $805.00 for labor, repairs and
diagnostic costs of their Nordyne Product, despite Nordyne's ten-
year warranty.

Plaintiff Matthew Aitken is a resident and citizen of Augusta,
Georgia. In December 2008, he had a new Nordyne HVAC unit
installed in his residence. Approximately four years after its
purchase, the Nordyne Product stopped cooling properly.

Plaintiff Larry Poore is a resident and citizen of Muncie,
Indiana. In 2008, he had a new Nordyne HVAC unit installed at a
single-family residence he owns in Bradenton, Florida.

Plaintiff Steven Hill is a resident and citizen of Houston, Texas.
On July 16, 2010, he had a new Nordyne HVAC unit which was
manufactured under the Maytag brand name installed at his
residence in Houston, Texas.

According to plaintiffs, the Nortek Products were materially
defective. Specifically, the evaporator coils and the
condenser/condensing unit that Nordyne used in its products were
defectively designed and/or manufactured, resulting in the copper
tubing in the coils prematurely corroding and/or developing holes
or cracks, causing refrigerant to leak from the coils and causing
the Nortek Products to fail long before their expected useful
life.

Plaintiffs brought an action on behalf of themselves and all
members of the classes against defendants, alleging various
claims, including breach of express warranty, breach of written
warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligence, strict
liability and failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and
unjust enrichment:

     -- The Tennessee plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the
Tennessee class brought claims for breach of express warranty and
breach of warranty of merchantability.

     -- The Georgia plaintiff individually and on behalf of the
Georgia class brought claims under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.

     -- The Florida plaintiff individually and on behalf of the
Florida Class brought claims under the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and breach
of implied warranty of merchantability.

     -- The Texas plaintiff individually and on behalf of the
Texas class brought claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied
warranty of merchantability.

Defendants sought dismissal of all claims. Defendants argue that
the requirements of personal jurisdiction and venue are not
satisfied with respect to the claims of the Florida, Texas, and
Georgia plaintiffs and those claims should be dismissed.
Defendants also contend that plaintiffs have failed to make a
prima facie showing of general jurisdiction. Specifically, they
assert, general jurisdiction does not exist because none of the
defendants are either incorporated in Tennessee or maintain a
principal place of business in Tennessee nor have they pled any
facts or circumstances, let alone any exceptional circumstances
that warrant departure from the rule that general jurisdiction
exists. Defendants further contend that the claims alleged by the
plaintiffs do not arise out of or relate to defendants' contacts
with Tennessee, as their units were purchased and installed in
their respective Florida, Georgia, and Texas Home States. Lastly
defendants claim that the statute of limitations precludes all of
the claims brought by the Tennessee plaintiffs.

Judge Sharp granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that
the court does not have general jurisdiction over defendants with
respect to the claims of the Florida, Texas, and Georgia
plaintiffs.  Nortek, Inc. is neither incorporated nor maintains
its principal place of business in Tennessee. Nortek indeed has a
presence in Tennessee with its distribution and manufacturing
facility in Dyersburg. However, plaintiffs have not provided facts
suggesting that Nortek's affiliation with Tennessee is so
continuous and systematic as to render it at home in Tennessee.
Moreover, the Supreme Court, according to Judge Sharp, has made it
clear that the mere presence of a defendant in the forum does not
subject it to all-purpose jurisdiction in that forum. The court
also concludes that specific jurisdiction is not proper for the
Florida, Georgia, and Texas plaintiffs.  There is no general or
specific jurisdiction over defendants with respect to the Florida,
Georgia, and Texas plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Sharp also held that the Tennessee plaintiffs had the
Nordyne NuTone Split Unit installed in their home in June 2009.
Plaintiffs had four years until July 2014 to file their lawsuit.
Unfortunately, they did not file until October 2014. Thus, the
Tennessee plaintiffs' remaining claims accrued upon tender of
delivery and are barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum dated September 30, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/8F1yoe from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Lisa A. White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- at Greg Coleman Law PC; Jonathan B.
Cohen -- Rachel Soffin -- at Morgan & Morgan; Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- at Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; .,  Russell D.
Paul -- rpaul@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- at
Berger & Montague, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Arvin Maskin -- arvin.maskin@weil.com -
- Edward Soto -- edward.soto@weil.com -- Pravin R. Patel --
pravin.patel@weil.com -- Erica Rutner --  at Weil, Gotshal &
Manges; Jessalyn H. Zeigler -- jzeigler@bassberry.com -- John W.
Dawson -- jdawson@bassberry.com -- at Bass, Berry & Sims


NORTH AMERICAN: TCPA Ruling Not Boon for Plaintiffs' Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that though
the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that an unaccepted
offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff in a class action
does not moot the plaintiff's claim, the decision isn't
necessarily a boon for plaintiffs lawyers, one class action
defense attorney argues.

That includes those plaintiffs lawyers who frequently bring class
action lawsuits over Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations,
said Henry Pietrkowski, Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- an
attorney at the Chicago office of Reed Smith LLP.

A big part of Mr. Pietrkowski's practice is defending TCPA cases -
- usually dozens each year.  At first they were lawsuits over junk
or "blast" faxes, and now it's mostly robocalls and text message
claims, he said.

In its January ruling, the Supreme Court didn't say anything
specifically about the federal law, but addressed the so-called
"pick off" defense.  It's a tactic in which a consumer class
action defendant -- often companies -- can try to head off class
claims by offering the named plaintiff his or her full measure of
claimed damages.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the plaintiff alleged
Campbell-Ewald violated the TCPA by sending -- through a third-
party vendor -- unsolicited text messages on behalf of the U.S.
Navy.

Campbell-Ewald, in return, offered Jose Gomez $1,503 per
violation, plus reasonable costs.  The offer was rejected.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the
unaccepted offer did not moot the named plaintiff's individual
claims or the putative class claims.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Ninth Circuit's 2014 decision
was correct.

Before Gomez, some courts accepted that an offer of judgment
mooted the plaintiff's claim and deprived the court of Article III
jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff's claim is moot, there is no
"case or controversy" as required for the court to have
jurisdiction.

While the Supreme Court indeed eliminated a tactic TCPA class
action defendants could use in the past to limit class action
liability, Mr. Pietrkowski, a member of Reed Smith's Financial
Industry Group, argues the ruling hasn't really changed much --
for either side.

"Gomez, I don't think, has greatly changed the landscape (of TCPA
class action litigation)," he told Legal Newsline.

While he readily admitted the decision isn't a great one for TCPA
defendants, Mr. Pietrkowski noted that it did leave a narrow
opening for defense attorneys, such as himself.

The justices, in their ruling, said they would not decide whether
the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable
to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount.

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

Basically, the Supreme Court's decision has left open the question
of what happens when money is tendered -- as in, deposited with
the court.

"The defense bar has jumped on that," Mr. Pietrkowski admitted.

So far, the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit are the only federal appellate courts to consider
that very issue.

In Chen v. Allstate, the Ninth Circuit ruled that defendant
Allstate Insurance Company could not put an end to a class action
lawsuit by depositing $20,000 in a court-controlled, bank escrow
account.

Allstate had argued the amount would moot the named plaintiff's
claims.

The Ninth Circuit, in its April ruling, affirmed an order by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denying Allstate's motion to dismiss.

"Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law, a claim becomes
moot when a plaintiff actually receives complete relief on that
claim, not merely when that relief is offered or tendered,"
Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher wrote in the panel's ruling.

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

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

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

"Even if we assume that an unaccepted cashier's check could moot a
claim, NAB has not shown that its tender satisfies Mey's demand
for relief, which the tender must do if it is to moot Mey's
individual claims," Circuit Judge Danny Boggs wrote for a three-
judge panel.

Mr. Pietrkowski agrees with some plaintiffs lawyers that it's
likely the Supreme Court will be forced to revisit the issue and
provide a more clear-cut ruling.

And more rulings from federal appellate courts will only add fuel
to that fire, he said, noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has a number of appeals on the issue pending
before it.

"If the Second Circuit would say, for example, all you have to do
is deposit that money -- well, that would be a huge change, and
could pave the way for the Supreme Court to review the issue," Mr.
Pietrkowski said.

According to a Debt Collection Litigation and CFPB (Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau) Complaint Statistics Report last
month, the number of TCPA lawsuit filings are up nearly 13 percent
compared to the same period -- July 1 to July 31 -- last year.

The report, from WebRecon, a Michigan-based company that helps
collection agencies segregate debtors with a history of filing
lawsuits under TCPA and other federal statutes, also found that,
year-to-date, TCPA filings have increased by 43.3 percent.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Bogatzki, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID BOGATZKI and PETER LENTINI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-1373 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs filed a
placeholder motion asking the Court to enter an order certifying a
class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of 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=SF8nLwCP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


OH INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid in "Abante" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., the
Plaintiff, v. Oh Insurance Agency, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-09025 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an
order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 11,
2016, the Plaintiff's pending motions including motion to seal
document exhibit, motion for extension of time, and motion for
leave to file excess pages are granted without objection by
Defendants. The notice motion date of Oct. 18, 2016 is stricken.
Another status hearing previously set for Dec. 15, 2016 at 9:30
a.m. will proceed.

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


PDR NETWORK: Judge Tosses Carlton & Harris Junk Fax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert C. Chambers of the Southern District
West Virginia, Huntington Division, granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a West
Virginia corporation, individually and as a representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. PDR NETWORK,
LLC, PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, PDR EQUITY, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-14887 (S.D. W.Va.).

Plaintiff Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. brought a class
action suit against PDR Network LLC, PDR Distribution, LLC, and
PDR Equity, LLC for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, claiming PDR sent unsolicited fax
advertising in violation of the TCPA.

Plaintiff alleged that PDR sent a single fax to plaintiff's
office. The fax offers the recipient a free Physicians' Desk
Reference eBook. The fax describes the reference book as
containing the same trusted, FDA-approved full prescribing
information. The fax also provides a website which the recipient
can visit to download the book, a customer service email and phone
number, and a prominent picture of an electronic device with the
cover of the book displayed. Plaintiff contends that the single
fax is an unsolicited advertisement and its transmission is in
violation of the TCPA.

PDR filed a motion to dismiss and argues that the class action
complaint should be dismissed because the sole fax at issue in is
not an advertisement as a matter of law. PDR Network maintains the
fax is not an advertisement because it does not offer anything for
purchase or sale, and its primary purpose is to inform members,
not sell a product or service. PDR also filed a motion for
judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Judge Chambers granted both motions and reasoned that the TCPA
prohibits unsolicited advertisements sent via fax. The TCPA
unambiguously requires a fax to be commercial in nature to be
considered an advertisement. PDR's fax neither offers anything for
sale, nor does PDR plausibly benefit commercially from the free
distribution of the Physicians' Desk Reference. Accordingly, PDR's
fax is not commercial in nature and therefore not an advertisement
as defined by the TCPA.

A copy of Judge Chambers's memorandum opinion and order dated
September 30, 2016, is available https://goo.gl/EyDjZo from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, represented by:

D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
David H. Carriger, Esq.
W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
THE CALWELL PRACTICE
500 Randolph Street
Charleston, WV 25302
Telephone: 304-400-6558
Facsimile: 304-344-3684

     - and -

Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: 847-368-1500
Facsimile: 847-368-1501

Defendants, represented by Alexander L. Turner --
alex.turner@nelsonmullins.com -- Marc E. Williams --
marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough; Anahit Tagvoryan -- ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com --
Jeffrey N. Rosenthal -- Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com -- at Blank
Rome.


PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Faces Class Action Over Natural Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against People Against
Dirty Manufacturing PBC, a cleaning products manufacturer, citing
alleged deceptive and unfair business practices over its all
natural label.

Gayle Greenwood filed a complaint in St. Clair County Circuit
Court against People Against Dirty Manufacturing PBC, alleging the
cleaning products manufacturer violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in March
she purchased defendant's Method Power Foam Dish Soap Natural
Dishwashing Foam after seeing that it had an all-natural label.
However, she claims the product is not all natural or naturally
derived.

Ms. Greenwood alleges she suffered damages for paying a premium
price for the product.  The plaintiff alleges the defendant
claimed that its products are all natural and/or naturally derived
and deceived customers into believing that its products include
only natural ingredients, when in fact they don't.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks certification of
this case as class action.  An injunction against the defendant's
alleged ongoing deceptive practices, an award for declaratory and
injunctive relief, an appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative and her counsel as class counsel, and for all other
relief as may be just and proper.  She is represented by David C.
Nelson of Nelson & Nelson, Attorney at Law PC in Belleville,
Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St. Louis and
Stuart L. Cochran of Cochran Law PLLC in Dallas.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-4


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued Over Illegal Speeding Citations
------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case captioned DOMINICK OWENS, 5116 Tulip
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124; RACHAEL BELL, 31 Cotton Road
Levittown, PA 19057; and MARK ZYCH, 127 Myrtle Avenue, Cheltenham,
PA 19012, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 1515 Arch
Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102, the Defendant, Case No.
61000388 (Phil. Ct. of Common Pleas, Oct. 4, 2016), seek
certification of the following class pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure:

   All individuals who were stopped and cited by PPD officers for
   violations of Subchapter F on limited access highways and
   divided highways within the City of Philadelphia at a time
   where the PPD did not have a current SEA with the State Police
   allowing the PPD to enforce speed restrictions under
   Subchapter F on those highways, including, but not limited to,
   citations issued by the PPD for Subchapter F violations on
   1-95,1-76, and 1-676, from July 17,2012 to present.

Plaintiffs Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
demand judgment against Defendant for damages in excess of
$50,000, plus punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, and for
such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Philadelphia is Pennsylvania's largest city.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Kang, Esq.
          David P. Dean, Esq.
          Jason E. Powell, Esq.
          KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 525 5850
          Facsimile: (215) 525 5860
          E-mail: ekang@LawKHF.com
                  ddean@LawKHF.com
                  jpowell@LawKHF.com


PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Meal Break Class Certified in "Ehmann"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ERIC EHMANN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE MANUFACTURING,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00247-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach conditionally certified a class of
similarly situated employees defined as:

     "all hourly Production employees and contractors at Pierce
     Manufacturing, Inc.'s Wisconsin facilities who at any time
     between February 29, 2013 and February 21, 2016 worked a
     shift that included a 20 minute meal break and were not paid
     for the entirety of the break(s).

The court ordered Pierce to produce, within ten days of this
order, the last known address and telephone number of all putative
class members, and provide it to Ehmann.

Judge Griesbach said, "based on the record before me, I conclude
that defining the class as 'production employees subject to
impermissible time shaving' does not truly capture the common
issue of the case. As Pierce suggests, 'time shaving' could
describe an array of wage and hour violations involving differing
legal theories, evidence, and remedies. (Def.'s Mem. in Opp. at
11, ECF No. 93); see, e.g., Brickey v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 272
F.R.D. 344, 345 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that managers' practice
of 'shaving off time' from time records to avoid paying overtime
violated the FLSA); Falcon v. Starbucks Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d
528, 533 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (defining defendant's failure to pay
plaintiff and other assistant store managers for off-the-clock
work as 'time shaving'). Here, Pierce identifies a specific policy
to which the potential plaintiffs were commonly subject. It
concedes that it did not pay its production employees for 10
minutes of their 20 minute meal break each shift. (Def.'s Mem. In
Opp. at 11, ECF No. 93.) Based on the facts now before the Court,
the only common element among the potential plaintiffs is Pierce's
meal break policy. As such, the issue in this case is the
lawfulness of Pierce's policy to not compensate Ehmann and all
other non-exempt production employees for one-half of the 20
minute meal break."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2bvAb4GB


PRIDE: December Hearing Set in Mobility Scooter Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Day reports that the UK's first application for a class
action will be heard in December before the Competition Appeal
Tribunal.

Dot Gibson, the General Secretary of the National Pensioners
Convention (NPC), launched the case in May 2016 against Pride
Mobility Products Limited.  This is the first class action to be
brought following the procedure being brought in by the Consumer
Rights Act 2015 in October 2015.

Ms. Gibson is seeking compensation for around 30,000 people who
were allegedly overcharged for their Pride brand scooter between
2010 and 2012.  If the claim succeeds, class members could be
entitled to compensation of up to around GBP200 each.

On July 15, 2016, the Competition Appeal Tribunal set directions
and a hearing date of 12-13 December 2016 for determining whether
to make a collective proceedings order and whether Ms Gibson
should be authorized to proceed with the class action.

The claim follows on from a 2014 decision of the Office of Fair
Trading that Pride had breached competition law by banning
retailers from advertising prices online below Pride's recommended
retail price (RRP).  Ms. Gibson claims that this made it harder
for potentially vulnerable consumers to shop around for the best
price and led to them paying too much for their scooter.

Ms. Gibson is seeking to bring this case for the class of
consumers who bought a Pride brand mobility scooter between
February 2010 and February 2012, from any retailer in the UK,
whether online or in a shop.

Pride disputes that its conduct had any impact on the prices paid
by consumers.  If the class action proceeds, then that issue will
be decided by the Tribunal.

The class action procedure was only introduced into UK law in
October 2015.  Class actions differ from the group actions by
large groups of people that have to date been brought in the
courts.  Class actions may only be brought with the permission of
the Competition Appeal Tribunal.  They are brought by one
representative whose duty is to act in the interests of a "class"
of people as a whole.

If Ms. Gibson is successful in her application for a Collective
Proceedings Order, she will represent all class members in the
Tribunal proceedings, except for anyone who takes steps to opt-out
or anyone living outside the UK.

Ms. Gibson said: "I'm applying to act as class representative to
stand up for all those who paid too much for their mobility
scooter.  Mobility scooters help people get out of the house and
live decent independent lives. If people have been overcharged,
then that is wrong and should be put right."

Chris Haan, Ms. Gibson's solicitor from Leigh Day's consumer law
team, said: "This case is the first class action in UK legal
history.  The new regime has the potential to significantly
improve consumer rights in the UK.  If Ms. Gibson is successful,
around 30,000 consumers will automatically be eligible for
compensation, without having to sign up with lawyers or bring
their own cases."

Any interested parties who wish to object to Ms Gibson's
appointment as the class representative or who wish to object to
the class action being certified must do so by 4:00 p.m. on
November 11, 2016, by sending a letter to the Tribunal:

Address: The Registrar, Competition Appeal Tribunal, Victoria
House, Bloomsbury Place, London, WC1A 2EB
Reference: Gibson v Pride Mobility Products Ltd, Case No.
1257/7/7/16

Ms. Gibson's application to act as class representative will then
be decided by the Tribunal following a hearing that will be held
on 12-13 December 2016 at:

Competition Appeal Tribunal
Victoria House
Bloomsbury Place
London
WC1A 2EB

The National Pensioners Convention has set up a website for anyone
wishing to learn more about the case, including potential class
members: www.scooterclassaction.co.uk


PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Deck Resurfacing Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Kaye , writing for Legal Newsline, reports that six
consumers filed a class action lawsuit in September against the
manufacturer of a deck resurfacing product, alleging false
advertising, representation and a breach of warranties.

Greg Hoover, Renee Gravlee, Jan Pankow, John R. Davis, Jana Berg
and Elizabeth Mortensen filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against PPG
Industries Inc., alleging false claims on behalf of the defendant
regarding its deck and concrete resurfacing products, Olympic
Rescue It!

"PPG is aware of the filing of a class action lawsuit regarding
Olympic 'Rescue it!,'" Mark Silvey, director of corporate
communications for PPG, told Legal Newsline.

Mr. Silvey said the company intends to fight.

"PPG plans to vigorously defend itself against the allegations,"
Mr. Silvey said.

According to the complaint, the consumers purchased Olympic Rescue
It! deck and concrete resurfacing products in order to create a
renewed and long-lasting surface on decks and concrete that is
resistant to cracking and peeling.  However, according to the
defendants, the product did not adhere to their decks and
allegedly began cracking and peeling a short time after
application.

Olympic is a paint and stain company with corporate headquarters
in Pittsburgh. Its line of Rescue It! outdoor resurfacers promises
"a durable coating for wood and concrete splits and cracks up to
¬" deep."

Rescue It! also assures its consumers the product "helps to hide
surface imperfections."  Olympic advertised the sealants as ideal
for lightly to moderately worn wood and concrete.  Rescue It! is
also supposed to waterproof surfaces and provide a non-slip
textured outdoor surface.

Olympic has claimed that there is no set time period for a sealant
to last, and that this would depend on how worn the material is to
start.  The plaintiffs claim the product broke down in an
unreasonably short period of time.

The claimants allege that the use of Olympic Rescue It!, as
directed in the manufacturer' instructions, has resulted in lost
money and property.  The plaintiffs claim, according to the
complaint filed, that the manufacturer claimed the product would
protect deck surfaces for years and profited from the product
without testing it.

The claim alleges that PPG profited from sales of the product
without properly compensating consumers for lost money, damages
and repairs necessary to property after application of the product
failed to deliver successful results.

Despite the class action lawsuit, PPG continues to uphold claims
that Olympic Rescue It! is a reliable resurfacing product.

"Olympic Rescue It! is an innovative, high-performance coating for
worn or weathered wood and concrete surfaces," Mr. Silvey said.

The plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury, an order certifying a
class action and the appointing of class representatives and
counsel. They are also seeking three times actual damages,
recompense for attorneys fees and court costs, restitution and all
other relief the court deems appropriate.

The plaintiffs in the claim are represented by attorneys James F.
McDonough III -- JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- of Heninger Garrison
Davis LLC in Atlanta and by Taylor C. Bartlett --
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- and W. Lewis Garrison Jr. --
wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- of Heninger Garrison Davis in
Birmingham, Alabama.


PRIVATE ADVISORY: "Farr" Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
James S. Farr, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Private Advisory Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01565 (W.D. Wash., October 6, 2016), seeks the
maximum damages allowed by law, costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief resulting from negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty and violation of the Washington Securities Law.

Plaintiff purchased securities issued by Aequitas Holdings, LLC
through Private Advisory Group. Aequitas made it appear to him
that it was secure, stable and liquid.  However, Aequitas was
allegedly hemorrhaging cash and using new investor money to
temporarily delay the shortage of its funds for its retirement
investors. Its securities were also not registered under
Washington securities laws. Aequitas had a conflict of interest
because it owns a controlling interest in Private Advisory Group,
LLC.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brad J. Moore, Esq.
      STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER
      3600 15th Avenue West, #300
      Seattle, WA 98119-1330
      Telephone: (206) 448-1777
      Facsimile: (206) 728-2131
      Email: brad@stritmatter.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Pierluca, et al. Seek Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARIO PIERLUCA and MARCUS HOLMES, on their
own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01580-JSM-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of:

   "all former employees of Quality Resources who were terminated
   and/or laid off without cause from their employment at Quality
   Resources on or about May 16, 2016, as part of the mass layoff
   (or plant closing), as defined by the Worker Adjustment and
   Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 2101 et seq.,
   or who were terminated prior to or thereafter as the
   reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff, who do
   not file a timely request to opt-out of the class".

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant ceased operations and terminated
approximately 178 employees. Approximately 157 additional
employees were terminated in the 70 days leading up to May 16,
2016, according to the records produced thus far. The Defendant
has admitted that it employed at least 100 employees as defined by
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and
that mass layoff or plant shutdown affected at least 1/3 of the
workforce and at least 50 employees. Quality Resources terminated
the Class Representatives and Class Members without giving 60
days' advance notice.

Quality Resources operates as a performance-based customer
acquisition marketing services provider.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
          KWALL, SHOWERS, BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.
          133 North Fort Harrison Avenue
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 441 4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447 3158
          E-mail: rbarack@ksbclaw.com
                  jackie@ksbclaw.com
                  mnadeau@ksbclaw.com
                  jackie@ksbclaw.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Newhart"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARREN NEWHART, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS
INC., and SETERUS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 9:15-cv-81250-
RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify a class to address
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.  On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff moved to
certify his TCPA claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(3) as to
the following class:

     "All persons in the United States to whom: (1) Quicken
     Loans made a call, (2) to a telephone number assigned to
     a cellular telephone service, and (3) were identified by
     Quicken Loans as a Fannie Mae Seterus HARP Qualified Lead
     from July 1, 2015 through the date of class certification."

The predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) is unmet, the Court said.   The Court explained that
Plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate that the
prior express written consent issue can be resolved for all class
members by common evidence.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XK5wkvNL


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Accepts Bazinet Expert Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony by Dr. Richard T.
Bazinet in the case captioned, PHILLIP RACIES, Plaintiff, v.
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).

The case is a putative consumer class action alleging that
Defendant Quincy Bioscience, LLC's made false, misleading, and
deceptive statements about the effects of its brain health
supplement, Prevagen. Specifically, Plaintiff Phillip Racies
alleges that Prevagen does not improve memory or brain function,
contrary to the claims made on the product's labeling, because the
only purported active ingredient, apoaequorin (AQ), is completely
destroyed by the digestive system and transformed into component
parts that cannot affect the brain in a way different than other
sources of dietary protein.  Plaintiff asserts claims under
California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL"), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq. ("CLRA").

Defendant previously moved to dismiss the complaint, which the
Court granted in part and denied in part. The Court held that
Plaintiff could not bring UCL and CLRA claims based on the theory
that Defendant failed to substantiate its brain health claims
before marketing Prevagen, but could bring those claims based on a
theory of false representations.

Defendant moves to exclude the expert opinion of Dr. Richard T.
Bazinet, which was submitted by Plaintiff Racies in connection
with his cross-motion for partial summary judgment and his
opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant
argues that Dr. Bazinet's expert opinion should be excluded: (1)
he is unqualified to opine about protein digestion and absorption;
(2) his opinion is irrelevant, because the only issue in this case
is whether AQ is digested into single amino acids, not small
peptides, which indisputably can have biological functions beyond
providing nutrition; and (3) his method is unreliable because he
did not conduct any human testing on AQ to determine how it is
digested, but instead relied on the unjustified extrapolation of
general scientific principles of protein digestion.

In response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff
filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of
falsity. Plaintiff argues that not only do Dr. Bazinet's expert
report and testimony raise a genuine dispute of material fact with
respect to whether Defendant's label claims are false, no
reasonable jury could conclude that its claims are true based on
Dr. Bazinet's explanation of fundamental nutritional science.

In his Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qIaBgq from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found
Defendant's arguments meritless because Dr. Bazinet is qualified
to opine on, at the very least, the fundamental tenets of protein
digestion and protein metabolism as it relates to protein
absorption through the blood-brain barrier; his testimony relevant
to the case; and principles and his method of extrapolation from
those principles to reach a conclusion about the effect of protein
digestion on AQ are reliable.

Phillip Racies is represented by Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq. --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. -- eryan@bffb.com --
and Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq. -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- BONNETT,
FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN, & BALINT, P.C.; and Max A. Stein, Esq. --
mstein@boodlaw.com -- Nada Djordjevic, Esq. --
ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- and Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. --
sweltman@boodlaw.com -- BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC

Quincy Bioscience, LLC is represented by Joshua G. Simon, Esq. --
jsimon@calljensen.com -- Matthew Ryan Orr, Esq. --
morr@calljensen.com -- and William Paul Cole, Esq. --
wcole@calljensen.com -- CALL AND JENSEN; and Yixin H. Tang, Esq.
-- yixin@amintalati.com -- AMIN TALATI UPADHYE, LLC


RL REPPERT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Askew" ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Knoll Gardner of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on the remaining issues presented in the case
DERRICK ASKEW, Plaintiff, v. R.L. REPPERT, INC.; RICHARD L.
REPPERT; R.L. REPPERT, INC. EMPLOYEES PROFIT SHARING 401(k) PLAN;
and R.L. REPPERT, INC. MONEY PURCHASE PLAN (DAVIS BACON PLAN),
Defendants, v. R.L. REPPERT, INC.; RICHARD L. REPPERT; R.L.
REPPERT, INC. EMPLOYEES PROFIT SHARING 401(k) PLAN; and R.L.
REPPERT, INC. MONEY PURCHASE PLAN (DAVIS BACON PLAN), Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA PENSION ADMINISTRATORS & CONSULTANTS,
INC., Third-Party Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-cv-04003 (E.D.
Pa.)

In June 17, 2011, plaintiff Derrick Askew filed a six-count class
action complaint against the defendants:

     -- Count One alleged violations of the document production
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), among other sections, 29 U.S.C. Section 1024(b)(4);
and sought statutory penalties pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(c)(2) against Reppert, Inc. as plan administrator;

     -- Count Two of the complaint averred the same violations as
Count One and sought injunctive relief to compel Reppert, Inc. and
Richard L. Reppert to satisfy their statutory document production
obligations under ERISA;

     -- Count Three asserted that Reppert, Inc. and Richard L.
Reppert failed to establish a trust in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1103;

     -- Count Four alleged that defendants Reppert, Inc. and Mr.
Reppert breached their fiduciary duties in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104, by among other things, failing to document, disclose
and report on the 401(k) Plan in accordance with ERISA;

     -- Count Five averred that Reppert, Inc. and Mr. Reppert
conducted prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1106; and

     -- Count Six alleged that defendants denied benefits owed to
plaintiff and seeks a declaration of benefits.

Judge James Gardner presided over a three-day non-jury trial on
February 29, 2016; and March 1 and 2, 2016.  On May 6, 2016, the
parties filed their post-trial proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

Following his decisions on the parties' motions for summary
judgment, the issues raised at trial which remain for adjudication
include, with respect to plaintiff's class action complaint:

     -- Count One: (1) whether defendant R.L. Reppert, Inc. is
liable under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1024(b)(4) and 1132(c)(1) for any
failure to produce other custodial agreements for the R.L.
Reppert, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan apart from the
custodial agreement with Nationwide Trust Company, FSB and what
penalties, if any, should be imposed for defendant Reppert, Inc.'s
failure to timely produce plan documents for the periods December
6, 2008 to October 2, 2009 and May 17, 2012 to January 1, 2015.

     -- Count Four: whether defendant Reppert, Inc. was required
by 29 U.S.C. Section 1023(a)(3)(A) and failed to engage an
independent qualified public accountant to conduct an audit of the
401(k) Plan for plan years 2008 through 2011.

The issues raised at trial which remain for adjudication also
include, with respect to defendants and third-party plaintiffs'
Amended Third Party Complaint:

     -- Count One: whether third-party defendant California
Pension Administrators & Consultants, Inc. breached its contract
with defendant and third-party plaintiff Reppert, Inc. to provide
plan administration and recordkeeping services for the 401(k)
Plan.

     -- Count Two: whether CalPac, either knowingly or recklessly,
misrepresented the nature of its plan administration and
recordkeeping services to third-party plaintiff Reppert, Inc.

As to Count One with respect to plaintiff's class action
complaint, Judge Gardner held that Reppert, Inc. is not liable
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c)(1) for any failure to produce any
other custodial agreements for the 401(k) Plan apart from a
custodial agreement with Nationwide Trust Company, FSB.

However, Judge Gardner imposed on Reppert, Inc. a document penalty
of $15,959 for its failure to timely produce plan documents for
the period December 6, 2008 to October 2, 2009; and for its
failure to timely produce its custodial agreement with the
Nationwide Trust Company for the period May 17, 2012 to January 1,
2015.

Regarding Count Four of plaintiff's class action complaint, Judge
Gardner concluded that Reppert, Inc. failed to engage an
independent qualified public accountant to conduct an audit of the
401(k) Plan for plan years 2008 through 2011 as required by 29
U.S.C. Section 1023(a)(3)(A). In particular, Judge Gardner found
that the 401(k) Plan did not qualify for an audit exemption for
those years, because it had more than 120 participants at the
beginning of the 2008 plan year and was thus not permitted to file
a simplified annual report.

Regarding Count One of defendants' and third-party plaintiffs'
amended third party complaint, Judge Gardner concluded that
defendants and third-party plaintiffs have failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that third-party defendant CalPac
breached its contract with defendant and third-party plaintiff
Reppert, Inc. to provide plan administration and recordkeeping
services for the 401(k) Plan.

Regarding Count Two of defendants' and third-party plaintiffs'
amended third party complaint, Judge Gardner concluded that
defendants and third-party plaintiffs have failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that third-party defendant CalPac,
either knowingly or recklessly, misrepresented the nature of its
plan administration and recordkeeping services to third-party
plaintiff Reppert, Inc.

A copy of Judge Gardner's adjudication dated September 30, 2016,
is available at https://goo.gl/W8ecyO from Leagle.com.

Derrick Askew, Plaintiff, represented by Kent Cprek --
kcprek@jslex.com -- Marc L. Gelman -- mgelman@jslex.com -- Maureen
Marra -- mmarra@jslex.com -- at Jennings Sigmond

R.L. Reppert, Inc., Richard L. Reppert, R.L. Reppert, Inc.
Employees Profit Sharing 401(K) Plan, and R.L. Reppert, Inc. Money
Purchase Plan (Davis Bacon Plan), Defendants and Third Party
Plaintiffs, represented by Walter H. Flamm Jr., --
whflamm@flammlaw.com -- at Flamm Walton Heimbach & Lamm PC

California Pension Administrators & Consultants, Inc., Third Party
Defendant, represented by Daniel Strick --
dstrick@lucascavalier.com -- Robert M. Cavalier --
rcavalier@lucascavalier.com -- at Lucas & Cavalier LLC


SAMSUNG: 9th Cir. Trial Begins in Suit Over Galaxy S4 Phones
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit on October 17, heard arguments in two class
actions involving Samsung's attempts to send class action claims
over its Galaxy smartphones to arbitration, but did not indicate
how it would rule in either case.

The first case, filed in 2014 by Daniel Norcia in San Francisco,
claims Samsung programmed its 16 gigabyte Galaxy S4 smartphone to
give users the impression it runs faster and performs better than
it actually does. Norcia also claims Samsung lied to consumers
about how much storage capacity the phone has.

At issue is an arbitration agreement in the warranty booklet that
came with Norcia's phone. Norcia says he never knew about the
arbitration agreement because he left the booklet and the box at
the store, taking home only the phone and other hardware.

Samsung moved to compel Norcia to arbitrate his claims based on
the arbitration agreement, arguing that even though Norcia didn't
take the booklet and box with him, he received the warranty and
the arbitration agreement when he bought the phone.

But U.S. District Judge James Donato denied Samsung's motion to
compel, finding that though Norcia voluntarily declined the box,
he hadn't entered into a contract for arbitration because he
wasn't aware of the arbitration clause before buying the phone.

Samsung attorney Sean Unger told a three-judge panel on October
17, that warranties are "bilateral contracts," and that Norcia
signed a customer agreement receipt when he paid for the phone,
acknowledging he bought a warranty with his purchase.

"We have [presale notice] on the box and we also have a receipt
that notes a warranty," Unger said. "He's bound by it."

But Norcia says he wouldn't have learned about the arbitration
clause even if he had taken the box home, pointing in a brief to
Donato's finding that although the box indicated it contained a
warranty booklet, it did not mention an arbitration agreement. Nor
did the customer agreement receipt mention a warranty, Norcia
says.

Responding to Unger's argument on October 17, Norcia's attorney
John Hurley said Norcia received no presale notice because he
didn't get the box until after he bought the phone. And, Hurley
said, a warranty is merely a promise from the manufacturer, not a
bilateral contract.

"It doesn't put an individual on notice they will be bound in any
way or that they will owe any duties to the manufacturer," he
said.

The second class action, filed in 2014 by Hoai Dang in San Jose,
claims Samsung infringed on Apple's patents in manufacturing the
Galaxy S3, diminishing its intrinsic and resale value after patent
infringement verdicts in Apple's favor.

Dang too says he never accepted the arbitration agreement in the
product guide that came with his phone because he didn't know it
existed. He says in a brief to the Ninth Circuit that he was never
told the guide contained contractual terms he would be bound by if
he didn't opt out within 30 days of purchase, nor did the phone's
box alert him to the existence of those terms.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in August 2015 granted Samsung's
motion to compel arbitration, finding that even if Dang did not
read the arbitration clause, he was still bound by it.

Koh also found that Samsung adequately showed the arbitration
clause was not "inconspicuous," and that Dang's acceptance of the
agreement was implied because he didn't opt out of it.

Samsung contends in its brief to the Ninth Circuit that Dang
agreed to the warranty, including its arbitration provision, as
soon as he bought the phone.

Samsung attorney Mark Dosker told the panel Monday that it was
"not any stretch of the law to rule as Judge Koh ruled."

"The contract was formed when Mr. Dang bought this single,
unitary, shrink-wrapped, in-the-box product," Dosker said.

But Dang's attorney Karla Gilbride told the panel that Dang's
booklet does not mention arbitration until page 15, and merely
instructs the user to call Sprint to learn about the terms and
conditions. She said the phone's box had just one word printed on
it about a warranty and nothing about binding terms and
conditions.

"Parties may not form contracts by burying a needle in a haystack
and wait for the other party to find it," Gilbride said.

The appeal is before Chief Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas and Circuit
Judges Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta.

Sean Unger -- seanunger@paulhastings.com -- is with Paul Hastings
in San Francisco; Hurley with Prometheus Partners, also in San
Francisco.

Mark Dosker -- Mark.Dosker@squirepb.com -- is with Squire Patton
Boggs in San Francisco; Karla Gilbride with Public Justice in
Washington.


SLATER& GORDON: To Vigorously Defend Shareholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that that embattled legal
firm Slater and Gordon says it will vigorously defend a class
action brought by investors hit by its 2015 share price slump.

More than 3,000 shareholders who lost more than $250 million when
Slater and Gordon shares fell by almost 95 per cent within eight
months have so far signed up to an open class action filed by
rival law firm Maurice Blackburn.

They claim Slater and Gordon misrepresented to the market, and
failed to disclose in a timely way, a range of information about
its financial performance and prospects.

It mainly relates to the firm's disclosure of details of its $1.2
billion acquisition of Quindell's professional services division
in the UK.

"Slater and Gordon has engaged external legal advisors to act for
it and will vigorously defend the claim," managing director Andrew
Grech said in a statement.

"The class action will not affect the day to day conduct of Slater
and Gordon's client matters."

A second legal firm, ACA Lawyers, also plans to launch class
action proceedings against Slater and Gordon over what financial
information the company disclosed to the stock market, and when.


SONY: PS3 Owners Can Submit Claims in Linux Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Samit Sarkar, writing for Polygon, reports that Sony customers who
purchased one of the original launch PlayStation 3 consoles can
now submit claims in a nationwide class-action lawsuit regarding
the company's removal of Linux support from the system, according
to a settlement notice sent out on Oct. 12.

The lawsuit, which is known as In re Sony PS3 "Other OS"
Litigation and has been working its way through the courts for
more than six years, concerns the "OtherOS" feature that the PS3
had at launch.  OtherOS allowed users to set aside part of their
PS3's hard drive and install Linux on that partition.  But Sony,
citing security concerns, removed the feature with a system
software update in April 2010.  That led aggrieved customers to
sue the company later that year, alleging breach of warranty,
false advertising and other offenses.

Sony and the plaintiffs reached a proposed settlement this past
June, and a federal judge granted preliminary approval in
September.  Anybody who purchased a "Fat" PS3 -- yes, that's how
the lawsuit officially refers to the consoles in question --
between Nov. 1, 2006, and April 1, 2010, is eligible to
participate in the settlement. (As is customary in settlements of
this sort, Sony is not admitting any wrongdoing.)

Under the terms of the agreement, the settlement class is split
into two groups.  U.S. residents who purchased a "Fat" PS3 during
those dates, known as Consumer Class B, are eligible for a payment
of $9 each.  U.S. residents who did so and actually used the
OtherOS feature -- Consumer Class A -- are eligible to receive $55
each.

Claimants must submit claim forms on the settlement website, in
addition to proof of purchase for the PS3 plus a PlayStation
Network ID used on that PS3 before April 1, 2010.  Claimants in
Class A must also submit proof that they used the OtherOS feature.
(For more details, see the FAQ on the settlement website.) The
deadline to file claims is Dec. 7.  The court will hold a hearing
on Jan. 24, 2017, to decide whether to approve the settlement; if
it is approved and there are no appeals, payments will be sent out
approximately 40 days afterward.

As for how much Sony will end up paying in the settlement, the
total depends on a few factors, including how many claims are
approved.  Sony had sold 13.5 million PS3s in the U.S. by November
2010, seven months after the period of eligibility for this
lawsuit.  However, the company had launched the "Slim" redesign of
the console in September 2009, so a decent portion of the 13.5
million units would have been Slim systems -- and thus, ineligible
for this class-action lawsuit.  It's also unclear how many PS3
owners actually bothered to install Linux; paying $9 to a few
million customers is very different from paying $55 to a group of
the same size.


SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in Ponce De Leon Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Miguel Ponce De Leon, and other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Southern
Transport Group, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
23879-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a
class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   "all people employed by Defendant Southern, performed services
   on Defendants behalf, and/or performed services which
   benefited Defendant in any way, at any time for the past 3
   years, and who was classified and/or described by Defendant as
   a "Driver" and/or "Chauffer" or the like".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to:

   a. require Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel with the
      list both by hard copy and electronically -- in an Excel
      spreadsheet with each person listed alphabetically from "A"
      to "Z" and with each person' last-known home address,
      telephone number, e-mail address, and social security
      number in a separate field corresponding with each name;

   b. authorize Plaintiff counsel's mailing of a Court-approved
      notice to all such persons about their right to opt into
      this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit
      (in the proposed forms attached hereto and incorporated
      herein; and

   c. require that the parties' counsel confer on the contents of
      the Notice and, if the parties' counsel are unable to agree
      on the form, they are to submit the disputed issues to this
      Court for resolution and such submissions shall occur no
      less than 15 days after the entry of the Order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNP8XQM2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Lincoln" Suit Over Prop. Sale to Enbridge
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY LINCOLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SPECTRA ENERGY CORP., GREGORY L. EBEL, F. ANTHONY
COMPER, AUSTIN A. ADAMS, JOSEPH ALVARADO, PAMELA L. CARTER,
CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., PETER B. HAMILTON, MIRANDA C. HUBBS,
MICHAEL MCSHANE, MICHAEL G. MORRIS, and MICHAEL E.J. PHELPS, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03019 (S.D. Tex., October 10, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' attempt to let the Company be acquired by Enbridge,
Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary Sand Merger Sub, Inc.

SPECTRA ENERGY CORP., through its subsidiaries and equity
affiliates, owns and operates a large and diversified portfolio of
complementary natural gas-related energy assets.

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

        - and -

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


STATE FARM: 7th Circuit Seeks Review of Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that State Farm has asked
Seventh Circuit appellate judges to review certification of a $7.6
billion class action over its role in the election of Illinois
Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier 12 years ago.

State Farm petitioned the Seventh Circuit for permission to appeal
on Sept. 30, two weeks after District Judge David Herndon of East
St. Louis certified a class.

Plaintiffs claim State Farm secretly supported Justice Karmeier in
order to overturn a $1 billion verdict that their class had won in
Williamson County.

State Farm's petition challenges federal jurisdiction, calling the
case an attack on the state judiciary.

"This is the same class that the Illinois Supreme Court
unanimously held was not certifiable as a matter of law,"
Ronald Safer of Chicago wrote.

Safer wrote that the damages are the exact amount of a judgment
that the Illinois Supreme Court vacated, with interest and
tripling of damages.

"The only way that plaintiffs were injured by exactly that amount
is if the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to decertify the class
was wrong," he wrote.

"That the requested remedy is the same is a clear demonstration
that the federal suit would effectively overturn the Illinois
Supreme Court decision.

"The claims thus directly question the integrity of Justice
Karmeier, soon to be Chief Justice, and the Illinois Supreme
Court."

The original case started in 1997, on behalf of policyholders
claiming they received inferior parts for crash repairs.

Lead plaintiff Michael Avery prevailed at jury trial in 1999, and
associate judge John Speroni awarded more than $1 billion to
almost five million individuals.

Fifth District appellate judges in Mount Vernon affirmed Speroni
in 2003.

Fifth District voters elected Justice Karmeier in 2004.

In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed Judge Speroni.

All seven Justices held that he shouldn't have certified a class,
although two would have remanded the case to Judge Speroni for
possible creation of subclasses.

Avery asked the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and the Court
denied it.

In 2011, Avery's lawyers asked the Illinois Supreme Court to
recall the mandate, claiming they possessed new evidence of
improper activity by State Farm in 2004.

The Justices denied the motion, and Justice Karmeier did not
participate in the decision.

In 2012, Mark Hale of New York state filed a racketeering suit
against State Farm in U.S. district court, as a member of the
Avery class.

He also sued State Farm employee William Shepherd and Illinois
Civil Justice League director Ed Murnane.

State Farm moved to dismiss the action, and Judge Herndon denied
the motion.

State Farm moved for reconsideration, and Judge Herndon denied it.

State Farm petitioned the Seventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus
to halt the proceedings, and the Seventh Circuit denied the
petition.

Last year, Judge Herndon ruled that plaintiffs could depose
Justice Karmeier.

No trace of the deposition has reached public record, not even the
date.

Justice Karmeier didn't appeal Judge Herndon's authority but now
State Farm does.

Safer wrote that plaintiffs raised the issue of Justice Karmeier's
recusal four times at the Illinois Supreme Court and once at the
U.S. Supreme Court, without success.

"Plaintiffs treat causation as a common issue only by effectively
eliminating the causation requirement entirely, arguing instead
that the alleged tainting of the tribunal suffices," Safer wrote.

"But this theory has no legal basis.

"Review is warranted now because the astronomical damages sought
and the need for individual assessment of injury and damages make
it possible that the case will never reach a final judgment.

"Moreover, this case is an attack on the integrity of the Illinois
Supreme Court, and it should not proceed when lack of jurisdiction
and errors on class certification are so apparent."

On the day State Farm filed the petition at the Seventh Circuit,
it asked Herndon to stay discovery on the class notice and to stay
the notice itself.

On Oct. 10, class counsel Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco told
Herndon that Hale didn't oppose a stay if it expired at least six
months before trial.

She wrote that fact discovery is not complete, expert discovery
has not started, and a trial date has not been set.


STRAIGHT PATH: Reply Brief to Support Dismissal Bid Due Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13,
2016, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants
in a shareholder class action will file their reply brief in
further support of their motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder
class action was filed in the federal district court for the
District of New Jersey against Straight Path Communications Inc.
(the "Company"), Davidi Jonas, and Jonathan Rand (the "individual
defendants"). The case is captioned Zacharia v. Straight Path
Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is
purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 29,
2013, and November 5, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of
(i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the
Company for materially false and misleading statements that were
designed to influence the market relating to the Company's
finances and business prospects; and (ii) Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants for wrongful acts
by controlling persons. The allegations center on the claim that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements in its
public filings and conference calls during the relevant class
period concerning the Company's spectrum licenses and the
prospects for its spectrum business. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, fees, and costs.
The case was reassigned to Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3,
2016.

"On April 11, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Charles
Frischer as lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as liaison counsel. On June
17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed his amended class action complaint,
which alleges the same claims described above. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on
August 17, 2016; the plaintiff opposed that motion on September
30, 2016, and the defendants will file their reply brief in
further support of their motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016."


SUNEDISON INC: "Church" Securities Suit v. CEO Moved to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY CHURCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. AHMAD R. CHATILA, and BRIAN WUEBBELS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07962-PKC (May 3, 2016) was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of Eastern Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The case alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
over a merger agreement wherein SunEdison, Inc. will acquire
Vivint Solar, Inc.

Defendant Ahmad R. Chatila served at all relevant times as the
Chief Executive Officer of SunEdison.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Wehrle, Esq.
     WEHRLE LAW LLC
     9909 Clayton Road, Suite 226
     St. Louis, MO 63124
     Phone: (314) 254-0111
     Fax: (314) 216-3700
     Email: chris@wehrlelaw.com

        - and -

     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 -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Bid to Produce Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied
Plaintiff's motion to compel in the case captioned, IN RE SYMBOL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. CV 05-3923
(DRH) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiff Iron Workers Local #580 Pension Fund commenced the
action against Defendants Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Symbol),
William R. Nuti (Nuti), Salvatore Iannuzzi (Iannuzzi), Mark T.
Greenquist (Greenquist), Todd Abbott (Abbott), Arthur O'Donnell
(O'Donnell) and James M. Conboy (Conboy) for violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act),
15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 (Rule 10b-5), 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, as well as Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

On November 7, 2014, the Fund filed a motion to compel production
of certain documents related to an internal investigation
conducted in the wake of a revenue misstatement for which Symbol
has asserted work product privilege. On September 30, 2015, the
Court denied Plaintiff's motion, without prejudice based on the
fact that "the supporting documentation, including Symbol's
privilege log and provision of allegedly privileged documents
which would enable such an inquiry was lacking."

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed its renewed motion to compel
document production. Plaintiff maintains that the documents at
issue are not covered under the work product privilege and even if
the work product privilege did apply, Symbol waived any such
protection through voluntary disclosure to the Independent
Examiner concerning the substance of interviews conducted by
outside counsel "as well as the mental impressions and theories of
the lead attorney.

In response, Symbol asserts that: (1) the documents at issue are
protected by the work product privilege since they were prepared
in anticipation of litigation; (2) disclosures to the SEC and the
Independent Examiner did not result in waiver of the privilege;
and (3) assuming that the privilege attaches, Plaintiff is unable
to establish the "substantial need" necessary to overcome such
protection.

In her Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nOeJBD from Leagle.com, Judge Tomlinson found that
protection of the work product doctrine has not been waived
through Symbol's disclosure to the SEC or the Independent Examiner
and there is otherwise no basis for requiring production of the
documents in the instant case because Plaintiff has not made the
necessary showing concerning "substantial need".

Lieberman Proposed Lead Plaintiffs is represented by Aaron L.
Brody, Esq. -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- STULL STULL & BRODY

The Hoine Group Proposed Lead Plaintiff is represented by Samuel
Kenneth Rosen, Esq. -- srosen@hfesq.com -- HARWOOD FEFFER LLP

Iron Workers Local Pension Fund is represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Esq. -- jaieberman@pomlaw.com -- Marc I. Gross, Esq. --
migross@pomlaw.com -- Michael Jonathan Wernke, Esq. --
mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. --
pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- and Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. --
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS
LLP

Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew J.
Levander, Esq. -- andrew.lvander@dechert.com -- Kathleen N.
Massey, Esq. -- kathleen.massey@dechert.com -- Sarah Dean Lyons,
Esq. -- sarah.lyons@decert.com -- and Yelena Shreyberg, Esq. -
yelena.shreyberg@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP


TE CONNECTIVITY: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DALE WILSON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. TE CONNECTIVITY NETWORKS, INC.; a Minnesota corporation; TYCO
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, and DOES 1-
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify following classes:

Auto-Deduct Class:

   "all persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
   positions in California from October 1, 2010 through the date
   of class certification, who had a 1/2 hour deducted from their
   paychecks for a meal period";

Meal Break Class:

   "All persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
   positions in California from October 1, 2010 through the date
   of class certification, who worked a shift of five hours or
   more"; and

Rest Break Class:

   "all persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
   positions in California from October 1, 2010 through the date
   of class certification, who worked a shift of three and a half
   hours or more.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Setareh Law Group
as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L6jnh0vM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Beltran" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN M. RODRIGUEZ BELTRAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC.,
SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA, CARLOS DOMENECH ZORNOZA, JEREMY
AVENIER, MARTIN TRUONG, BRIAN WUEBBELS, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., BTG PACTUAL US CAPITAL, LLC, ITAU BBA USA
SECURITIES, INC., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., SG AMERICAS
SECURITIES, LLC., and KOTAK MAHINDRA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-07967-PKC (October 29, 2015) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2742.

The case alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act in
relation to its 2015 Initial Public Offering.

TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC. owns and operates contracted "clean power"
generation assets in emerging market countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
     Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Phone: 212-223-6444
     Fax: 212-223-6334
     E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
             jhalloran@scott-scott.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bennett Sues Over Soy-Based Wiring in Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND BENNETT and SHEILA FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION, and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03428-JFM (D. Md., October 12, 2016), seeks
redress for alleged damage resulting from the inclusion of soy-
based wiring insulation in Class Vehicles.  Allegedly, the soy-
based wiring insulation baits rodents to the vehicles and entices
them to chew through, eat, or otherwise damage and compromise the
wiring.

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION is into automobile design, manufacturing,
and distribution.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H St NE, Suite 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 470-3520
     Fax: (202) 800-2730
     E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
             jrathod@classlawdc.com


TROJAN HORSE: Ascensus Trust Appeals Order in "Longo" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascensus Trust Company, through its registered agent CT
Corporation System, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled GARIBALDIE E. LONGO, et al. v. TROJAN HORSE, LTD.,
et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00418-BO, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4,
2016, the Hon. Terrence W. Boyle granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class defined as:

     All Trojan Horse Ltd 401(k) Plan (Plan) participants who
     contributed to the Plan through payroll deduction from
     January 1, 2011, through the date of entry of this order.

Plaintiffs Allen Hester, Carl Swanson, and Steven White are
appointed as class representatives and their counsel are appointed
as class counsel.

Judge Boyle also (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, (ii) denied Defendant
Ascensus Trust's motion for summary judgment, (iii) ruled that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of judgment in their favor on
their claim against Defendant Ascensus Trust for breach of
fiduciary duty, and (iv) denied Ascensus' motion to strike.

The appellate case is captioned as GARIBALDIE E. LONGO; ALLEN F
HESTER; CARL W SWANSON; STEVEN L WHITE, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs - Appellees and PATRICK
PONTE Plaintiff v. ASCENSUS TRUST COMPANY, c/o CT Corporation
System, its registered agent Defendant - Appellant and TROJAN
HORSE, LTD.; GLEN BURNIE HAULING, INC.; TROJAN HORSE LTD 401(K)
PLAN; ASCENSUS, INC.; FRONTIER TRUST COMPANY; BRIAN HICKS; SUSAN
STUBBS, 1614 Secretariat Drive Annapolis, MD 21409; SHERRY KORB;
CAPITOL EXPRESSWAYS, INC., c/o Brian D. Hicks, its registered
agent; BDH LOGISTICS, LLC, c/o Brian D. Hicks, its registered
agent, Defendants, Case No. 16-2168, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Thorne Withdraws Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Z. Lee entered an order in the lawsuit titled Joshua
Thorne, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Donald J. Trump For President,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw a request for class
certification, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
October 11, 2016.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5M6zDVju


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Bid in "Ocampo" Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jose Luis Ocampo, the Plaintiff, v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09401
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order
continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification, according
to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 11, 2016.

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i289bFJU


UNITED CREDIT: Merkovich Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY MERKOVICH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
CREDIT SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01374-JPS
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion asking the
court to certify a class, then stay the motion for class
certification, and grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from
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=8B8J5E4e

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Immigration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned NORTHWEST
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C15-0813JLR (W.D. Wash.).  Judge Robart also denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice.

Through a putative injunctive class action, the plaintiffs sought
to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) to abide by regulatory deadlines for adjudicating
applications for employment authorization documents (EADs) filed
by noncitizens.  The plaintiffs in this action are Wilman Gonzalez
Rosario, L.S., K.T., A.A., Karla Diaz Marin, Antonio Machic Yac,
Faridy Salmon, Jaimin Shah, Marvella Arcos-Perez, Carmen Osorio
Ballesteros, and W.H. (collectively, "Individual Plaintiffs"), and
two non-profit organizations that serve putative class members,
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and The Advocates for
Human Rights (collectively, "Organizational Plaintiffs").

A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants USCIS; the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees USCIS; Leon
Rodriguez, the Director of USCIS, in his official capacity; and
Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of DHS, in his official capacity.

The defendants argued that the law of the case doctrine should be
applied to Ms. Arcos and Ms. Osorio's claims which the court
previously dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The
defendants also argued that, even if that doctrine does not apply,
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Arcos and Ms.
Osorio's claims, and those claims should accordingly be dismissed.

Judge Robart found that the amended complaint reveals no new
allegations regarding Ms. Osorio or Ms. Arcos that alters the
court's prior analysis, and that Ms. Arcos and Ms. Osorio made no
new arguments in their briefing.  Accordingly, for reasons the
court has previously articulated, Judge Robart dismissed Ms.
Arcos's and Ms. Osorio's claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The defendants also sought dismissal of W.H., A.A., and Mr. Machic
Yac's claims on the basis that they fail to identify a discrete
action that USCIS was required to take and the court therefore
lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the APA.

Judge Robart denied the defendants' motion to dismiss W.H.'s,
A.A.'s, and Mr. Machic Yac's claims.  The judge found that even if
one remedy that W.H., A.A., and Mr. Machic Yac seek -- issuance of
interim EADs -- is unavailable, another remedy that they seek --
compelling USCIS to adjudicate EAD applications in a timely
fashion -- is indeed available.

The defendants also contended that if class certification fails,
Individual Plaintiffs' claims are moot and should be dismissed.
Judge Robart did not reach either of these arguments, holding that
until the court issues a final determination on the merits of
class certification, the remaining Individual Plaintiffs
constitute putative class representatives whose claims are
inherently transitory and relate back to the filing of the amended
complaint.

Finally, the defendants argued that Organizational Plaintiffs lack
standing and fail to state a claim.

Judge Robart dismissed the Organizational Plaintiffs' claim under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failure to state a
claim.  The judge found that the Organizational Plaintiffs'
interests are unarguably "so marginally related to . . .  the
purposes implicit in the [regulation] that it cannot reasonably be
assumed that Congress [and the regulators] intended to permit the
suit."

Judge Robart also found that the Organizational Plaintiffs'
Mandamus Act claim fails because the defendants do not owe a duty
to the Organizational Plaintiffs.  The judge concluded that the
Organizational Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to assert their
Mandamus Act claim and cannot circumvent that conclusion by
asserting the rights of their clients.

The plaintiffs moved to certify three subclasses: (1) the 90-day
subclass; (2) the 30-day subclass; and (3) the DACA Renewal
Subclass.

As a threshold matter, the court has dismissed Ms. Osorio, who
served as the only putative representative of the DACA Renewal
Subclass.  This subclass constitutes individuals who have filed or
will file applications for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R.
Section 274a.13 on the basis of requests to renew Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), but who have not received or will
not receive a grant or denial of their EAD applications within 90
days of filing, and who are entitled or will be entitled to
interim employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. section
274a.13(d), but who have not received or will not receive interim
employment authorization.  Accordingly, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the DACA Renewal Subclass for lack
of adequate representation. However, putative class
representatives remain for the 90-Day Subclass and the 30-Day
Subclass

The plaintiffs contended that the 90-day Subclass constitutes
individuals that are entitled pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section
274a.13(d) to receive an interim EAD or an adjudication of their
EAD application within 90 days of submitting the application, but
receive neither in a timely fashion.

The plaintiffs also contended that the 30-day subclass "is
comprised of asylum applicants making their first application for
an asylum-based EAD, also called an initial asylum EAD" who are
entitled to adjudication of their EAD application within 30 days
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 208.7(a)(1).

The plaintiffs argued that their proposed subclasses satisfy all
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) requirements, but the defendants
argued that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality,
typicality, and adequacy requirements.

After analyzing commonality, Judge Robart found that the
Individual Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their current
class definitions satisfy that element.  The judge found that the
confluence of a complex regulatory scheme, necessary deference to
agency interpretations, and the Individual Plaintiffs' expansive
proposed class may render this Rule 23(a) issue intractable.
However, in light of the judge's conclusion that the other Rule 23
requirements are met, counsel's familiarity and facility with the
regulatory scheme at issue, and the potential for the Individual
Plaintiffs to refine their class definitions and collect further
evidence supporting commonality, Judge Robart provided the
putative class counsel an opportunity to cure the Rule 23
deficiencies by modifying the subclass definitions, providing
further evidence, and renewing their motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of Judge Robart's October 5, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/Wj1FXA from Leagle.com.

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Plaintiff, represented by
Christina J. Murdoch -- cm@lawfirm1.com --  SCOTT D. POLLOCK &
ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice.

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Plaintiff, represented by
Devin T. Theriot-Orr, SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Kathryn R. Weber --
kw@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES PC, pro hac vice,
Leslie K. Dellon, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Marc
Van Der Hout, VANDERHOUT BRIGAGLIANO AND NIGHTINGALE, pro hac
vice, Melissa Crow, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice,
Robert H. Gibbs, GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW, Robert Pauw, GIBBS HOUSTON
PAUW, Scott D. Pollock -- sdp@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK &
ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice & Christopher Strawn, NORTHWEST
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

The Advocates for Human Rights, Marvella Arcos-Perez, Carmen
Osorio-Ballesteros, W. H., Plaintiffs, represented by Christina J.
Murdoch, SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice, Kathryn
R. Weber, SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES PC, pro hac vice, Leslie
K. Dellon, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Marc Van
Der Hout, VANDERHOUT BRIGAGLIANO AND NIGHTINGALE, pro hac vice,
Melissa Crow, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Scott D.
Pollock, SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice &
Christopher Strawn, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States
Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriguez, Jeh Johnson,
Defendants, represented by Adrienne Zack, US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Craig Andrew Defoe, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Jeffrey S.
Robins, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & John Joseph William Inkeles, US
DEPT OF JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in 2nd "Flora" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARK R. FLORA (on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated), the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,
the Defendant, Case No. 16cv00067 (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks
the court to:

1) certify a class defined as:

   "each farmer or rancher ("producer") that was at any time
   enrolled in the Conservation Security Program ("CSP") as set
   forth in 16 U.S.C. section 3838a, et seq. (and thus at any
   time held a CSP contract with the defendant) whose damages
   from the government's failure to allow him/her to exercise the
   right to renew that contract total less than $10,000, whose
   claim has not already been adjudicated and who does not file a
   timely request to opt out of the class";

2) approve Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP as Lead Class Counsel;

3) certify Plaintiff, Mark R. Flora, as Class Representative; and

4) approve the following procedures, form and manner of service
   of the notice of class action as the best notice practicable
   under the circumstances and hold that it constitutes due and
   sufficient notice to all Class Members in full compliance with
   the notice requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i289bFJU


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in 1st "Flora" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARK R. FLORA (on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated), the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED
STATES, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00066-MFU (W.D. Va.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to:

1) certify a class defined as:

   "Each farmer or rancher ("producer") that was at any time
   enrolled in the Conservation Security Program ("CSP") as set
   forth in 16 U.S.C. section 3838a, et seq. (and thus at any
   time held a CSP contract with the defendant) whose total
   underpayment for stewardship and existing practice payments
   thereunder total less than $10,000, whose claim has not
   already been adjudicated and who does not file a timely
   request to opt out of the class";

2) Approve Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP as Lead Class Counsel;

3) Certify Plaintiff, Mark R. Flora, as Class Representative;

4) Approve the following procedures, as well as the form and
   manner of service of the Notice of Class Action as the best
   notice practicable under the circumstances and hold that it
   constitutes due and sufficient notice to all Class Members in
   full compliance with the notice requirements under Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 23

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bw8VCtm6


URANIUM ENERGY: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal on Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a class
action complaint have voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the
district court's judgment dismissing their case.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class
action complaint against the Company and two of its executive
officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on November
16, 2015, (the "Securities Case") seeking unspecified damages and
alleging the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities
Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a
final judgement dismissing the case in its entirety with
prejudice.

On September 22, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
appeal of the district court's judgment and on September 26, 2016
United States District Court dismissed the Securities Case
pursuant to the plaintiffs' motion. As a result, the judgment in
favor of the Company is final.

No settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the
Company to the plaintiffs in connection with the lawsuit's
dismissal.


VEOLIA WATER: PWSA Files Arbitration Suit Over Faulty Meters
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Santoni, writing for TribLive, reports that Pittsburgh
Water and Sewer Authority filed an arbitration lawsuit on Oct. 12
against the company that ran the utility's operations for more
than three years, claiming it created problems such as faulty
automated water meters and a change in corrosive chemicals that
led to a state violation.

PWSA is seeking damages not anticipated to exceed the $12.5
million the authority already paid or still owes Boston-based
Veolia Water North America-Northeast, which had a management
contract with PWSA from July 12, 2012, to Dec. 31, 2015, the suit
states.

"They represented to us they had this world-class expertise at
running water authorities," said Alex Thomson, chairman of PWSA's
board of directors.  "We just don't believe they managed the
authority as required in their contract."

In a statement, the company said the authority's action was
"inflammatory" and "nothing more than an effort to redirect blame
for their failures and not fulfill their contractual obligations
to Veolia."

Mr. Thomson said PWSA would seek to recover as much as possible of
what it paid Veolia, and would use that money back to offset
authority rate increases.

The lawsuit was filed with the American Arbitration Association, a
New York-based nonprofit for resolving corporate disputes outside
of court, PWSA spokesman Will Pickering said.  Veolia's contract
with PWSA required that disputes go through arbitration, Mr.
Thomson said.

"PWSA asserts that Veolia grossly mismanaged PWSA's operations,
abused its positions of special trust and confidence, and misled
and deceived PWSA as part of its efforts to maximize profits for
itself to the unfair detriment of PWSA and its customers," PWSA
officials said in a release announcing the arbitration suit.

Among the issues alleged in the announcement -- but not included
in the formal filing with the Arbitration Association -- PWSA said
Veolia was responsible for the botched rollout of automated water
meters, inaccurate water bills and a 14-month change in chemicals
for corrosion and lead control that violated PWSA's operating
permit from the state.

"Veolia met its obligations and fulfilled the requirements of our
contract in a fully transparent manner," the company stated.  "We
stand behind the work performed on behalf of PWSA and strongly
urge PWSA to stop trying to blame others for their failures and
fulfill their obligations under the contract with Veolia."

Water samples in 2013 showed lead levels had climbed to 14.7 parts
per billion, just below a federal Environmental Protection Agency
warning threshold.

Seventeen of 100 homes tested this spring, after Veolia's contract
expired, had lead levels exceeding the 15 parts per billion limit.
PWSA was receiving more lead test requests than usual from
customers in the wake of the Flint, Mich., water crisis.

"Veolia's not responsible for the lead issue PWSA has -- these
lead issues are the result of the fact we have 75- to 100-year-old
infrastructure," Mr. Thomson said.  "But we do believe they didn't
aggressively work on these issues when they were running the
authority for three and a half years."

Last year, PWSA customers filed a class-action lawsuit in the
Allegheny County Court over water meter upgrades that resulted in
inaccurate bills, increased administrative fees and improper
shutoffs.

That lawsuit was put on hold in June pending settlement
negotiations.

The state Department of Environmental Protection cited PWSA in
December because, under Veolia's management in 2014, the authority
switched the chemicals it used in the water treatment process to
reduce corrosion of pipes and the possible release of lead.  The
DEP's operating permit barred PWSA from making such changes
without notifying the state, and PWSA changed back to its previous
chemical early this year.

"It is clear Veolia cared more about their bottom line than
providing residents with the high-quality water and customer
service they deserve," Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said in a
statement.

A binding arbitration hearing, with an arbitrator jointly selected
by both parties or chosen by the arbitration association, will be
held within four months of the Oct. 12 filing.


VOLKSWAGEN: $15-Bil. Accord in Emission Suit Nears Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that although a federal judge in San Francisco delayed granting
final approval of Volkswagen's $15 billion class action settlement
of an emissions cheating scandal that has reverberated around the
globe, the agreement is likely days away from becoming official.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer told a packed courtroom on
October 18, that while he was inclined to approve the settlement,
he would first consider the objections raised by some class
members to its provisions and possibly make modifications. The
judge said he would issue a final ruling on or before Oct. 25.

"I think it is important for consumers, for the public and for
everyone to understand what is being offered here in terms of a
settlement is a comprehensive settlement as to the 2-liter
vehicles," Breyer said.

The settlement covers certain Volkswagen and Audi "clean diesel"
vehicles with 2.0-liter TDI engines. The parties are still
negotiating claims related to 3.0-liter engines.

After the German automaker admitted in September 2015 that it had
installed software in its TDI clean diesel cars to cheat emissions
tests so that regulators would allow the cars on the road,
Volkswagen drivers sued the company for fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and racketeering, and of violating consumer
protection laws in every state.

The cars pollute at 40 times the legal limit despite Volkswagen
billing itself as a clean diesel pioneer, according to the
proposed settlement

Under the agreement, Volkswagen will pay just over $10 billion to
help class members either get rid of their cars or modify them to
reduce emissions.

Class members can sell their cars to Volkswagen at trade-in value,
which will not depreciate over the claim period, plus a cash
payment of at least $5,100. Lessees can cancel their leases
without paying a penalty and will also receive their car's trade-
in value and a cash payment.

If class members choose to keep their cars, Volkswagen will modify
for free the cars' emissions systems to reduce emissions to
acceptable levels. These class members will also receive
compensation.

Attorney's fees will not be part of the settlement, according to
Breyer.

Under settlements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the California Air Resources Board, which are incorporated
into the class action agreement, Volkswagen will also pay $2.7
billion to remediate the effects of its cars' excess pollution on
the environment, and $2 billion to create a public awareness
campaign on zero-emissions vehicles.

If Volkswagen fails to remove or modify 85 percent of the covered
cars on the road by June 2019, it must pay additional funds into a
mitigation trust.

"Some fairly onerous penalties kick in if we miss by one percent,"
Volkswagen attorney Robert Giuffra told Breyer at the hearing. "So
the company is very incentivized to make this settlement work."

Volkswagen has also reached agreements with the Justice
Department, the Federal Trade Commission and 44 state attorneys
general.

At $15 billion, experts are calling the settlement the largest
consumer class action settlement in U.S. history. Breyer praised
the parties on October 18, for settling the massive case so
quickly.

"It was in the court's experience extraordinary," Breyer said.
"There is nowhere you can go in the country that people have not
commented on the speed with which this matter has been brought to
the court for the court's approval."

About 20 objectors spoke at the hearing, most of them telling
Breyer they don't approve of the settlement because it doesn't
provide a large enough payout for various types of class members.

Among those are owners who lost money selling their cars after the
emissions scandal broke, those who want the full purchase price of
their cars instead of the amount their car was worth the day the
allegations became public, and some who objected to the trade-in
amount they would receive.

"Reimbursing for a car's value on [Sept. 18, 2015] is tantamount
to saying [Volkswagen's] behavior was OK before then," objector
Mark Cedric told Breyer. Cedric asked that Volkswagen reimburse
class members for the entire purchase price of their vehicles.

Lead class counsel Elizabeth Cabraser addressed the objectors'
concerns, telling Breyer the parties used carefully calibrated
formulas to determine in what way and how much to reimburse class
members. Those formulas, she said, compensate most class members
for the entire replacement value of their vehicles.

As an example, Cabraser said that although the trade-in value
under the buyback option may cause concern for class members, it
is only a "starting point." From there, additional costs are
factored in so that the ultimate payment under the buyback option
amounts to the car's retail replacement value.

"It isn't the most perfect thing, it isn't the most pristine
thing," Cabraser said. "Is it as good as new? No, that would be
magic and the law can't do that. But what the law can do is fix it
so that it functions. The settlement is our best effort to do just
that."

Giuffra noted that the number of objectors totaled less than
1/1000 of the class, and that 3,200 of approximately 470,000 class
members have opted out.

"If this were an election run the settlement would win in a
landslide," Giuffra said. "This settlement provides massive relief
to consumers."

In what was perhaps the most obvious indication of how he will
rule, Breyer defended the settlement to objector Anna St. John, a
representative of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise
Institute.

St. John told Breyer the settlement doesn't provide any additional
relief to consumers beyond what had already been provided in the
related government settlements, so class members shouldn't be
asked to give up their claims under the consumer settlement.

"Any additional mechanisms provided in the consumer settlement are
inconsequential," St. John said.

Breyer seemed displeased with the comment.

"I think the consumer action of the settlement wasn't achieved in
a vacuum. It's not like, 'We'll sit down with consumers and then
with the FTC and figure out what they want,'" Breyer told St.
John. "It's all part and parcel of an overall settlement. Who is
to say that had not the plaintiffs' steering committee pushed this
type of resolution then perhaps the government wouldn't have
reacted in a particular way or vice versa? A settlement is looked
upon as a hope."

He added after a lengthy defense, "Maybe your misfortune was to
stand in front of me and make that comment," and told St. John he
was "mindful and grateful" for her input.

Cabraser is with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San
Francisco. Giuffra works for Sullivan & Cromwell in New York.


WEST VIRGINIA PAVING: Faces Class Action Over Asphalt Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Boothe, writing for Bluefield Daily Telegraph, reports
that a class action lawsuit was filed in Mercer County Circuit
Court on Oct. 12 alleging asphalt suppliers have been bilking the
City of Bluefield and other entities as well as individuals around
the state.

Michael B. Hissam, an attorney with Bailey & Glasser LLP in
Charleston, said "substantially identical complaints" were also
filed in three other cities in the state on Oct. 12 -- Charleston,
Beckley and Parkersburg.

"Four actions were filed on Oct. 12," he said, explaining that in
class action suits everyone who can show they have been victimized
are included.  A total of 30 counties are named in the class
action, including Mercer, McDowell and Monroe counties.

In Mercer County, Circuit Court Judge Derek will hear the case,
Mr. Hissam said.

According to the lawsuit, several state-based paving and asphalt
companies were involved and their activities can be traced back to
January 2006.

"Defendants are a collection of once vigorous competitors in
asphalt production, paving and contracting services, now illegally
combined into actual or de facto monopolies in at least thirty
West Virginia counties," the suit says.  "Defendants have
established and abused their market power illegally and have done
so through a common scheme that has harmed competition in each of
the geographic areas identified in this complaint."

Calling it a "brazen statewide monopolization scheme," the lawsuit
says the defendants "illegally inflated the cost of asphalt, the
primary commodity used in building and repairing roads, parking
lots, driveways, recreation courts, and airport runways . . . and
other miscellaneous products such as roofing."

The scheme unlawfully forced customers to pay at least 40 percent
more for asphalt than they should have paid, the suit alleges,
"illegally extracting millions of dollars in overpayments from the
Class (all plaintiffs in the suit)."

The companies named as defendants include West Virginia Paving
Inc., Southern West Virgina Paving, Inc., Kelly Paving, Inc.,
Camden Materials, LLC, American Asphalt & Aggregate, Inc.,
American Asphalt of West Virginia, LLC, and Blacktop Industries
and Equipment.

"Regrettably, competition in West Virginia's asphalt industry is
virtually non-existent," the lawsuit says.  "In the past years,
millions of West Virginia dollars have been wasted on overpayment
for paving due to inflated asphalt costs -- dollars that by intent
and design landed in the defendants' pockets.  Defendants have
engaged in an ongoing series of illegal and covert anticompetitive
combinations, acquisitions, agreements, and practices."

Through their activities, the suit says the defendants have the
ability to control asphalt prices and exclude their few
competitors throughout state.

"Defendants have erected substantial barriers to those who might
consider entering the asphalt industry," the suit alleges.  "They
have choked off the supply of aggregate and asphalt to competing
asphalt plants and paving companies; threatened new entrants in
these markets with reprisals unless they ceased operations or sold
to Defendants; and engaged in other predatory conduct that make it
economically irrational for anyone to consider launching or
expanding asphalt production or paving businesses in large swaths
of this state."

The suit also alleges that entities affiliated with the defendants
submitted "bids" against each other "giving the appearance of
competition and even signing documents under penalty of perjury
certifying that the bids were made without connection to any other
entities submitting bids."

According to the lawsuit, the defendants controlled both the
supply of asphalt and ownership of paving contractors that apply
the asphalt, keeping rival paving companies from bidding against
them.

"As with the asphalt plants, many of those paving companies were
acquired as soon as they began successfully bidding against
Defendants for asphalt paving contracts," the suit alleges.  "And
as with the asphalt plants, paving companies were inexplicably
shuttered despite huge sums Defendants paid to acquire them.
Defendants were thus also able to extinguish emerging competition
for paving jobs" and keep prices high.

"Defendants purposefully took actions to maintain and enhance
their market dominance through a host of predatory actions and
bullying," according to the complaint filed.

Mr. Hissam said any the specific of amount of damages that will be
sought will depend on information gathered during the discovery
process.

"We will obtain that information as the lawsuit moves forward," he
said, adding that much of those details will come from the
business records of the defendants.

Mr. Hissam said a jury trial has been requested.

He also said he was not yet aware of any criminal charges that may
have been filed.

The lawsuit says that "all West Virginia citizens at the time of
the filing of this action, including individuals, municipal
corporations, and businesses, who purchased products or services
containing or utilizing asphalt manufactured or sold by the
Defendants from January 1, 2006 to the present" are included in
the lawsuit.


YAHOO INC: Faces "Hirt" Suit Over Alleged Customer Data Theft
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARY HIRT, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. YAHOO! INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-05911 (N.D. Cal., October 12, 2016), alleges
negligence, breach of contract, and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and Customer Records Act as a result of
Yahoo's failure to safeguard the confidential, sensitive personal
information of Plaintiff and other class members against
unauthorized access and theft.

Yahoo provides search, communication, and entertainment services
to hundreds of millions of Internet users worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
     Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
     Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
     BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
     7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858) 914-2001
     Fax: (858) 914-2002
     Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
            achang@bottinilaw.com
            ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


* U.S. Supreme Court to Tackle Class Certification Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen A. Miller and Jeffrey M. Monhait, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer report that in class-action lawsuits, the trial
court's decision on class certification often determines the
ultimate outcome of the case.  A denial of class certification can
effectively end the case, because it is cost-prohibitive to
litigate the claims individually.  Conversely, the certification
of a class drastically increases a defendant's potential liability
and litigation costs, thereby motivating defendants to settle in
order to mitigate that risk.

In light of this practical reality, attorneys have long sought a
mechanism to obtain immediate review of an adverse class-
certification decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has held
that a decision on class certification is not a "final decision"
that gives rise to a right to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291,
as in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 470 (1978), ("We
hold that orders relating to class certification are not
independently appealable under Section 1291 prior to judgment.").
Instead, appellate courts have discretion to hear interlocutory
appeals of class certification decisions, (Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(f)). Some plaintiffs have sought to manufacture a
"final decision" for Section 1291 purposes, and effectively
circumvent Rule 23(f)'s discretionary appeal, by voluntarily
dismissing their individual claims following an adverse decision
on class certification.  Circuit courts are divided as to whether
they have jurisdiction to hear such claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court will address this issue during its upcoming
term in Microsoft v. Baker.  A decision should clarify whether a
putative class plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss his individual
claims in order to trigger an immediate appeal of a denial of
class certification.

Background

In 2011, a group of plaintiffs alleged in a putative class action
that a design defect in Microsoft's Xbox 360 video game console
destroyed the game discs.  The plaintiffs claimed that any small
vibration or impact to the Xbox rendered the discs unplayable.
Microsoft contended that less than one half of 1 percent of
consumers complained about this issue, and that the vast majority
of the systems exhibited no such problem.  Microsoft also filed a
motion to strike the class allegations because, in 2007, the
plaintiffs attorneys had initiated a nearly identical suit on
behalf of a different set of Xbox purchasers, and the district
court in that case had denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class.  In the instant case, the district court granted
Microsoft's motion, relying on the reasoning in the earlier
decision, Baker v. Microsoft, 797 F.3d 607, 611 (9th Cir. 2015).
After the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs' express purpose in making this motion was to create a
final judgment in order to appeal the denial of class
certification.  Microsoft agreed with the dismissal
(unsurprisingly), but opposed the appeal, contending that the
plaintiffs could not appeal the class certification decision after
voluntarily dismissing their claims.  The Ninth Circuit rejected
that argument and reversed the district court's order striking the
class action allegations.

Parties' Arguments -- 'Livesay' and Rule 23(f)
The parties' briefs to the Supreme Court presented opposing views
on whether a voluntary dismissal comported with Livesay and Rule
23(f).  For Microsoft, there is no difference between the Livesay
plaintiffs -- who claimed that the denial of class certification
sounded the "death knell" of the litigation -- and the present
case, in which the plaintiffs took that rationale one step further
when they dismissed their individual claims.  The plaintiffs
countered that this formal distinction made all the difference.
Livesay involved an interlocutory situation, but here, the
dismissal (by its nature) formally ended the case.  The decision
on class certification thereby merged into the final dismissal,
creating an appealable final decision.

Microsoft also argued that the plaintiffs' strategy subverted the
discretionary appeal in Rule 23(f).  A class plaintiff could
petition the appellate court for review, and then force the
appellate court to hear the appeal even if the court denied the
petition.  The plaintiffs relied on a similar rationale to their
Livesay argument, contending that Rule 23(f) dealt with
interlocutory appeals only; this case, however, involved a final
decision that fit squarely within the contours of Section 1291.
Moving to policy arguments, the parties disagreed over whether the
voluntary dismissal strategy would burden the court system with
piecemeal appeals.  Microsoft suggested that a plaintiff could
dismiss its claim over any decision -- class certification,
evidentiary, or otherwise -- in order to secure an immediate
appeal.  The plaintiffs responded that the exorbitant costs of
such a strategy would prevent its abuse.  Furthermore, the
plaintiffs contended that parties would not overuse the voluntary
dismissal strategy because they would not casually hinge their
entire claim on an appellate victory.

Parties' Arguments -- Standing

Microsoft claimed that the voluntary dismissal deprived the
plaintiffs of standing to pursue this appeal because the case was
moot.  It reasoned that the plaintiffs have no remaining stake in
the litigation because they dismissed their individual claims. The
plaintiffs offered two main responses to this line of argument.
First, the plaintiffs claimed that they expressly reserved the
right to appeal the class certification decision in the dismissal
of their individual claims.  Therefore, the real issue was one of
waiver, not standing, and that express reservation of rights
defeated any waiver argument.  Second, the plaintiffs contended
that they retained two interests in the litigation even after
dismissal of their individual claims: an incentive reward if the
class was successful and a procedural interest in certifying the
class.

Conclusion

This case could carry significant consequences for class-action
litigation.  Affirming the Ninth Circuit decision would expand the
opportunities for the plaintiffs to seek an immediate appeal of a
denial of class certification.  Alternatively, a reversal would
confirm that Rule 23(f) is the primary vehicle for any such
appeals.  With only eight votes available, it will be interesting
to see whether a majority emerges.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Stone Allowed To Appear Pro Hac Vice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACK JUNIOR WAUGH, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED
AUTO PARTS, INC., el al., Defendants, No. 1:16 CV 310 (W.D.N.C.),
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, issued an order dated October 3, 2016, granting William
M. Graham's Application for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of
Sabrina G. Stone, and that Ms. Stone is admitted to practice, pro
hac vice, before the Bar of the court while associated with
William M. Graham.

According to the magistrate judge, it appears Ms. Stone is a
member in good standing with the Texas and Missouri State Bars and
will be appearing with Mr. Graham, a member in good standing with
the Bar of the court.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Howell's Order is available at
https://is.gd/cU1f1D from Leagle.com.

Jack Junior Waugh, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone,
Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Jack Junior Waugh, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Government's Bid to Junk Habeas Petition Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D-1
- ROY C. BRADLEY, SR., Defendant, No. 13-cr-20622 (E.D. Mich.),
the grand jury issued an indictment charging the defendant with
four violations of the Clean Air Act, arising out of the improper
remediation and disposal of asbestos.  Specifically, the
indictment alleged that the Defendant and two co-Defendants failed
to properly handle, remove, and dispose of asbestos-containing
material during the renovation of an old church building for an
entity called Madison Arts, LLC.

Bradley did not immediately begin serving his sentence.  Instead,
he was to remain on bond until he was sentenced in a related case,
United States v. Ingersoll, Case No. 14-20216.  While remaining on
bond, on April 1, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition for habeas
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 based on claims that his
trial counsel was ineffective. The Government moved to dismiss the
petition on April 27, 2016, arguing in part that Bradley could not
satisfy Section 2255's "in custody" requirement.  On August 9,
2016, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report and
recommendation concluding that the Government's motion to dismiss
should be denied.  The Government timely objected.

Section 2255 provides:

   "A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by
Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground
that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in
excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject
to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the
sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence."

Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, overruled the
Government's objections, adopted the report and recommendation,
and denied the Government's motion to dismiss.

Judge Ludington held that the U.S. Supreme Court has held under a
variety of circumstances that a petitioner need not be confined in
actual, physical custody to invoke the habeas jurisdiction of the
federal courts.  The Supreme, in Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411
U.S. 345 (1973), determined that the petitioner, who had not begun
his sentence and remained on bond, has satisfied the "in custody"
requirement as used in the habeas corpus statute.

A full-text copy of Judge Ludington's Order dated October 5, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/0gPoGr from Leagle.com.

United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by Janet L.
Parker, U.S. Attorney's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Summary Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK RICCI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants, CLEAVER-BROOKS,
INC., SUED HEREIN AS CLEAVER BROOKS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-
Appellant, 1882, 190224/14 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a
decision dated October 13, 2016, affirmed the order of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered on October 19, 2015, which, in
this action arising from the plaintiff's alleged exposure to
asbestos resulting in his contracting mesothelioma, denied the
motion of defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint as against it.

The Appellate Division held that the motion court applied the
correct standard on the summary judgment motion and properly
concluded that Cleaver-Brooks failed to establish entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law.  The record demonstrates that in
support of its motion, Cleaver-Brooks merely pointed to perceived
gaps in plaintiff's proof, rather than submitting evidence showing
why his claims fail, the Appellate Division further held.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated October 13, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/QziNvO from Leagle.com.

Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Suzanne M. Halbardier of
counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $9MM Past Pain Award
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated October 6, 2016, vacated the award
for past pain and suffering in the case captioned IVANA PERAICA,
ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS
CO., ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant,
190339/11, 13470, 13469 (N.Y. App. Div.), and ordered a new trial
as to damages, unless the plaintiff stipulate to a reduced award
for past pain and suffering of $4.25 million.

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 3, 2013,
after a jury of trial, awarding the plaintiffs $9,900,000 for past
pain and suffering against defendant Crane Co.

The Appellate Division recognized that the further-reduced damages
award is significant and exceeds amounts set in some of the
court's precedent.  The jury and trial judge, who had an
opportunity to hear the testimony beforehand, believed a
substantial award was appropriate in light of the testimony about
the extent of the decedent's suffering, the Appellate Division
held.  The record supports the conclusion that the decedent
experienced severe and crippling symptoms, as well as tremendous
physical and emotional pain, which justifies the amount the
Appellate Division is rewarding.

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/apAmIw from Leagle.com.

K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA (Michael J. Ross of the
Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for
appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for
respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $5MM Future Pain Award
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated October 6, 2016, vacated the award
for future pain and suffering in the judgment issued by the
Supreme Court, New York County, on March 11, 2015, upon a jury
verdict, awarding plaintiff damages against defendant Crane Co.,
including, upon remittitur and stipulation by plaintiffs, $5
million for future pain and suffering over 1.5 years, unanimously
modified.

The Appellate Division also ordered a new trial as to the damages,
unless plaintiff stipulates, to a reduced award for future pain
and suffering of $4.5 million, and to entry of an amended
judgment.  The Appeal from the order, same court and Justice,
entered January 20, 2015, which granted Crane Co.'s motion
pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict, only to the
extent of remitting the damages for future pain and suffering, is
dismissed, without costs.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
LARAINE SWEBERG, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABB, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant, 190017/13, 431, 430,
429 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at https://is.gd/IZHkpD from Leagle.com.

K & L Gates, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA (Michael J. Ross of the
Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice of counsel), and K & L
Gates LLP, New York (Eric R.I. Cottle of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for
respondent.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Vacates $6MM Past Pain Award
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated October 6, 2016, vacated the award
for past pain and suffering in the judgment of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on March 11, 2015, in the case captioned
DORCAS HACKSHAW, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABB, INC., ETC.,
ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant, 668, 190022/13
(N.Y. App. Div.).

In the March 2015 judgment, after a jury trial, the trial court
awarded damages against defendant Crane Co., upon a stipulation to
reduce the award for past pain and suffering from $10 million to
$6 million.  The Appellate Division ordered a new trial as to the
damages, unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award for
past pain and suffering of $3,000,000, and to entry of an amended
judgment.

The Appellate Division found that the award, as reduced by
stipulation, for past pain and suffering over a period of
approximately 12 months, deviates materially from what is
reasonable compensation to the extent indicated.  Although the
Court's damages award is significant and exceeds amounts set in
some of the court's precedents, the jury and trial judge, who had
an opportunity to hear the testimony firsthand, concluded that a
substantial award was appropriate in light of the testimony about
the extent of decedent's suffering.  The record suggests the
conclusion that decedent experienced severe and crippling
symptoms, as well as tremendous physical and emotional pain, which
the Court says justifies the amount it is awarding.

The Appellate Court also found that it was rational for the jury
to conclude that the defendant had a legal obligation to warn
workers such as the decedent of the hazards of the asbestos
exposure and that the defendant's failure to warn approximately
caused the decedent's mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated October 6, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/OpDmGJ from Leagle.com.

K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, (Michael J. Ross of the
Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and K & L
Gates LLP, New York (Eric R.I. Cottle of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, LLP, New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, in the
case captioned STACEY DOOLIN, as the Personal Representative of
the Estate of Richard E. Doolin, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN OPTICAL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB
(M.D. Fla.), denied Defendant BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Wrongful Death Complaint and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law, finding that the Defendant has
cited no authority contrary to the Plaintiff's argument that two
jurists within the Middle District of Florida have determined that
the procedural requirements of the state's Asbestos and Silica
Compensation Fairness Act are inapplicable in federal court.

Judge Howard noted that instead of citing contrary authority, the
Defendant filed a motion seeking leave to amend or supplement its
Motion to add an additional basis for dismissal or alternatively a
request for a more definite statement.  In doing so, the Defendant
appears to acknowledge the inapplicability of the Act's procedural
requirements to actions filed in federal court, Judge Howard said.

A full-text copy of Judge Howard's Order dated October 11, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/fUPfop from Leagle.com.

Stacey Doolin, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Phillip Kunen, The
Ferraro Law Firm.

Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda Rae
Cachaldora, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole
Law Firm, PL, Kelly L. Kesner, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E.
Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law
Firm, PL.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Clarke S. Sturge,
Esq. -- clarke.sturge@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA &
Henry Salas, Esq. -- henry.salas@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott &
Kissane, PA.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Lucia V. Pazos,
Esq. -- lpazos@brownsims.com -- Brown Sims, PC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
Nolan Upshaw, Esq. -- aupshaw@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery,
LLP, Caroline M. Iovino, Esq. -- ciovino@mwe.com -- McDermott,
Will & Emery, LLP & Melissa Raspall Alvarez, Esq. --
malvarez@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Clarke S. Sturge, Cole,
Scott & Kissane, PA & Henry Salas, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington High Court Junks Wrongful Death Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUDY R. DEGGS, as Personal Representative
for the estate of RAY GORDON SUNDBERG, Petitioner, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LIMITED; ASTENJOHNSON, INC.; CBS CORPORATION (FKA
VIACOM INC., FKA WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION); INGERSOLL-
RAND COMPANY, Respondents, and BARTELLS ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
GASKET COMPANY; GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; JOHN CRANE, INC.;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and FIRST DOE through ONE
HUNDREDTH DOE, Defendants, No. 91969-1 (Wash.), the Supreme Court
of Washington, ruling en banc, held that a wrongful death "action
accrues at the time of death" so long as there is "a subsisting
cause of action in the deceased" at the time of death, subject to
exceptions.

In this case, Ray Sundberg served in the United States Navy during
the Second World War and, afterward, worked for decades in
dockyards and lumber yards.  Throughout his work life, he was
exposed to asbestos, which caused him serious, long term harm.
Between 1998 and 2000, he was diagnosed with lymphoma, pleural
disease, and asbestosis relating to asbestos exposure.

In 1999, Sundberg filed a personal injury suit against nearly 40
defendants who had some part in exposing him to asbestos.  Most of
the defendants settled (the amounts are not in the record), though
one did go to trial.  Sundberg prevailed at trial, and in 2001, a
jury awarded him $1,511,900 against the last remaining defendant.

Nine years later, at the age of 84, Sundberg died of asbestos-
related disease.  He was survived by his wife, Betty Sundberg, and
their daughter, Judy Deggs.  Deggs, acting as personal
representative of her father's estate, brought this wrongful death
action.  Deggs primarily named defendants who had not been named
in her father's 1999 personal injury action, though both suits
named Asbestos Corporation Limited.  Nothing in the record or
briefing explains why her father did not name these new defendants
in the earlier case.  One of the defendants (later joined by
others) moved to dismiss the suit as time barred because it was
filed more than three years after Sundberg learned he had
asbestos-related diseases.  In other words, due to the passage of
time, Sundberg did not have a cause of action against these
defendants for his injuries at the time of his death.  The trial
judge agreed and granted the motions to dismiss.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, the state's wrongful
death act is based on the English Lord Campbell's Act of 1846.
Lord Campbell's Act gave certain family members a cause of action
for a relative's wrongful death, but only if that relative would
have had a cause of action for the injury at the time of death had
death not occurred.  While the state's legislature did not adopt
that limitation, almost a century ago, the Washington Supreme
Court did.  The Court has since carved out some exceptions.

In this case, the Washington Supreme Court is asked to abandon
that limitation completely and to reinstate a daughter's case for
the wrongful death of her father even though the father did not
have a cause of action against the defendants at the time of his
death.

The state's Supreme Court held that while it recognizes that its
cases adopting the limitation from Lord Campbell's Act's may have
been incorrect, the petitioner has not shown that they are
harmful.  Nor has she shown that the legal underpinnings of those
decisions have changed or disappeared since those opinions were
decided. Accordingly, the Washington Supreme Court affirms the
trial court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated October 6, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/cCq3V3 from Leagle.com.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor
Ave. Sw., Third Floor Ste. C., Seattle, WA, 98126-2138, Meredith
Boyden Good, Brayton Purcell LLP, 806 Sw Broadway Ste 1100,
Portland, OR, 97205-3333, Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Richard George Gawlowski, Esq. -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson
Smith Cochran Dickerson, 901 5th Ave. Ste. 1700, Seattle, WA.,
98164-2050, Counsel for Defendant.

Mark Bradley Tuvim, Gordon & Rees LLP, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 2100,
Seattle, WA, 98104-7084, Kevin James Craig, Gordon & Rees LLP, 701
5th Ave. Ste. 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084, J. Scott Wood, Esq.
-- swood@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP, 999 3rd Ave
Ste 3760, Seattle, WA, 98104-4009. Daniel Ruttenberg, Ruttenberg
Law Office PLLC, 801 2nd Ave. Ste. 800, Seattle, WA., 98104-1573,
Bonnie Lynn Black, Attorney at Law, 1020 N. K. St. Apt. D.,
Tacoma, WA., 98403-1861, Jan Elizabeth Brucker, BRUCKER LAW
OFFICE, 801 2nd Ave. Ste. 800, Seattle, WA., 98104-1573, Counsel
for Respondent(s).

Matthew Phineas Bergman, Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 821 2nd
Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-1516, Colin Mieling, Bergman
Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 821 2nd Ave. Ste. 2100, Seattle, WA.,
98104-1516, Brian F. Ladenburg, Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC,
821 2nd Ave. Ste. 2100, Seattle, WA., 98104-1516, Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Bergman Draper Ladenburg PLLC.

Stewart Andrew Estes, Esq. -- sestes@kbmlawyers.com -- Keating,
Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., 800 Fifth Ave. Ste. 4141,
Seattle, WA., 98104-3175, Michael Barr King, Esq. --
king@carneylaw.com -- Carney Badley Spellman PS, 701 5th Ave. Ste.
3600, Seattle, WA., 98104-7010, Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Washington Defense Trial Lawyers.

Bryan Patrick Harnetiaux, Attorney at Law, 517 E. 17th Ave,
Spokane, WA., 99203-2210, Valerie Davis Mcomie, Attorney at Law,
4549 Nw. Aspen St, Camas, WA., 98607-8302, Daniel Edward
Huntington, Richter-Wimberley PS, 422 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1300,
Spokane, WA., 99201-0305, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington
State Association for Justice Foundation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Bell" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM C. BELL ET AL. v. FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORP. ET AL., SECTION I, Civil Action No. 15-6394 (E.D.
La.), Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued several rulings,
including the following:

   * an Order and Reasons, dated October 4, 2016, a full-text copy
of which is available at https://is.gd/BbYRRO from Leagle.com,
denying without prejudice the motions for summary judgment filed
by Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Aurora Pump Company, Buffalo, Crane
Company, DeLaval, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, General
Electric Company, Warren Pumps, LLC, Westinghouse, and York
International Corporation, and ordering each defendant to re-file
their summary judgment briefs.  In denying the summary judgment
motions, Judge Africk sets forth a third review of a
manufacturer's liability for asbestos that a manufacturer does not
add to its product, sell, or otherwise control.  According to
Judge Africk, the defendants' theory of the bare metal defense,
based on the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Lindstrom v. A-C Prods.
Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), depends
critically on establishing that a manufacturer's duties in
negligence causes of action go no farther than a manufacturer's
liability in a strict products liability action.

   * an Order and Reasons regarding motions in limine, dated
October 5, 2016, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/7EBUSo from Leagle.com, denying without prejudice
the motion in limine filed by Crane Co. regarding regulatory
statements and post-sale products, and the motion in limine filed
by the plaintiffs to exclude evidence of collateral sources and
evidence of settlements; and denying without prejudice in part,
dismissing as moot in part, and deferring in part the motion in
limine filed by York International.  Judge Africk determined,
among other things, that it will be in a better position at trial
to decide whether the probative value of a particular regulatory
statement is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting
time.

   * Order and Reasons dated October 6, 2016, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/95Rmhi from Leagle.com,
granting in part and denying in part three motions in limine filed
by the defendants to exclude plaintiffs' causation experts.  The
Defendants argue that Dr. Richard Kradin, Dr. Terry Kraus, and Mr.
Frank Parker III should be precluded from testifying because,
among other reasons, each relies on the "each and every exposure"
theory for determining causation.  Judge Africk said he sees no
material difference between the "every exposure" theory and the
"every significant exposure" theory, and held that, though
skillfully cloaked, the plaintiffs' experts conclusions that the
defendants' products caused Mr. Bell's mesothelioma again
impermissibly rest on litte more than the experts' ipse dixit.

   * Order and Reasons dated October 7, 2016, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/qhgVAO from Leagle.com,
dismissing without prejudice Warren Pump's motion for partial
summary judgment, saying it would be inequitable to uniquely allow
Warren to maintain multiple summary judgment motions.

In this case, William Bell was regularly exposed to asbestos while
serving as an engineman, machinery repairman, and a machinist mate
in the United States Navy in the 1960s.  Mr. Bell was exposed to
asbestos both while serving at sea on four ships as well as while
training at a land-based Navy facility in Idaho.  After being
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015, Mr. Bell sued the companies
that he believed were responsible. Mr. Bell passed away in 2016,
and his executor and brother now pursue wrongful death and
survivorship claims.

Vickie G. Campos, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement.

Vickie G. Campos, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Peter
Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

John A. Bell, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel
Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel &
Clement.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., David S. Blow, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice, James H. Brown,
Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Christopher
Conley, Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Robert P. Morgan,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice & William Davis
Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rocky
Wayne Eaton, Tyner, Eaton & Fulce, PLLC & Thomas W. Tyner, Tyner,
Eaton & Fulce, PLLC, pro hac vice.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Erik
Nadolink, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, pro hac vice, James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John M. Fitzpatrick, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP, pro hac vice, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin, LLP,
pro hac vice, Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Nathan P. Murphy, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, pro
hac vice & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Caroline
Curtiss Marino, Leader & Berkon LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Stacey
Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Judith Ann
Perritano, Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, pro hac vice, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Maria
E. DeLuzio, Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey
Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Dogan &
Wilkinson, PLLC, Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC,
Hanson Douglas Horn, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Kevin M. Melchi,
Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Michael J. Sechler, K&L Gates LLP, pro
hac vice & Stacey Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams &
Strain, PLLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stacey
Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC, Brady L.
Green, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, PC, pro hac vice, Edward Joseph
White, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, PC, pro hac vice & Jeffrey P.
Hubbard, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan
LLP, Stacey Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain,
PLLC & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles,
LLP.

Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan
LLP, Stacey Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain,
PLLC & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles,
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seneca Officials Questions Asbestos Finding
------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Chandler, writing for The Independent Mail, reported that city
officials said they have questions about how asbestos came to be
present on the site of the former J.N. Kellett Elementary School
property, which now belongs to the city.

The circumstances, they say, even lead them to consider the
possibility that someone planted the material in an attempt to
embarrass the city.

Asbestos, once used as a flame retardant in many materials,
including building materials, has been shown to be a carcinogen
and is considered an environmental hazard.

"If somebody's planting it, we will prosecute," City Administrator
Greg Dietterick said.

Bob Faires, city utility director, told city council members
Thursday that the shards of what appeared to be tile, which were
found to contain asbestos, were found in a small hole that looked
like it had been dug with a post hole digger.

"Somebody takes post hole digger and digs a hole in a 12-acre
site," Faires said. "Somebody dug a hole at that point for a
reason. Somebody knows something about this."

Faires issued a public plea for cooperation from anyone having any
knowledge of how the asbestos came to be at the former school site
at 500 S. Adams St., near the intersection of Fourth and Oak
streets.

"I'm not on a witch hunt but a fact-finding effort," he said.

Seneca businessman Allan Yarid and former City Council member
Bobby Laye both took the city to task regarding the asbestos in
the public comment section of the city council meeting. Laye
insinuated any blame was the city's.

"I've not lost my taste for lies and corruption," Laye said.
"Somebody here knows how this got on that property."

If someone had instructed a city employee to dispose of the
asbestos, Laye said, "It's better to come clean now and tell the
truth."

Seneca officials say they have no idea how the asbestos got on the
property, and that possibly it could have been placed there when
the school district owned the property and the building was an
active school.

The presence of the asbestos was made known to the media this
week, but city officials said Thursday that the inquiry began
earlier and that the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control has been informed and involved from the
beginning.

According to both city officials and a health department
spokesman, the inquiry began with an anonymous tip to the state
agency.

Faires said the hole containing the suspected asbestos tile was
then found, and the shards tested and determined to contain
asbestos.

The health department was satisfied with the city's plans for the
abatement, Faires said, which call for a certified asbestos
abatement contractor to determine the extent of the buried
material and remove the asbestos and enough of the possibly
asbestos contaminated soil.

The state agency, Faires said, "called our plans proactive and
said we were good to go."

With the cleanup plans in progress even before an official health
department notice was sent regarding the incident, the matter is
essentially closed, Faires said.

Then this week, he added, the media had been called by someone and
when he arrived at the site the original hole, which had been
filled in, "had been scratched out" and three pieces of tile were
lying nearby.

"Like I said, somebody knows something about this," Faires added.

City officials said they have not received word from the asbestos
abatement contractor as of late Thursday regarding cost or a
timetable for removing the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandfather Dies After Exposure to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Shimwell, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported
that a grandfather who died from an asbestos-related disease
recalled before his death how he was exposed to the building
material during his time at a Long Melford factory.

Christopher Gaw, 74, of Long Melford's High Street, died on August
31 at West Suffolk Hospital after developing mesothelioma. His
inquest was held in Bury St Edmunds on Monday morning.

Born in Salisbury, Mr Gaw worked for Stafford Allen and Sons from
1962, which later became Bush Boake Allen in Long Melford and
worked there more than three decades in a number of different
roles.

The factory, which specialised in food flavourings, closed its
doors for good in 2003.

In a statement before his death, Mr Gaw recalled how in his
younger years he had often been in close proximity to asbestos.

After 10 months as a pepper mixer he had been relocated from
London to the Suffolk site, working from 8am-5.30pm.

At one point decades ago he said he remembered being asked to chip
out pipes lagged in what he believes was asbestos.

He said it "hung in the air like a fine mist," read assistant
coroner for Suffolk Nigel Parsley at the inquest.

"He recalls when he worked at Bush Boake Allen he swept the whole
area to remove asbestos dust that had fallen from the lagging pipe
work," said Mr Parsley, who recorded a conclusion at the inquest
that Mr Gaw died of a recognised industrial disease.

Mr Gaw left school at 15 and grew up in Wiltshire, working on his
uncle's farm from 1957 until 1962 after which he moved to Stafford
Allen and Sons in London.

He and his wife married in 1968 and they had one daughter and one
granddaughter, with his family all living in Suffolk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indianapolis Facility Fined $50K for Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Chaffin, Esq., in an article for The Legal Examiner, wrote
that West Baden Springs' postal facility in Indianapolis was
recently cited for four repeated violations by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

OSHA opened an investigation at the facility on June 3, 2016,
after receiving a complaint of alleged safety concerns. OSHA found
that the facility had failed to protect employees from the dangers
of exposure to asbestos, and proposed $49,720 in penalties.

OHSA states that until the early 1980s, asbestos, which is a known
carcinogen, was commonly used in building materials like floor
tiles. In workplaces that may contain these materials, employers
are responsible for training workers on how to protect themselves
when a scratched tile or spill creates a situation where the
asbestos fibers may be released.

Apparently, the USPS had not taken the proper precautions at their
West Baden Springs facility. Investigators found that they had
failed to promptly clean up spills and releases of presumed
asbestos-containing material, had failed to label those areas that
had materials with asbestos, and failed to train employees in
safety protocols when working around broken mastic and tile that
contained asbestos.

As a result, OSHA cited the facility for four repeated violations.

Asbestos was used originally because it is a strong fiber and can
resist heat and corrosion. Its fire-retardant properties made it
popular in the automotive and construction industries. It can
still be found today in materials installed before 1981, including
thermal system insulation, roofing, vinyl floor tiles, ceiling
tiles, industrial pipe wrapping, automobile brake linings and
clutch pads, cement, and spray-on coatings.

Though there were reports that asbestos could damage the lungs as
early as the 1800s, and medical evidence in the 1930s linked it to
mesothelioma, it wasn't until the 1970s that the government passed
legislation to limit exposure to the dangerous material. Though it
has not yet been banned in the U.S., its use has declined
considerably, and the last asbestos mine closed in 2002.

OSHA states that any work activity that disturbs asbestos-
containing materials can release asbestos fibers, and it's these
fibers that can get into the lungs and cause cancer. The symptoms,
however, and the cancer itself may not develop for years after
exposure.

Employees may be exposed to asbestos when renovating or
demolishing buildings, or when coming into contact with
deteriorating asbestos-containing materials. OSHA requires
employers to take certain steps to protect employees from this
type of exposure.

OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL), for
example, of 0.1 asbestos fiber per cubic centimeter of air over a
period of 8 hours, or 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter
over a 30-minute period. Employers have to be sure that workers
are not exposed to more than this amount.

In addition, employers are responsible for determining where
asbestos may be present in their workplaces, and monitoring those
areas to make sure exposure levels are safe. In places where
exposure may go above the PEL, employers are to use proper work
practices to reduce it, such as providing safety equipment like
respiratory protection.

Employers must also provide warning signs in areas that may expose
employees to levels higher than the PEL, and must train workers on
risks of exposure.

In this case, the postal facility allegedly failed in a number of
its responsibilities to employees. They have 15 days from the
citation date to pay the fines or contact OSHA to contest the
findings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Report Ends Kilgore College Asbestos Saga
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Evans, writing for Longview News-Journal, reported that a
federal environmental report to Kilgore College trustees puts a
favorable end to a two-year saga over whether the school properly
handled asbestos in some of its older buildings.

"We are glad the completed report was extremely favorable to
Kilgore College, and we're looking forward to getting on with the
business of education and student success," college President
Brenda Kays said in a statement after the long-awaited
Environmental Protection Agency Peer Audit was released Thursday
night to the Property and Facilities Committee.

"According to the finalized report, even with our multiple
campuses, it reveals environmental compliance 'consistent with or
better than other participating colleges.' " Kays wrote, quoting
the six-page EPA report. "I am confident that our students,
faculty and staff are in a safe environment conducive to learning,
and the college will continue to strive to guarantee a safe
environment in the future."

Kays inherited the asbestos issue when she came on board in
January. Questions about whether Kilgore College employees had
properly addressed asbestos issues in Dodson Auditorium and other
heavily traveled facilities were first raised by then-Physical
Plant Manager Dalton Smith.

Smith's claims later were the subject of a whistleblower lawsuit
that Smith filed against the college when he claimed his position
was eliminated because he reported the health hazard. The lawsuit
was settled out of court in the summer on terms that remain
undisclosed.

Smith secretly recorded conversations in which college employees
discussed improperly handling and disposing of asbestos and other
hazardous materials. There also were recordings of conversations
with a college administrator who talked about covering up the
asbestos violations and withholding environmental reports from the
public by manipulating members of the elected board of trustees.

Meanwhile, a host of federal and state agencies, including the
school's national accreditation body, inspected and cleared the
college of asbestos-related health concerns. Those entities
included the state environmental and health agencies.

The EPA Peer Audit was the final word on the saga, college
spokesman Chris Craddock said Friday.

"That's it," he said.

Mays noted "housekeeping" issues cited in the federal review.

"The report states that these minor issues are of no immediate
threat to human health or the environment," she said. "The report
notes that the minor issues found at KC are 'the exact same
character and nature of deficiencies found at every college audit
ever conducted under the program.' "

Kilgore College was the 51st audit in the EPA Peer Review program.

The report is based on inspections occurring Oct. 7-9, 2014, and
three days in July.

"There is no immediate threat to human health or the environment,"
the report states. "The nature of the deficiencies is benign and
pertains mostly to: 1) record-keeping, 2) labeling, and 3) storage
violations. ... Kilgore College's environmental compliance is
consistent with or better than its peer-institutions in Texas."

The report does recommend better record-keeping of tests
indicating whether water from the city of Kilgore back-flows into
the campus supply. It also recommends the firing range at the
college's police academy south of Kilgore begin using EPA-
recommended best management practices.

Kays agreed the federal conclusions were a long time coming.

"We regret that the report was delayed in completion until now,"
she said. "But with the lengthy investigations and multiple
agencies working on the final report, it simply took longer to
complete than expected."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Pleads Guilty to Fake Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the owner of a company that
provided federally mandated training for construction firms that
work with asbestos has pleaded guilty to giving certifications to
people he knew had not taken his course.

U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes says Isaac Cole owned a company that
provided asbestos training courses. According to his plea
agreement, Cole certified various asbestos workers between 2013
and 2016 even though they had not completed the safety courses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parliament Electrical Engr. Killed by Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Bingham, writing for The Telegraph, reported that a former
electrical engineer at the Houses of Parliament who died from
asbestos-related cancer kept dairies for nearly 20 years detailing
his safety concerns about the building.

Frederick Hodge, who supervised maintenance of boilers and pipes
in the Palace of Westminster during the 1970s and early 1980s died
in August from mesothelioma.

Lawyers say a series of other cases has begun to emerge involving
former employees said to be suffering from exposure to the toxic
dust.

It raises the prospect that generations of people who worked in
Parliament, including MPs, peers and civil servants, may have been
affected.

It comes as MPs prepare to vote on whether to move Parliament out
of its historic home for up to six years for major renovations
including removing asbestos which was used widely in post-war
reconstruction because of its fire-retardant qualities.

Mr Hodge, who was 80, only learnt he was suffering from the
condition shortly before he died.

Clearing out his belongings, Mr Hodge's sons found nearly 20 years
of diaries in which their father describes working life at the
Houses of Parliament, including entries specifically referring to
voicing safety concerns almost 40 years ago.

Solicitors from the law firm Fieldfisher are using the diaries as
the basis for a case for compensation over a failure to take
adequate steps to protect him.

Although Mr Hodge's former employer the Ministry of Public
Building and Works no longer exists, the case is expected to be
brought against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) as its successor.

Lawyers say the entries show that it was likely he was working in
an unprotected environment as he supervised maintenance of boilers
and pipes lagged with asbestos.

They also include mention of his concern about air testing parts
of the building. In one excerpt he remarked: "Not happy with
method taking bulk samples. Speak to Safety Office."

Shaheen Mosquera, a solicitor representing Mr Hodge's family, is
also handling the case of a 56-year-old Essex man who worked as an
insulation engineer at the Houses of Parliament in the 1980s and
is now suffering from another asbestos-related lung disease.

"This man worked with blue asbestos in the Houses of Parliament,
the most lethal form," she said.

"He remembers having to remove his protective mask on several
occasions when the air supply failed and not being told he had to
be clean-shaven for the mask to fit properly.

"He also recalls that air tests failed in the areas he and fellow
workers had their lunch and tea breaks."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher With Asbestos Cancer Blames School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Live reported that a specialist law firm is investigating
whether asbestos at Sevenoaks School is responsible for a former
teacher's cancer.

Michael Polley, 65, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
January, taught at the High Street school between 1977 and 1981.

He believes this is due to being exposed to toxic dust during this
time -- a claim the school denies.

Mr Folley, now of Taunton, has appointed mesothelioma claims
specialist Hugh James to investigate.

He said: "The diagnosis came as a complete shock. I never thought,
having spent my career working as a teacher, I would develop a
terminal asbestos-related illness.

'Devastating'

It has been devastating for my whole family and at a time when my
wife and I should be looking forward to a long retirement
together, we are instead faced with this."

The main classroom where Mr Polley taught was based in a school
building known as the Manor House.

Hugh James claims it was confirmed this building contained
asbestos in a 2006 specialist survey undertaken at the school.

Similarly, asbestos surveys identified the presence of asbestos in
other school buildings.

Mr Polley added: "Although my employment at the school was fairly
brief, there were a lot of works carried out during my time there.
In particular, I remember a building known as School House having
a significant refurbishment done.

"I would walk right past these works every day as I made my way
into the school to my classroom. The area was incredibly dusty but
we were never informed about any potentially harmful materials
being disrupted."

'No risk'

Responding to the claims a Sevenoaks School spokesman said:
"Although Mr Polley left the school almost 35 years ago, on first
hearing about his serious illness, the school undertook a review
into the conditions during the short time he taught at the school.

"We managed to speak with a member of staff who was closely
involved in the maintenance of the school at that time. He has
indicated that the location of asbestos was such that there was no
risk to either pupils or teaching staff.

"While we are very sorry to hear about Mr Polley's serious
illness, we do not believe he would have been exposed to any
asbestos dust or fibre during the course of his work at Sevenoaks
School in the late 1970s and early 1980s."

Solicitor Charlotte Perkins, who is representing Mr Polley, said
228 teachers across the UK had been diagnosed with mesothelioma
since 1980.

She added: "Unfortunately, as a teacher who worked at the school
for only a few years, Mr Polley's knowledge about the school
buildings itself is limited.

"We are hoping that others working at the school with more
knowledge about the fabric of the buildings and the works carried
out at the school will come forward and shed further light on
this."

Mr Polley is urging anyone who has information about asbestos or
works carried out at the school to contact Hugh James on 0808 231
6604.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits Need To Be Filed Quickly
------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.Net, reported that a
decision handed down by the Washington State Supreme Court is a
painful reminder of why mesothelioma attorneys urge people to act
quickly to file mesothelioma lawsuits. In a split decision, the
court ruled that the daughter of a man who died as a result of
asbestos exposure at work could not file a wrongful death lawsuit
against those responsible because the statute of limitations had
expired.

Judy Deggs' father, Ray Gordon Sundberg was a veteran of World War
II. He had served in the Navy, and afterwards was employed in
dockyards and lumber yards where he was exposed to asbestos on a
regular basis. In 1999 he filed personal injury lawsuits against
almost 40 companies after being diagnosed with a number of
asbestos-related diseases between 1998. Those lawsuits were either
settled or decided in court, and he was awarded over $1.5 million
in damages. In 2008 Mr. Sandberg died of his asbestos-related
diseases and his daughter filed a wrongful death action against a
number of companies that had not been included in the original
personal injury lawsuits. Those companies moved for summary
judgment based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations,
and the trial judge agreed. This week the court of appeals upheld
that decision.

Though the Supreme Court's decision was split, with Justice Debra
Stevens arguing that it would have been impossible for Deggs to
file the lawsuit before her father's death, other judges ruled
that in order for a wrongful death lawsuit to have been filed
against these defendants, the case would have needed to have begun
as a personal injury claim by Sundberg within three years of
having learned of his disease. No explanation was provided as to
why the defendants named in the wrongful death suit were not named
in the original personal injury lawsuits filed nine years earlier.

Though a person diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-
related disease has a great deal on their mind, and focusing on
their health must be their top priority, it is also important to
speak to a mesothelioma lawyer to make certain that all
appropriate legal action is taken before the deadline to do so
expires. Every state and jurisdiction has its own laws, so be sure
to contact an experienced mesothelioma law firm to discuss your
case. If you have questions, contact Danziger & De Llano Legal
Advocates today at 1-800-692-8608, or visit our website at
http://mesothelioma.net/mesothelioma-attorneys/to learn more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: University of Maryland Bldgs. Contain Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Feingold, writing for The DiamondBack, reported that about
90 buildings on the University of Maryland's campus contain
asbestos, and five of those are so hazardous parts of those
buildings are restricted to the public.

The material, which was used in construction, is harmful only when
it is friable, meaning easily pulverized or ground into a powder
form, said Facilities Management Operations and Maintenance
Director Jack Baker. That is when the material can become airborne
and when there is a possibility of exposure. When asbestos is
inhaled, it can cause serious lung damage and diseases such as
mesothelioma and lung cancer, according to the National Cancer
Institute.

"Every single residence hall is safe," Dooley said. "We refer
students to the residential facilities website if they have any
questions about asbestos in their dorm."

But "pretty much any building" more than 30 to 40 years old has it
somewhere Baker said. The most common ways it was used in
buildings on the campus were in floor tiles, pipe insulation, fire
doors, doors between stairwells and ceiling tiles, Dooley added.

Most of the South Hill buildings, which includes dorms on the
Washington Quad, went through renovations in recent years and
therefore don't have any asbestos in them, Dooley said. However,
many of the North Hill buildings still have the material.

Cambridge Hall, Queen Anne's Hall and Somerset Hall also went
through renovations over the past few years that included getting
rid of any asbestos. The next dorm up for renovation and asbestos
removal is Dorchester Hall, according to the 2014 On-Campus
Housing Strategic Plan.

South Campus Commons apartments and Courtyards do not have
asbestos, Dooley said.

As for other buildings on the campus, more than 70 contain non-
friable asbestos, meaning there is no exposure. Five buildings --
the Engineering Lab Building, H.J. Patterson Hall, the Reckord
Armory, the Mitchell Building and Francis Scott Key Hall -- have
hazardous material and restricted areas, according to this
university's asbestos inventory.

Julius Williams, contract construction supervisor for hazardous
and material services, said this university has an asbestos
management plan and that the plan will address all restricted
areas on the campus in the next year.

Besides emergency asbestos removal in hazardous areas, this
university also removes asbestos as part of a specific renovation
already taking place.

During the 2015-16 academic year, about 250 cubic yards of
asbestos were taken out of buildings on the campus, said asbestos
program manager Jennifer Rous. During the 2014-15 academic year,
375 cubic yards were removed.

"There is a downward trend in the general amount of asbestos being
removed," Rous said. "Since no more was put into buildings after
the 1980s, when you stop adding it and continue removing the
material, it eventually is going to go away completely."

The asbestos inventory at this university, which is referenced for
construction projects, only has about 80 percent of the total
amount of asbestos on the campus because not all of it can be
safely tested without making the material hazardous, Williams
said.

Third party contractors take care of the removal, Baker said. All
work is done at night, after business hours or on weekends in
order to minimize interruptions, Rous said. The removal takes
place inside a negative pressure containment area, which is in
accordance with federal and state regulation. An industrial
hygienist samples the air afterward to make sure there is no
asbestos contamination.

"These are the safest projects that anyone does because of the
regulations and also because people are trained to remove asbestos
safely," Baker said.

In the past year, the Armory, Toll Physics Building, the Chemistry
building, Cole Field House, the Benjamin Building and Kirwan Hall
went through some asbestos removal.

"Our asbestos management program on campus is top notch," Williams
said. "Our third party contractors, besides being trained
specifically in asbestos removal, are collecting samples before,
during and after asbestos removal projects in order to ensure the
safety of workers, faculty and students on campus."

Currently, room 3306 in Kirwan Hall is going through a renovation
and asbestos removal of floor tile, Bill Olen, capital projects
director, said. This project will be done by the end of October.

Since 1979, this university and the state of Maryland have
allocated several million dollars toward asbestos removal,
according to the Residential Facilities website. The campus
currently has its own budget for asbestos removal projects of
about $250,000 to $500,000 per year, Williams said.

"Any work we do to improve the campus hopefully has helped
students and we hope to get to the point where asbestos won't
exist at all on campus anymore," Baker said. "For now, most
asbestos on campus is perfectly safe and we remove it when doing
construction because it could break up and then it could be
dangerous."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Gypsum Sinks Due to Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reported that former drywall maker Kaiser
Gypsum sank into bankruptcy under the weight of 13,967 asbestos
suits including 1,498 in Illinois.

It faced 705 suits from Gori Julian of Edwardsville, 608 of them
in Illinois.

It faced 728 suits from Napoli Shkolnik of New York City, 320 of
them in Illinois.

Kaiser Gypsum's list of pending cases doesn't specify counties,
but case numbers and firm names connect most of the Illinois
action to Madison County.

Kaiser's Gypsum's list of 30 firms with "the largest number or
scope" of asbestos claims includes eight firms active in the
county.

Some firms active in the county made the list with fewer cases
than firms that didn't make the list, indicating a broader scope
for the county's cases.

That means Madison County's share of total cases, 11 percent,
doesn't begin to measure Madison County's share of the impact on
Kaiser Gypsum.

Goldenberg Heller of Edwardsville made the list of the top 30
firms with a mere 28 cases, a fifth of a percent of the nationwide
total.

Maune Raichle of St. Louis made the list with 40 Illinois cases
and seven others.

Simmons Hanly Conroy of East Alton made the list with 64 Illinois
cases and 21 others.

Flint and Associates of Glen Carbon made the list with 69 Illinois
cases and 18 in Missouri.

Shrader and Associates, a Texas firm with an office in Glen
Carbon, made the list with 96 Illinois cases and two others.

SWMK of St. Louis made the list with 128 cases in Illinois and 42
in Missouri.

Madison County associate judge Donald Flack didn't make the list
of the top 30 firms, but 27 cases bear the name of his former
firm.

Flack's statement of economic interest at the Illinois Supreme
Court shows he continues to earn fees from asbestos cases.

Kaiser Gypsum listed 35 cases from Robert Perica of Wood River,
who took charge of Flack's cases when circuit judges hired Flack
as associate judge.

Nationwide, three firms accounted for 64 percent of cases against
Kaiser Gypsum.

Kaiser Gypsum listed 4,352 cases from Peter Angelos, owner of the
Baltimore Orioles baseball club.

Kaiser Gypsum listed 2,855 cases from Ferraro and Associates of
Miami, and 1,769 from Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer of New York
City.

Kaiser Gypsum ceased to make anything or employ anyone years ago,
persisting only as a purse full of cash for asbestos settlements
and verdicts.

Prior to bankruptcy, it resolved about 32,000 asbestos suits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employer Fined $87K for Asbestos Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that state officials say an asbestos
removal contractor in suburban Seattle has been cited and fined
$87,000 for health violations that put workers, contractors and
homeowners at risk.

The Department of Labor and Industries said in a news release
Tuesday that American Disaster Services, Inc. of Kirkland was
cited for eight violations. The company allegedly exposed workers
and others to cancer-causing asbestos during renovation work at
several Seattle area jobsites.

The department has taken away they company's certification to do
asbestos removal work. The company's contractor registration also
was suspended Oct. 7, so it cannot legally work in construction or
asbestos abatement in the state.

State officials say asbestos exposure can lead to asbestosis as
well as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

A phone number to the company has been disconnected.


                            *********

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  * * *