CAR_Public/170317.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, March 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 55



                            Headlines

6D GLOBAL: New York Court Dismisses Class Action
ADEPTUS HEALTH: "Kim" Alleges Misreporting of Financials
AEROCRAFT HEAT: Paramount, CA Residents Sue Over Pollution
AKAL SECURITY: Bid to Re-Certify Nationwide Class Denied
ALLERGAN: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification

ALLERGAN PLC: "Ormond" Hits Pension Plan's Bad Investment
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Heller" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
ALPHA & OMEGA: "Marshall" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
ALPINE CLEANERS: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Breached Employee Contract, Suit Claims

AMERICAN HOTEL: Class Cert. Status Hearing Set for April 6
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Miller" Hits Share Drop Over Poor Financials
AP ACCOUNT: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
APPCO GROUP: Suit Reveals Unpleasant Company Practices
APPLE INC: California Court Trims Claims in "Maldonado" Suit

ARCELORMITTAL: Indirect Purchasers' Class Suit Pending
ASCENA RETAIL: Faces "Abramson" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
AT&T CORP: "Gadelhak" Sues Over Illegal Phone Survey
ATLAS AIR: Settlement of Pricing Practices Suit Has Final OK
AUDIBLE INC: "McKee" Hits Charges, Automatic Renewal Payment

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
BAL TK: "McBrayer" Seeks Minimum Pay, Tips, Refund for Uniforms
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Class Suit Filed in N.D. Ill.
BAYLOR HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Nurses, "Shipman" Suit Says
BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: "Gonzalez-Vega" Suit to Recover OT Pay

BULL CITY: Williams Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
CALIFORNIA: Inmate Can Proceed in Forma Pauperis
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sievert Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
CAREER EDUCATION: Motion to Decertify in "Surrett" Case Granted
CAROLINE CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: Motion to Certify Class Denied as Moot

CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Ill. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CEB INC: Faces "Buchans" Securities Suit Over Gartner Merger
CEB INC: Faces "Steinberg" Class Suit Over Gartner Merger
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Case Underway
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Colorado Suit

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Class Suit Remains Stayed
COLONY BRANDS: Forney Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed FairPoint Merger
CORECIVIC INC: Defending Against "Grae" Class Suit in Tennessee
COTY INC: "Caddell" Sues Over Hair Coloring Side Effects

CRAFT BREW: "Cillioni" Sues Over False Ad of Beer Products
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bassett" FDCPA Class Action
DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Griffin" Suit Claims
DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ward"
DAVID PIERCE: "Darkell" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class

DEERFIELD ROADSIDE: Faces "Cobb" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL: "McKinstry" Has Conditional Class Cert.
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Forte" Consumer Suit Over Pricing Structure
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sept. 14 Final Settlement Hearing
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Ruling Expected This Spring

DOW CHEMICAL: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Tank Failure Suit
DRILFORMANCE LLC: Kitagawa Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DUN & BRADSTREET: O&R Case Parties to File Renewed Settlement Bid
DUN & BRADSTREET: Die-Mension Case Parties to Re-File Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Vinotemp Case Parties to Re-File Settlement

DUN & BRADSTREET: Flow Sciences Case Parties to Refile Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Altaflo Case Parties to Renew Settlement Motion
DUN & BRADSTREET: March 20 Final Settlement Hearing in "Thomas"
DUTCH LLC: 3rd Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Deal Denied
ELECTROLUX HOME: Sued Over Excess Shipping Handling Fees

ELYSIAN NY: Faces "Grigoriou" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
ENCORE CAPITAL: Settlement in TCPA Case Granted Final Approval
ENHANCED RECOVERY: O'Boyle Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
ENOVA INT'L: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sobel" Suit Claims
ENRICH FINANCIAL: Faces "Aleksanian" Suit Alleging EFTA Violation

EXPRESS MESSENGER: Faces "Acosta" Suit Under FLSA, Calif. Laws
FARM NECK: Faces Putative Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reliance Trust Defending Class Suit
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Penalties
FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement in "Rehberg" Case Underway

FLOWERS FOODS: Appeal in "Martinez" Case Still Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: "Stewart" Class Suit Underway in W.D. Tennessee
FLOWERS FOODS: "Coyle" Class Suit Pending in Arizona
FLOWERS FOODS: "McCurley" Class Suit Remains Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends "Neff" Class Suit

FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Case Has Conditional Class Certification
FLOWERS FOODS: "Zapata" Case Has Conditional Class Certification
FLOWERS FOODS: "Rodriguez" Case Conditionally Certified
FLOWERS FOODS: "Richard" Plaintiffs Can Reassert Claims
FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Case Conditionally Certified

FLOWERS FOODS: "Boulange" Case Conditionally Certified
FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement Reached in "Bokanoski" Case
FLOWERS FOODS: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case
FOOT LEVELERS: Placeholder Bid to Certify Class Declared as Moot
FRAZEE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cogdell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

FRONT RANGE: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Smith" Suit Claims
GEICO CORPORATION: Oregon Court Grants Bid to Stay "Reynolds"
GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Fla. SVP Statutes
GEO GROUP: Class Action Status Granted to Immigrants' Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Acord" Lawsuit Over Zofran Drug

GOOGLE INC: Activist Appeals Approval of $5.5MM Settlement
HARPETH FINANCIAL: "Atkinson" Asserts Breach of Loan Agreement
HELIX ENEGRY: "Wilson" Suit to Recoup OT Wages under FLSA
HERITAGE OAKS: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Pacific Premier
HOLY CROSS: ERISA Church Plan Class Action Settles

HOMEADVISOR INC: "Goheen" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
IKON BUILDERS: "Familia" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
IL VALENTINO: "Grzybowski" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Law Violations
INSMED INCORPORATED: April 3 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
INVENSENSE INC: "Holzman" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal

ISORAY INC: Judge Approves Proposed Securities Suit Settlement
JAN RESOURCES: Faces "Bell" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification
JEROME'S FURNITURE: "Rodriguez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
JOHN ADAMS: "Lang" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
JOSEPH CORY: Bid for Class Certification Denied Without Prejudice

JPH HOLDINGS: "Conway" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
KEM REST: "Galvez" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Judd" Alleges Misclassification, Seeks OT
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Huggies Baby Wipes, Suit Claims
KONA BREWING: Faces "Broomfield" Suit Over Misleading Beer Labels

L3 TECHNOLOGIES: EoTech Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: $34.5MM Settlement Subject to Documentation
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Filed
LA RANCHERA INC: "Hernandez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
LANGT INC: Faces "Augustin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation

LEADVISION LLC: Faces "Blazick" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
LENNY & LARRY'S: "Cowen" Alleges Product Mislabelling in Cookies
LG ELECTRONICS: "Munoz" Says TV's Energy-Saving Features a Fraud
LIVE NATION: Accrued $14 Million Remaining Cost of Settlement
LM FUNDING: Judge Denies Class Certification

LOYAL SOURCE: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Product
LYCA TEL: "Acosta" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
MACY'S WEST: Faces "Straughter" Suit Over Arbitration Clause
MANHEIM REMARKETING: Faces "Campasino" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Laws

MDL 2420: Battery Antitrust Settlements Await Court OK
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Vaccaro" TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
MERCER CANYONS: Settles Yakima Valley Farmworkers' Suit
MICHIGAN: Class Suit Filed Over "Robo-Adjudication" Program
MINOR LEAGUE: Players' Wage Suit Recertified as Class Action

MISSOURI: Inadequately Funding Public Defender System, Suit Says
MOUNTAIN FRUITS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Leon" Suit Says
MPW INDUSTRIAL: "Swain" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MULTI PACKAGING: "Steinberg" Files Suit Over Sale to West Rock
MULTI PACKAGING: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to WestRock

MXI CORP: Ordered to Pay $7.7MM to Resolve Salespeople's Suit
NABORS DRILLING: Faces "Calderon" FLSA Suit for Unpaid OT Wages
NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Holmberg" Securities Suit Over 2016 IPO
NANTHEALTH INC: "Deora" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
NANTHEALTH INC.: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Herrick" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
OAK TRUST: Faces "Alan" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
OLSEN TWINS: Settles Interns' Underpaid Wage Suit
OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Ahern" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports

ONE WAY: "Melingonis" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ONE WAY: Faces "Alves" Lawsuit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: Unpaid OT Pay Sought in "Coleman" Labor Suit
ORILUZ WINDOWS: "Andreu" Seeks Overtime Pay, Insurance Coverage
PAN BROTHERS: "Caceres" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

PAYPAL INC: Diverts Charity Donations, Class Suit Claims
PENG'S BODY: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Xiang" Labor Suit
PEPSI-COLA SALES: "Helton" Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defending Suits Related to Line 901 Incident
PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: "Zampirri" Alleges Securities Act Violation

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: "Celli" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
R.M. GALICIA: Faces "Carreon" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
R.M. GALICIA: Faces 2nd "Carreon" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Hodges" Suit Alleges Violation of TCPA
RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class for Settlement Purposes

RENTECH INC: Faces "Cuadra" Suit Over Securities Act Violation
RHINO RELOCATION: Faces "Clayton" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
ROCKNE'S INC: "Harrison" Sues for Being Paid Below Minimum Wage
RUSTOLEUM: Judge Approves USD9.3 Million Settlement Deal
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Sues Over Defective Washing Machines

SELMA HEART: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Remand "Blevins"
SEPHORA USA: Duran Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missing Pay Stubs
SEYDI V AKSUT: 11th Circuit Appeals Class Action Ruling
SIMPLY THALIA: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
SUPERVALU INC: 8th Cir. Denies Colella's Bid to Intervene

SUPERVALU INC: JND Named Notice Administrator in Antitrust Suit
TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending
TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in Services Quality Class Action Pending
TELORO CORP: Faces "Candelario" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
TENET CONCEPTS: Faces "Mukes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

THERANOS: Challenges Plaintiffs' Standing to Sue
TJX COMPANIES: "Chester" Suit Seeks Certification of Subclasses
TOP & QUALITY: "Duchitanga" Sues for Harassment, Discrimination
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Florida Woman Wants to Opt-Out of Deal
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Hearing in Q2 2017 on Class Action Appeal

UNITED CONTINENTAL: Consolidated Suit Pending in D.C. Court
UNITED STATES: "Soto" Suit Seeks Certification of US Navy Class
USCB INC: Faces "Burbano" Lawsuit Over Illegal Debt Collection
VARICOSIS LASER: Illegal SMS Ads Hit in "McFerrin" TCPA Suit
VECTREN CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employee Class Suit

VEREIT INC: TIAA-CREF Files Class Certification Motion
VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Still Pending
VERONICAS AUTO INSURANCE: "Ramirez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
WALGREENS CO: Sued Over Payment and Reimbursement Policies
WPX ENERGY: 2nd Class Cert. Bid in Royalty Suit Underway

WPX ENERGY: Class Certification Motions Pending in Nevada Case
YOUR WIRELESS: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes

* Merkel to Warn Trump That U.S. Tax Changes May Spark Retaliation
* Neil Gorsuch's Rulings in Class Actions Examined



                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tile Council Dropped as Defendant in "Hanson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Narrows Claims in WECCO Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Court Dismisses "Fuhrman"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lousiana Law Applies to Survivorship Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Cleanup Underway in Old Mill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Health-Care Bill Preserves Libby Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM Sues Asbestos Trusts for Worker Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trump Will Likely Support Asbestos FACT Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Sues Firm Over Asbestos Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kamamalu Bldg. Named in Hawaii Judge's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Poor Asbestos Assessment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower's Suit vs. Sonama SU Goes to Jury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects "Possible" Exposure Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Pensioner Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heaton Mum Gets Asbestos-related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lagoon Beach Closed After Asbestos Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Says Asbestos Led to Hawaii Judge's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Issues Fines for Unlicensed Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry, Supervisors Indicted in Exposure Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Drug Offers Hope to Mesothelioma Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stirling Council Fined for Ignoring Warnings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Leading Cause of Worker Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Cos. Set to Appeal $75MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africa Won't Support Asbestos Trade Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Payment Bill Sent to Iowa Governor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Hails S.Dakota for Fighting Fraud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Urges Family of Pensioner to Make Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Seeks Summary Judgment in Atty's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Liability Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Work on Hold After Asbestos Discovery



                            *********


6D GLOBAL: New York Court Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------
6D Global Technologies, Inc., a premier digital business solutions
company, disclosed that a putative class action complaint against
it has been dismissed with prejudice by Manhattan U.S. District
Judge Robert Sweet.

"I am excited that 6D Global has been vindicated by such a strong
and decisive ruling," said Tejune Kang, Chairman and CEO of 6D
Global Technologies. "I am pleased with the Court's clearheaded
analysis and sound judgement on this case. We will rigorously
defend all lawsuits, especially those frivolous complaints without
any support for their claims. But most of all, I am looking
forward to focusing my full attention on 6D Global's core mission:
providing a platform of digital marketing services to our clients
on a global scale."

The class action lawsuit against 6D Global alleged that the
company violated federal securities laws, but Federal Judge Sweet
on March 6 dismissed the action with prejudice because the
plaintiffs' pleadings failed to make out a viable case.

"One by one, the allegations against 6D Global have crumbled,"
added Kang. "As we free ourselves from the burden of fighting
baseless claims, 6D Global is charging forward."

Judge Sweet's ruling was in Joseph Puddu, et al., v 6D Global
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-08061-RWS, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York. 6D Global is
represented by Peter Flocos of K&L Gates LLP.[GN]


ADEPTUS HEALTH: "Kim" Alleges Misreporting of Financials
--------------------------------------------------------
Winston Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Adeptus Health Inc., Gregory W. Scott,
Thomas S. Hall, Frank R. Williams Jr. and Timothy L. Fielding,
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00150, (E.D. Tex., March 10, 2017),
seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Adeptus, owns and operates a network of independent freestanding
emergency rooms in the United States. Defendants failed to
disclose that the Company had material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting in the areas of revenue
recognition, accounts receivable, accounting for a contribution to
an unconsolidated joint venture and accounting for equity in lost
earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures, says the complaint.

Plaintiff invested in Adeptus stock and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andy Tindel, Esq.
      MT2LAW GROUP MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
      112 East Line Street, Suite 304
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 596-0900
      Facsimile: (903) 596-0909
      Email: atindel@andytindel.com

             - and -

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
             lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AEROCRAFT HEAT: Paramount, CA Residents Sue Over Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
residents of a Los Angeles suburb filed a class action against
seven metal finishing factories, claiming they polluted the City
of Paramount with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium, a chemical
made famous by the movie "Erin Brockovich."

Allison Weiner and six others sued Aerocraft Heat Treating Co.,
Anaplex Corp., Precision Castparts et al. on March 1, in Superior
Court. They say the factories polluted the city of 55,000,
directly east of Compton, in "conscious disregard for the lives of
the surrounding residents."

Regulators found last fall that Anaplex and Aerocraft had
discharged elevated levels of chromium 6 into the neighborhood.
Prolonged exposure to chromium 6 increases the risk of lung cancer
and asthma.

"Defendants allowed toxic chemicals to migrate into the
surrounding communities and contaminate the surrounding surface
and subsurface soil, groundwater and air. This contamination has
migrated into the surrounding neighborhoods where they have been
and continue to be inhaled, ingested, or otherwise contacted by
plaintiffs and the putative class who live and work in the City of
Paramount, California," the complaint states.

In January, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
ordered Anaplex to temporarily suspend operations and issued a
similar order to Aerocraft in February. The air regulator has
cited defendant Carlton Forge Works seven times for discharging
chromium pollution into the atmosphere, according to the
complaint.

Anaplex installed 28 pieces of equipment that emit the potent
pollutant without approval from regulators, the residents say.
They say the pollution comes from unmonitored Anaplex tanks
containing chrome plating solution and chrome based paints, and
that chromium-laced dust has drifted from an Aerocraft factory in
the neighborhood.

Air regulators began monitoring in 2013 after residents complained
of pungent metallic odors. In October 2016, investigators found
chromium 6 levels more than 350 times higher than typical
background levels, the Los Angeles Times reported in January.

Dozens of metal industry businesses operate in the city,
intermingling with schools and homes. Some homes are within a few
hundred feet of the factories.

The residents are represented by Robert Finnerty with the
environmental law firm Girardi Keese. The firm represented
Hinkley, California residents in the chromium contamination case
made famous by "Erin Brockovich," starring Julia Roberts.

The residents seek class certification and an injunction ordering
the companies to clean up the pollution in soil, bedrock and from
the exteriors of their homes, costs of medical monitoring, and
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for fraudulent
concealment, trespass, strict liability for ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, public and private nuisance and unfair
competition.

Also named defendants are Precision Castparts subsidiaries
Aerocraft Beat Treating Co., Press Forge Co. and Carlton Forge
Works, Weber Metals. and Mattco Forge.

In January, Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathway acquired Precision
Castparts in a deal valued at $37.2 billion.

Anaplex President Carmen Campbell said the company was addressing
residents' concerns.

"This changes nothing in our determination to continue to work
closely with regulators and provide local jobs and services that
meet environmental standards with the best interests of the
community in mind," Campbell wrote in an emailed statement.

Precision Castparts and Aerocraft did not immediately respond to
requests for comment. Nor did Girardi Keese attorney Finnerty.


AKAL SECURITY: Bid to Re-Certify Nationwide Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELLIOT GELBER, and a1l others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Federico A.
Moreno entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion filed on
February 6, 2017, seeking to re-certify as a nationwide collective
action.

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


ALLERGAN: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Francis Ward at ABA Journal reports that the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a class-action certification
order in a consumer lawsuit that alleged that the eye drops used
to treat glaucoma were larger than necessary, and those who used
the drops were overpaying.

Even if the defendants -- Allergan, Alcon, Bausch and Lomb,
Pfizer, Merck and Prasco -- sold tiny eye drops that were cheaper
and just as effective, consumers still got what they paid for,
Judge Richard Posner wrote for court. Posner is a cat owner,
according to Law.com, and he evoked felines and Fancy Feast to
illustrate his reasoning in the 7th Circuit opinion (PDF).

"Suppose the class members all happened to own pedigreed cats, and
the breeders who had sold the cats to the class members had told
them that as responsible cat owners they would have to feed the
cats kibbles during the day and Fancy Feast at night and buy a
fountain for each cat because cats prefer to drink out of a
fountain (where gravity works for them) rather than out of a bowl
(where gravity works against them) and they don't like to share a
fountain with another cat," Posner wrote. He asked readers to
imagine that the cat food got more expensive, and the fountains
didn't work.

Cat owners, he wrote, wouldn't like that. "Yet would anyone think
they could successfully sue the breeders? For what? The breeders
had made no misrepresentations. "It's the same here."

Regret or disappointment in a product is not an actionable injury,
Posner wrote.  "You cannot sue a company and argue only -- "it
could do better by us" -- which is all they are arguing. In fact,
such a suit fails at the threshold, because there is no standing
to sue." Posner ordered U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the
Southern District of Illinois to dismiss the case with prejudice

Plaintiffs in the case allege violation of merchandising practices
law in Missouri, and consumer fraud in Illinois, the Cook County
Record reports. The district court certified eight classes in the
two states.[GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: "Ormond" Hits Pension Plan's Bad Investment
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Ormond, on behalf of the Allergan, Inc. Savings and
Investment Plan, the Actavis, Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a
class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plan,
Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Employee Benefits Plan Committee of
Allergan PLC, Karen Ling, Bryan Kavanaugh, Benefits Oversight
Committee of Allergan PLC, John Does 1-20 and Richard Roes 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01554, (D.N.J., March 7, 2017), seeks
to restore all profits due from its fiduciary obligations, actual
damages in the amount of any losses suffered, losses attributable
to the decline in the price of Allergan Stock, attorneys' fees and
costs and equitable monetary relief under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Allergan Stock is an investment option used by Employee Benefits
Plan Committee of Allergan PLC which lost substantially when
Allergan stock prices went down. Plaintiff alleges that Allergan
Stock was artificially inflated when their plan invested in it and
lacked the due diligence.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      210 Summit Avenue
      Montvale, NJ 07645
      Telephone: (201) 391-7000
      Facsimile: (201) 307-1088
      Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      Email: mklein@ssbny.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Heller" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Heller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP, and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01821, (C.D.
Cal., March 7, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for
willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees and for such other and further relief pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Alltran Financial, LP is a debt collection company. It used an
automatic telephone dialing system to place its daily calls to
Plaintiff seeking to collect an alleged debt. Heller explicitly
informed Alltran to cease calling, but the calls continued.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPHA & OMEGA: "Marshall" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN MARSHALL, LAWRENCE GATES and EARL
HENSELY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT NETWORK, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02257-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
consisting of:

   "all individuals who were employed by Defendant, its
   subsidiaries or affiliated companies, as drivers in the state
   of Illinois at any time during the relevant statute of
   limitations period who were not paid overtime for hours worked
   over 40 in any given work week and were not paid for all hours
   worked".

Plaintiffs' claims are based upon Defendant's common scheme where
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers (or other
similarly titled position) were not paid for all hours worked and
were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours
in a given workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE
          OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (331) 225 2123

               - and -

          Peter Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
          DiTommaso-Lubin P.C.
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333 0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333 0333


ALPINE CLEANERS: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Cruz, Daniel Guerrero and Javier Romero individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alpine
Cleaners Inc., Man Soo Kim and Kap Kim, Defendants., Case No.
2:17-cv-00269, (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938; spread of hours and overtime wage including
applicable liquidated damages; and interest, attorneys' fees and
costs under New York Labor Laws.

Alpine Cleaners & Laundromat is a full service dry
cleaner/laundromat owned by Man Soo Kim and Kap Kim, located at 25
St. James Place, New York, NY 10038. Plaintiffs performed the
duties of pressing, ironing and dry cleaning clothes and claim to
have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the
hours that they worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Breached Employee Contract, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Cook
County Circuit Court, in Illinois, that American Airlines poached
employees of other airlines, offering the potential to make
significantly more money under a two-year incentive program before
rescinding the plan.

The case is, THOMAS BALLARD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, 2017 CH 02917 (Ill., Circ., Cook
County, February 28, 2017).  It alleges breach of contract, fraud
and unjust enrichment on behalf of AA mechanic "Flex Employees"
who were provided, as a hiring incentive, a two-year flex
progression of "top of scale" benefits plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 346-7950
     Fax: (312) 346-5777
     E-mail: ldd@larrvdrurv.com


AMERICAN HOTEL: Class Cert. Status Hearing Set for April 6
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit titled E
& G, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. American Hotel Register Company, et
al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01011 (N.D. Ill.), continuing
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification April 6,
2017 at 9:30 a.m..

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 2, 2017,
Defendants' oral motion to extend time to answer Plaintiff's
complaint is granted to March 24, 2017. Status hearing set for
April 6, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VLT6zBrV


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Miller" Hits Share Drop Over Poor Financials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Miller, Individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D.
Zyskind and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01608, (C.D. Cal., February 28, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides
property and casualty insurance in the United States and
internationally.

Plaintiff alleges that AmTrust failed to disclose that the Company
had ineffective assessment of the risks associated with the
financial reporting, had an insufficient complement of corporate
accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the
organization and lacked effective controls over financial
reporting.

On this news, shares of AmTrust fell $5.32 per share or over 19%
from its previous closing price to close at $22.34 per share on
February 27, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AP ACCOUNT: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JEREMY RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AP ACCOUNT
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02772 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion, asking the Court to enter an
order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
action may proceed as a class action, on behalf of a class of.

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom
   AP Account Services LLC, (c) sent a letter offering a
   settlement of a debt (d) consisting of a balance allegedly
   owed on a checking account where terms are subject to change
   on notice (e) on which the last payment or activity by the
   consumer had occurred more than five years prior to the
   letter, (f) which letter was sent on or after a date one year
   prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21
   days after the filing of this action".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Jeremy Ramirez further
requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be
appointed counsel for the class.

The action concerns attempts to collect from plaintiff an alleged
debt consisting of a balance owed or a checking account. The
account was for personal, family or household purposes and not for
business purposes.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                   Prior Bid Terminated as Moot

The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Jeremy Ramirez, the Plaintiff, v. AP Account Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02772 (N.D. Ill.), terminating as moot
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as it is superseded by
the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification, according
to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 2, 2017.

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


APPCO GROUP: Suit Reveals Unpleasant Company Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that when a
company becomes embroiled in headlines that include young adults
taking part in humiliating simulated sex act rituals, cross-
dressing or slithering on their bellies in a "sluggie" race as
punishment for not meeting sales targets, it grabs attention.

Appco Group Australia hit the headlines last October when a group
of "independent contractors" joined a class action against the
global marketing giant.

The stories that accompanied it included videos of young people
placed in compromising positions. Some were forced to take part in
disturbing rituals if their names were placed on the whiteboard
for missing their weekly target for raising money.

It was squirm-worthy viewing. There were examples of charity
workers being forced to lick underwear. One news article wrote the
"punishment for not hitting their target was to shove a cigarette
up your bottom, pull it out and then smoke it".

But at the heart of the class action is the allegation that Appco
engaged in sham contracting or "sole trader" arrangements --
hiring workers as independent contractors rather than employees --
and gross wage underpayment, with some "independent contractors"
alleging they worked for as little as AUD2.50 an hour, up to 80
hours a week.

                     Claimants Sign Up

Since Chamberlains Law Firm initiated the action more than 950
claimants around the country have joined up, with a value of AUD80
million being touted.

In the past few days the case took an interesting twist when Appco
applied to the Federal Court to stop it being brought as a class
action.

It said the claims against it were weak and the allegations of
sham contracting had no legal basis. It said the case didn't meet
the criteria to continue as a class action "and that this should
be determined before the parties incur further costs".

The application will be heard on May 16, 2017.

In an attempt to turn up the pressure it said it was also
considering applying to have "elements" of the lead claimant,
Jacob Bywater's individual case against Appco struck out. Bywater
joined the Appco sales force in April 2014 and won the "top sales
performer award" in 2015.

Bywater alleges he worked seven days a week, putting in an average
of 80 hours each week over the 22 months that he worked, until
finishing in February 2016.

Bywater was one of the group's star performers, topping the
monthly top leader competition. Despite this, he alleges he was
short-changed more than AUD100,000 over the course of his
employment.

The explosive allegations made in the statement of claim coupled
with the videos that have been released to the media suggest there
is a disturbing underbelly to the business of raising money for
charities.

                      'Desperate' Move

Chamberlains seems nonplussed. It describes the latest move by
Appco as an act of "sheer desperation" to try and save its
business model from collapse in the courts.

"We are very confident in our legal position. We fully expect that
Appco will go to enormous measures to delay the inevitable
conclusion that a large class of Australians, especially young
people, have been grossly underpaid in an act of sham contracting
the likes of which we have never seen before," Chamberlains told
Fairfax Media.

There is a lot at stake not just for Appco and the workers, but
also the companies that have used them to raise funds or flog
products.

These companies aren't being tapped for compensation, but they
certainly won't want their names associated with a legal action
that alleges underpayment and media articles that highlight some
horrifying and belittling rituals.

The explosive allegations made in the statement of claim coupled
with the videos that have been released to the media suggest there
is a disturbing underbelly to the business of raising money for
charities and other companies outsourcing the flogging of
products.

It no doubt explains why Appco has quietly removed the names of
companies it has worked with from its website.

                          Appco 'Disturbed'

In response to a series of questions Appco said a small number of
clients had asked for their names to be taken off the website.

"Understandably, they were disturbed by the videos. Appco
Australia decided to take all names off to treat our clients
equally," the statement said.

It has also lost a few clients.

In the meantime, the National Union of Workers (NUW), which has
been campaigning hard on the labour practices of some fundraising
companies linked to charities, hoped to ramp up the pressure with
a rally outside Star City.

The rally was to coincide with an annual conference that was to be
held by Appco to celebrate the achievements of individuals.

For some the rally will be bittersweet.

                         Justice sought

Tracey Bowker is one of those.

She said it would have been the first time "I lay eyes on anyone
from Appco (or Torque Global, the subsidiary Michael worked for
before he died) so it is quite confronting" she said in an email.

Bowker's son Michael was struck down and killed by a high-speed
train after leaving a work function when working at Torque Global,
one of 64 marketing agencies contracted to global fundraising
giant Appco. He died in December 2015.

Bowker joined the class action to seek justice for her dead son,
who she says was paid AUD60 some weeks for working more than 50
hours -- equivalent to AUD1.20 an hour -- and was treated shabbily
in the lead up to, and the aftermath of, his untimely death.

"This is especially meaningful to me as Michael's workers
compensation case was rejected on the grounds that he was a
'contractor' not an employee. We are now appealing the workers
compensation decision on the back of the sham-contracting class
action case," she said.

But now, Appco has hastily cancelled the conference after hearing
about the rally. The rally will also be cancelled.

Appco, for its part, says when it comes to humiliating rituals, it
is confident all relevant marketing companies have stamped out
these practices. It also tries to play down what has occurred.
"The unacceptable motivational games captured in videos are quite
old and confined to a small number of businesses."

But that isn't really the point. It did happen and it happened in
more than a few marketing companies.[GN]


APPLE INC: California Court Trims Claims in "Maldonado" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned VICKY MALDONADO,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

On September 8, 2013, Vicky Maldonado purchased a fourth-
generation iPad and AC+ from the Apple retail store in Sugarland,
Texas. On May 22, 2015, Maldonado took her iPad back to the Apple
Store where she purchased it because it was constantly restarting
and having hundreds of panics each day. She received a replacement
device under her AC+ coverage, but, over the next week, she
experienced persistent issues with the device restarting several
times a day, so she returned to the Apple store for a second
replacement device.

Justin Carter purchased an iPhone6+ and AC+ from an Apple Store in
Jacksonville, Florida in April 2015. By the beginning of 2016, he
began experiencing problems with the battery, but did not call
AppleCare+ to report the problem until July. He received a
replacement device the same month, and by October reported the
same battery issues. He received a second replacement iPhone6+ on
October 28, 2016. Before even opening the second iPhone6+, Carter
had the phone professionally inspected and discovered it was bent
with dented and scratched internal parts and components, including
a dented loud speaker.
Prior to September 10, 2013, AC+ promised to repair the defect in
material or workmanship at no charge, using new or refurbished
parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability or
exchange the Covered device with a replacement product that is new
or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at
least functionally equivalent to the original product. For
accidental damage, a consumer could pay a $49 service fee for
Apple to repair the defect using new or refurbished parts that are
equivalent to new in performance and reliability or exchange the
Covered device with a replacement product that is new or
equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least
functionally equivalent to the original product. On September 10,
2013, Apple changed the terms of the AC+ service for hardware
repairs, removing any reference to refurbished parts and promising
to repair the defect at no charge, using new parts or parts that
are equivalent to new in performance and on reliability. Under the
accidental damage provision, the service fee ranges from $29 to
$79 to receive a replacement device or repair.  AC+ has had
different iterations since September 2013, but the repair and
replacement terms have remained the same.

Represented by the Renee Kennedy, Joanne McRight and Vicky
Maldonado filed an action on July 20, 2016, and filed a first
amended complaint on November 14, 2016, adding Justin Carter.
Plaintiffs accused defendants Apple, Inc. and AppleCare Service
Company, Inc. of misrepresentations and breach of contract in
connection with AppleCare+ (AC+), the extended service plans Apple
offers to purchasers of specific devices, including iPhones and
iPads. Plaintiffs allege that the replacement devices that Apple
provided under AC+ were not and can never be equivalent to new if
they are refurbished or otherwise not new.  They asserted breach
of contract, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, violation of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's False
Advertising Law and a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.

Apple moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, or in the
alternative, strike the class allegations.

Judge Orrick held plaintiffs' allegations that the injury in
receiving replacement devices that were not equivalent to new in
performance and reliability is sufficient to confer standing. They
have plausibly pleaded breach of contract and statutory warranty
claims, but they fail to allege actual reliance on the AC+ terms
and conditions, so their misrepresentation/fraud based claims
fail, the judge held.  Apple's motion to dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part. Plaintiffs shall file an amended
complaint within 20 days.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated March 2, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/gH7A70 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Renee Fagan Kennedy -- Attorney at Law;
Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Michella A. Kras --
michellak@hbsslaw.com -- Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com --
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Defendants, represented by Penelope Athene Preovolos --
ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Ashley K. Nakamura -- anakamura@mofo.com --
Margaret Elizabeth Mayo -- mmayo@mofo.com -- Purvi Govindlal Patel
-- ppatel@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP


ARCELORMITTAL: Indirect Purchasers' Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that two putative class
actions on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products have
been filed and one has been dismissed for want of prosecution; the
remaining indirect purchasers' action is not covered by the
settlement of the direct purchaser claims or the court's class
certification decision.

On September 12, 2008, Standard Iron Works filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against ArcelorMittal, ArcelorMittal
USA LLC, and other steel manufacturers, alleging that the
defendants had conspired to restrict the output of steel products
in order to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices at
artificially high levels in violation of United States antitrust
law. Other similar direct purchaser lawsuits were also filed in
the same court and were consolidated with the Standard Iron Works
lawsuit.

On May 29, 2014, ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC entered
into an agreement to settle the direct purchaser claims for an
amount of 90 recognized in cost of sales.

On October 17, 2014, the court gave its final approval of the
settlement and dismissed ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC
from the lawsuit.

In September 2015, the court certified a class of direct
purchasers on whether there was a conspiracy, allowing the case to
proceed against the remaining defendants as a class action, but
did not certify a class on impact or damages. This ruling did not
affect the settlement; subsequently the remaining direct
purchasers settled.


ASCENA RETAIL: Faces "Abramson" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ASCENA
RETAIL GROUP, INC. d/b/a DRESSBARN Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00294-CB (W.D. Pa., March 7, 2017), alleges that Defendant Ascena
Retail Group, Inc. d/b/a Dressbarn made an automated telephone
call using equipment prohibited by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act to send a text message to the Plaintiff, despite
the fact that they had no business relationship with him.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (formerly Dress Barn and doing business
as Dressbarn) is an American retailer of women's clothing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
     MORROW & ARTIM, PC
     304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-1250
     E-mail: Email: csm@consumerlaw365.com

        - and -

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
     99 High St., Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (508) 221-1510
     E-mail: Email: anthony@broderick-law.com


AT&T CORP: "Gadelhak" Sues Over Illegal Phone Survey
----------------------------------------------------
Ali Gadelhak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01559, (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2017), seeks actual damages or an
award of statutory damages, treble damages and such further and
other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been registered in the
National Do Not Call Registry since May 23, 2014. He is not an
AT&T subscriber but has been receiving phone surveys from the
Defendant using an automated telephone dialling system.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      Michael Hilicki, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


ATLAS AIR: Settlement of Pricing Practices Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York has issued an
order granting final judgment of the settlement over alleged
pricing practices.

The Company and Polar Air Cargo, LLC ("Old Polar"), a consolidated
subsidiary, were named defendants, along with a number of other
cargo carriers, in several class actions in the U.S. arising from
allegations about the pricing practices of Old Polar and a number
of air cargo carriers. These actions were all centralized in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Polar
was later joined as an additional defendant.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges, in violation of U.S., state, and
European Union antitrust laws. The suit sought treble damages and
attorneys' fees.

On January 7, 2016, the Company, Old Polar, and Polar entered into
a settlement agreement to settle all claims by participating class
members against the Company, Old Polar and Polar. The Company,
Polar, and Old Polar deny any wrongdoing, and there is no
admission of any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. Pursuant
to the settlement agreement, the Company, Old Polar and Polar have
agreed to make installment payments over three years to settle the
plaintiffs' claims, with payments of $35.0 million paid on January
15, 2016, $35.0 million due on or before January 15, 2017, and
$30.0 million due on or before January 15, 2018.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on
January 12, 2016. On October 6, 2016, the final judgment was
issued and the settlement was approved.

Atlas Air is a global provider of outsourced aircraft and aviation
operating services.


AUDIBLE INC: "McKee" Hits Charges, Automatic Renewal Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
Grant McKee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Audible, Inc. and Amazon.Com, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01941, (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2017),
seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment and violation of the Lanham Act, False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Automatic Purchase
Renewals Law of the California Business and Professions Code,
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, the
federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Gift Certificate Law and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act under the California Civil Code.

Plaintiff signed up for an audiobook purchasing plan with Audible,
an Amazon.com company, in which prepaid credits could be redeemed
with them for an equivalent number of audiobooks. However, once
members accrue a certain number of prepaid credits, their credits
start to expire to make room for new credits, but were still
charged, forfeiting all previously purchased credits. Defendants
also failed to disclose to consumers of the required "automatic
renewal" payment and cancellation terms at the point of sale. As a
result, Plaintiff and Class members have been charged regularly
and automatically without being fully informed of the consequences
and related cancellation policy as required by law. Also, the
terms imposed on Audible members authorize Audible to charge any
credit card linked to a member's separate Amazon account if the
credit card given directly to Audible is declined for any reason.

Defendants have made these misleading representations on their
websites and other places in violation of the federal Lanham Act,
says the complaint.

Mr. McKee signed up for an Audible "Gold Monthly" membership plan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
      SODERSTROM LAW PC
      3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 667-4700
      Fax: (949) 424-8091
      Email: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ollila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., E. James Ferland
and Jenny L. Apker, Case No. 3:17-cv-00109 (W.D. Cal., March 3,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. is a technology-based provider
of advanced fossil and renewable power generation equipment that
includes a suite of boiler products, environmental systems, and
services for power and industrial uses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Bruce McDaniel, Esq.
      MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
      Lafayette Square
      4942 Windy Hill Drive
      Raleigh, NC  27609
      Telephone: (919) 872-3000
      Facsimile: (919) 790-9273
      E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com

         - and -

      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL  33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
              rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      120 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA  30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


BAL TK: "McBrayer" Seeks Minimum Pay, Tips, Refund for Uniforms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McBrayer, Kayla Poole, and Katie Simmons, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAL
TK, LLC, d/b/a The Tilted Kilt Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00386,
(N.D. Ala., March 10, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages,
restitution of wages and gratuities improperly retained by
Defendant, liquidated damages, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as waitresses for the Defendant's restaurant in
Birmingham, Alabama, operating under the trade name "The Tilted
Kilt," located at 14 Perimeter Park South, Birmingham, Alabama
35243. Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of illegal tip crediting and
paying below minimum wage rates.  They seeks reimbursement for
their uniform expenses.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian M. Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th St.
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Fax: (205) 254-1500
      Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com

             - and -

      Darrell Cartwright, Esq.
      Allan L. Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER, LLC
      The Berry Building
      2820 Columbiana Road
      Vestavia Hills, AL 35216


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Class Suit Filed in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that a single
consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the Northern
District of Illinois.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions
to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a
shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The New York Attorney General has requested that Baxter provide
information regarding business practices in the IV saline
industry. The company is cooperating with the New York Attorney
General.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a
broad portfolio of essential renal and hospital products,
including acute and chronic dialysis; sterile IV solutions;
infusion systems and devices; parenteral nutrition therapies;
premixed and oncolytic injectables; biosurgery products and
anesthetics; drug reconstitution systems; and pharmacy automation,
software and services.


BAYLOR HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Nurses, "Shipman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elicia Shipman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Baylor Health Care System, variously d/b/a
Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas; Baylor Scott & White
Medical Center-Fort Worth; Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-
Carrollton; Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Garland; Baylor
Scott & White Medical Center-Grapevine; Baylor  Scott & White
Medical Center-Irving; Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-
McKinney; Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Plano; Baylor Scott
& White Medical Center-Waxahachie; Baylor T. Boone Pickens Cancer
Hospital; and Paul and Judy Andrews Women's Hospital at Baylor All
Saints Medical Center, Case No. 3:17-cv-00637-G (N.D. Tex., March
3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
compensate non-exempt nurses as required by law for work performed
during meal breaks.
The Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provide
healthcare services in the Dallas?Fort Worth Metroplex area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Mabry, Esq.
      MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      7155 Old Katy Road, Suite N235
      Houston, TX 77024
      Telephone: (832) 350-8335
      Facsimile: (832) 831-2460
      E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com

         - and -

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: "Gonzalez-Vega" Suit to Recover OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Gonzalez-Vega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brightview Landscapes LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02128, (D. Kan., February 28, 2017),
seeks relief for all uncompensated work, including unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime wages, all penalties, liquidated damages and
other damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of all benefits
obtained by Defendants, injunctive and declaratory relief and all
other forms of equitable relief, reasonable costs and attorney's
fees and service payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiff worked as Call Center Workers at Defendants' call center
facilities located in Kansas. Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages, bonuses, commissions and other non-discretionary
compensation from performing pre-shift and post-shift "off-the-
clock" work, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey L. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY L. GROSS, LLC
      4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 945-9591
      Facsimile: (816) 945-9578
      Email: ggross@grossllc.com


BULL CITY: Williams Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES WILLIAMS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BULL
CITY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00310-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

The Plaintiff further asks 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 Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this 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=vzy2wNGN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Inmate Can Proceed in Forma Pauperis
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PETER HONESTO, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JERRY
BROWN, et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-0076 AC P (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff Peter Honesto alleges that he contracted Pulmonary
Coccidioidomycosis or valley fever, when previously housed at
Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that when he initially
complained of joint aches and muscle spasms, the only relief
provided by medical staff was issuance of a lower bunk chrono.

On August 1, 2013, plaintiff was transferred to California
Institution for Men (CIM), in Chino, San Bernardino County. There
he was told by correctional staff that Avenal prisoners who
contracted valley fever were being transferred to CIM for
treatment. On August 8, 2013, plaintiff was seen by CIM physician
Dr. Christopher Pollick for a chronic care follow up visit for,
among other things, a history of pulmonary coccidioidomycosis.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State
Prison in Blythe, Riverside County, under the authority of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Pollick failed to provide him with
appropriate treatment or referral to a specialist, instead
providing only IBU profein for his joint aches and muscle spasms
after plaintiff filed an Inmate Appeal.

The complaint broadly names as defendants California Governor
Jerry Brown, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
James Hartley, former Warden of Avenal State Prison, and his
successor, Tim Perez, former Warden of CIM, and his successor, the
Director of CDCR, Prison officials, State Senators, and Doe
Defendants 1 to 100.

Plaintiff alleges that the State of California, named defendant's
individually and in concert knew about the Cocci disease
infestation at Avenal State Prison, but authorized and enforced an
unwritten policy, procedure and practice to incarcerate plaintiff
a disabled person at Avenal State Prison under color or state law
and others similarly situated. That defendants conspired in
concert under color of state law to commit an unlawful civil
conspiracy when inflicting plaintiff with a biological chemical
weapon, and a terrorist act, knowing that the disease causes cruel
and unusual punishment. Plaintiff invokes the Geneva Convention
and contends that Governor Brown continued to authorize prisoner
incarceration at Avenal despite knowing about and covering up the
inhumane punishment this inflicted.  Plaintiff contends he did not
receive appropriate medical treatment despite the fact his medical
records show he was in fact infected with the Cocci disease at
Avenal State Prison and thus that defendants, and each of them,
were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's health and safety.

With the exception of Governor Brown, plaintiff makes no specific
charging allegations against any other defendant. Plaintiff
explains that he is ignorant of the names and capacities of some
of the defendants sued and that he will amend his complaint to
allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of ten million dollars based
on his allegations that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by incarcerating him at Avenal State Prison despite
knowing that such placement put prisoners at heightened risk for
contracting valley fever; denying plaintiff adequate medical care
for his joint aches and muscle spasms allegedly resulting from
plaintiff's valley fever; and discriminating against plaintiff
based on his disabilities. The complaint also seeks the following
injunctive relief: referral to a new medical specialist for
treatment of plaintiff's alleged valley fever symptoms; adequate
medical care, including medical care for life to treat plaintiff's
ongoing pain and suffering; an order from the court enjoining
defendants from re-incarcerating plaintiff at Avenal or another
prison in the Cocci endemic region; and an order directing
defendants not to retaliate against plaintiff for bringing the
action.

Plaintiff proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and request to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.

Magistrate Judge Claire granted plaintiff's request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis but obliged plaintiff to pay the
statutory filing fee of $350.00.

Plaintiff's motion to submit evidence and add parties, is granted
in part and denied in part and the complaint is dismissed with
leave to amend. Within thirty days from the filing date of the
order, plaintiff shall complete the notice of amendment and submit
a completed notice of amendment and a first amended complaint that
bears the same docket number assigned to the case.
Failure to timely file a first amended complaint in accordance
with the order may result in the dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is denied.

A copy of Judge Claire's order and findings and recommendations
dated March 1, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/cPMIVo from
Leagle.com.

Peter Honesto, Plaintiff, Pro Se


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sievert Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00303-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this 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 Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this 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=voVMTvI7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAREER EDUCATION: Motion to Decertify in "Surrett" Case Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit court has granted defendants' motion to decertify the
class in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute,
Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, Career Education said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation.

WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims
under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12,
2008.

On February 5, 2010, the circuit court entered an order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons, and they are seeking tuition refunds,
interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment
at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The circuit
court issued an order denying the motion on July 27, 2012.

On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the circuit court's
order and on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the
circuit court and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual
class members referenced above should be compelled to arbitration.
The case was remanded back to the circuit court for further
proceedings and on January 31, 2017 the circuit court granted
defendants' motion to decertify the class, which then consisted of
approximately 1,000 members, and granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint with respect to
misrepresentation claims based on diminished value. The circuit
court also granted plaintiff's motion to add a claim for punitive
damages.

Career Education's academic institutions offer a quality education
to a diverse student population in a variety of disciplines
through online, campus-based and blended learning programs.  Its
two universities -- American InterContinental University ("AIU")
and Colorado Technical University ("CTU") -- provide degree
programs through the master's or doctoral level as well as
associate and bachelor's levels.


CAROLINE CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: Motion to Certify Class Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit captioned MARK CRUMPACKER, the Plaintiff. v.
CAROLINE CIRAOLO-KLEPPER, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01053-CRC (D.C.), the Hon. Christopher R. Cooper, entered an
order:

   1. granting Government's motion to dismiss the "Cross-
      Couterclaim"; and

   2. denying motion to certify class as moot;

The Court said, "Having carefully reviewed the purported cross-
counterclaim and the supporting declarations, the Court agrees
with the Government that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief be granted. Because the Court has dismissed the related
Plaintiff's claims and the Counterclaim Defendants' purported
cross-counterclaim, there are no remaining claims on which class
certification may be granted.

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


CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Ill. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Newman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., D. James Umpleby III, Bradley M.
Halverson and Douglas R. Oberhelman, Case No. 1:17-cv-01713 (N.D.
Ill., March 3, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Caterpillar, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets construction,
mining, and forestry machinery.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
               lcludwig@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              hchang@pomlaw.com


CEB INC: Faces "Buchans" Securities Suit Over Gartner Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE BUCHANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CEB, INC., THOMAS L. MONAHAN, III,
GREGOR S. BAILAR, STEPHEN M. CARTER, GORDON J. COBURN, KATHLEEN A.
CORBET, L. KEVIN COX, DANIEL O. LEEMON, STACEY S. RAUCH, JEFFREY
R. TARR, and GARTNER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00263-
TSE-JFA (E.D. Va., March 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4
Registration Statement in connection with a Proposed Transaction
under which Gartner will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
CEB in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $2.6
billion.

The case alleges that in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, the Proxy fails to provide Company shareholders with
critical information concerning the opinions and analyses of
Centerview, the conflicts of interest potentially faced by the
Company's financial advisors, and critical information concerning
the Company's expected future value as a standalone entity as
reflected in the Company's financial projections.

CEB Inc. operates as a practice insight and technology company in
the United States, Europe, and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com


CEB INC: Faces "Steinberg" Class Suit Over Gartner Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CEB Inc., Thomas L. Monahan, III, Gregor S.
Bailar, Stephen M. Carter, Gordon J. Coburn, Kathleen A. Corbet,
L. Kevin Cox, Daniel O. Leemon, Stacey S. Rauch, Jeffrey R. Tarr,
Gartner, Inc., and Cobra Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00226-UNA (D. Del., March 3, 2017), arises out the agreement and
plan of merger between CEB Inc. and Gartner, Inc.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of CEB will receive
$54.00 in cash and 0.2284 shares of Gartner common stock for each
share of CEB common stock. Gartner will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of CEB in a cash and stock transaction valued
at approximately $2.6 billion.

The case alleges that in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, the Proxy fails to provide Company shareholders with
critical information concerning the opinions and analyses of
Centerview, the conflicts of interest potentially faced by the
Company's financial advisors, and critical information concerning
the Company's expected future value as a standalone entity as
reflected in the Company's financial projections.

CEB Inc. operates an insights and technology company that provides
products and services to businesses worldwide.

Gartner, Inc. operates a research and advisory firm providing
information technology related insight for IT and other business
leaders located across the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Case Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc.,
Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, remains
pending, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company said, "We deny the claims, deny that class
certification is appropriate and deny that a PAGA representative
action is appropriate, and are vigorously defending against the
claims. We deny any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims."

"The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. We are
unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of
potential loss."

Cinemark is one of the leaders in the motion picture exhibition
industry. As of December 31, 2016, it operated 526 theatres and
5,903 screens in the U.S. and Latin America.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Colorado Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Judge Raymond P. Moore
of the District of Colorado has issued an Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part the Clovis Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market
success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was
filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran
Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the
Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf
of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October
31, 2013 and November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock
between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff
movants other than M.Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD
(the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-
opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the
District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District
of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff
motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support
of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016,
the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order
addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado
actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro
and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also
appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a
stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions
(the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto,
including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and
related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a
decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was
entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016.

Subject to further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the
Arkin Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016.
The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis
Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants")
for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the "July
2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital investors (the
"Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations
and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about
rociletinib. The consolidated action is purportedly brought on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between
May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act
claims) and investors who purchased the Company's securities
pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to
the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages.

On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco, and Moran actions were
consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the
District of Colorado.

The Clovis Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture
Capital Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016, the
Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 23, 2016, and
the defendants filed their replies on October 14, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, Judge Raymond P. Moore of the District of
Colorado issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part the Clovis Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clovis
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice with
respect to named defendant Gillian Ivers-Read and granted with
respect to certain statements determined by the Court to be
nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism. The Clovis
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was otherwise denied.

Next, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Underwriter
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Underwriter Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss was granted without prejudice with respect to
Plaintiffs' claim under Section 12(a) of the Securities Act and
granted insofar as the Court determined that certain statements
challenged under Section 11 of the Securities Act are
nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism.

The Opinion and Order provided that Plaintiffs had until February
23, 2017 to file an amended pleading directed solely as to their
Section 12(a) claim against the Underwriter Defendants. The
Underwriters Defendants' Motion to dismiss was otherwise denied.
Finally, the court granted the Venture Capital Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss with prejudice.

The Clovis Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco
Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be
successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit by the Electrical Workers Local #357
Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts remains stayed, Clovis
Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The
Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the
July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval
and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The
Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County
Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the
Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District
of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the
Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to
the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of
California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion
to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and
denying the Motion to Transfer as moot.

While the case was pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a
stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the
Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of
an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff
of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint.
Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an
amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July
2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The
Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities
Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis' offering documents
for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new
allegations about the Company's rociletinib disclosures.  The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28,
2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers
action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco
actions in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay"), and a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs
filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants
filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo
Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings
pending resolution of the related securities class action
captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv-
2546 (the "Colorado Action").  Per the order to stay proceedings,
the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on
defendants' pending demurrer, and the parties' first status report
as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on March 23,
2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there
can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


COLONY BRANDS: Forney Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Carneisha Forney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Colony Brands, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01890, (C.D.
Cal., March 9, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for
willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees and such other and further relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Colony Brands, Inc. is a collection agency attempting to collect
an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff. Defendant used an
automatic telephone dialling system to place its daily calls to
Plaintiff where the latter incurs a charge for incoming calls.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed FairPoint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vento, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., Robert J.
Currey, C. Robert Udell Jr., Richard A. Lumpkin, Thomas A. Gerke,
Roger H. Moore, Dale E. Parker, Maribeth S. Rahe, and Timothy D.
Taron, Case No. 2017-0157 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 3, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all stockholders of Consolidated
Communications Holdings, Inc., for the Defendants' breach of their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger between
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and FairPoint
Communications, Inc., whereby CNSL will acquire FairPoint through
an all-stock deal valued at approximately $1.5 billion.

Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. provides integrated
communications services in consumer, commercial and carrier
channels in California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and
Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
              dsborz@andrewsspringer.com


CORECIVIC INC: Defending Against "Grae" Class Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corecivic, Inc. is defending against the case, Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., in Tennessee, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or the BOP,
dated August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ,
directed that, as each contract with privately operated prisons
reaches the end of its term, the BOP should either decline to
renew that contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner
consistent with law and the overall decline of the BOP's inmate
population. In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate
population, the DOJ memorandum cites purported operational,
programming, and cost efficiency factors as reasons for the new
DOJ directive.

The Company said, "Following the release of the DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and
certain of our current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned
Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-02267. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired our securities between
February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016."

"In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, our
public statements were false and/or misleading regarding the
purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, our stock price was
artificially inflated. The lawsuit alleges that the publication of
the DOJ memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud,
causing the per share price of our stock to decline, thereby
causing harm to the putative class of shareholders.

"We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which mitigates the risk such litigation would have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

Structured as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, Corecivic
owns partnership correctional, detention, and residential reentry
facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United
States.


COTY INC: "Caddell" Sues Over Hair Coloring Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------
Mamie Caddell and Diane Bowden, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coty, Inc., The Procter
& Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., Procter
& Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00322,
(N.D. Ala., February 28, 2017), seeks damages and equitable
remedies resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of
express and implied warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Procter and Gamble developed, designed, formulated, manufactured,
packaged, labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
Clairol hair dye products. Clairol Balsam Color brand was sold to
Coty, Inc. in July, 2015.

Said product line allegedly causes significant hair loss, skin and
scalp irritation, scalp burnings and blistering, severe
dermatitis, eye irritation and tearing, asthma, gastritis, renal
damage and/or failure, vertigo, tremors, convulsions and comas and
eczematoid contact dermatitis.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Brandy L. Robertson, Esq.
      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      Email: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
             brandy@hgdlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Joseph L. Tucker, Esq.
      JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
      2229 1st Ave. North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-4203
      Telephone: (205) 252-3535
      Facsimile: (205) 252-3536
      Email: josh@jacksonandtucker.com


CRAFT BREW: "Cillioni" Sues Over False Ad of Beer Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Craft Brew Alliance,
Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-01027 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2017) seeks to recover monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies resulting from
breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and common law restitution and violation of the
California False Advertising Law, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Craft Brew advertises, markets, distributes, and sells these
brands of beer to consumers via retail stores and restaurants
throughout the United States based on the misrepresentation that
these beers are brewed by Kona Brewing Company in Hawaii. However,
none of these brands of beer (bottled, canned, and continental
U.S. draft) are brewed by the Kona Brewing Company in Hawaii.
Rather, these beers are made by Craft Brew in Oregon, Washington,
Tennessee, and/or New Hampshire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aubry Wand, Esq.
      THE WAND LAW FIRM
      400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Telephone: (310) 590-4503
      Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
      E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bassett" FDCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir and Personal
Representative of the Estate of James M. Bassett, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and JASON MORLEDGE, Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00069 (D. Neb., March 4, 2017), alleges routine practices
by Defendants of filing collection complaints in an attempt to
collect alleged obligations for medical accounts in Nebraska
County Courts which request an entitlement to an award of
statutory attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest through its in-
house attorneys by misrepresenting the nature of the consumers
account as for "goods or services" rendered, rather than as
actions on "ACCOUNTS" in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

Credit Management Services, Inc. is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Pamela A. Car, Esq.
     William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
     CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
     8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
     Omaha, NE 68124
     Phone: (402) 391-8484
     Fax: (402) 391-1103
     E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

        - and -

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES
     25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 372-8822
     Fax: (312) 372-1673
     E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Griffin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Data Software Services, LLC d/b/a
Elead1one, Case No. 3:17-cv-00443-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal., March 3,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
automatic dialing system or prerecorded voice to any telephone
number assigned to a cellular phone service without prior express
consent of the called party.

Data Software Services, LLC is a marketing company, which provides
software and call center services in automobile retail industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              yana@westcoastlitigation.com


DAVID GLADIEUX: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ward"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RONALD WARD, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID
GLADIEUX, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00043-PPS-SLC (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Philip P. Simon entered an order denying Ward's
motion to certify a class of:

   "all unrepresented indigent inmates incarcerated at the Allen
   County Jail who seek to bring nonfrivolous civil rights or
   habeas corpus claims, are not represented by counsel for those
   claims, and are prevented from bringing those actions claims
   in court or have had their claims dismissed due to a lack of
   access to a law library, legal research materials, or
   professional legal assistance".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8zGyTNAh


DAVID PIERCE: "Darkell" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DONALD DARKELL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DAVID PIERCE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00157-LPS
(D. Del.), Mr. Darkell asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "inmates who were held hostage from February 1, 2017 to
   February 1, 2017 by approximately seven armed men".

The class consists of 126 people minus the attackers.

A copy of the hand-written Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5YMkKJuH


DEERFIELD ROADSIDE: Faces "Cobb" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC COBB, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DEERFIELD ROADSIDE, LLC, and CAROLE ANNE
HICE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00802-TWT (N.D.
Ga., March 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked for Defendants
without being paid the correct overtime premium rate of time and
one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours within a work week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

DEERFIELD ROADSIDE, LLC is in the auto services business.  The
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as roadside technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 965-8812
     E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL: "McKinstry" Has Conditional Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRI MCKINSTRY, the Plaintiff, v.
DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL SERVICES, INC. and DION E. SCHARF, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12565-SJM-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Stephen J. Murphy, III entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      and approval of notice, and conditionally certifying case
      as collective action;

   2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the last
      known mailing address, email address, and employee or
      unique identifier number of all potential members of the
      described class in electronically readable form by March
      31, 2017;

   3. approving proposed notice of Fair Labor Standards Act
      Lawsuit and Opt-in Consent Form; and

   4. approving the Reminder Postcard and directing Plaintiff's
      counsel to deliver it by United States mail or email to all
      employees identified by Defendants.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2oWvDR3p

The Court said, "A review of the record and relevant law shows
that the additional employees are "similarly situated."
Accordingly, McKinstry has met the requirements for conditional
collective action certification and notice. The Court will grant
her motion, but will not require Defendants to post the Notice in
a location where it can be seen by current workers. That
requirement is unnecessary and punitive given the other channels
of notice available".


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Forte" Consumer Suit Over Pricing Structure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN FORTE, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-
00264-FJS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 6, 2017), was filed by Plaintiff in
his individual capacity, and on behalf of a class of DES
customers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has fueled its rapid
expansion not by providing a good service for a fair price, but
rather by developing and using deceptive and unlawful marketing
and sales practices that often result in its energy customers
paying far more than they would have paid had they stayed with
their traditional energy suppliers. And regardless of any savings,
or lack thereof, DES fails to conspicuously disclose its variable
rate pricing structure, in violation of New York law.  These
deceptive practices allegedly violate New York's Energy Services
Consumers Bill of Rights.

DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC sells electricity or natural gas in
New York, eighteen other states, and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. York, Esq.
     Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
     KAMBERLAW, LLC
     220 N Green St
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Phone: (212) 920-3072
     Fax: (212) 202-6364
     E-mail: ayork@kamberlaw.com
             masch@kamberlaw.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sept. 14 Final Settlement Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2017, on
the settlement in the Davenport class action lawsuit, Discover
Financial Services said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

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

On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was substituted as lead
plaintiff for Polly Hansen.

On January 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement to resolve the
case.

On January 20, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for September
14, 2017.

If approved, the case will be dismissed with prejudice as to all
certified class members who do not opt out of the settlement.

Discover Financial Services (the "Company") is a direct banking
and payment services company.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Ruling Expected This Spring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class certification ruling is expected this spring in the case,
B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.), Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

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

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss
for certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to
dismiss filed by the other networks, including the Company.
Discovery is proceeding and a class certification ruling is
expected this spring.

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

Discover Financial Services (the "Company") is a direct banking
and payment services company.


DOW CHEMICAL: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Tank Failure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
trial court's judgment in denying defendants' joint motion to
decertify the class in the lawsuit arising from the tank failure
at a chemical facility owned by The Dow Chemical Corporation's
affiliate.

In the early morning hours of July 7, 2009, a tank failure
occurred at a chemical facility in Taft, Louisiana, which is
located in St. Charles Parish. The chemical facility was owned and
operated by Union Carbide Corporation, a wholly owned corporate
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. As a result of the tank
failure, ethyl acrylate, a volatile organic compound, was released
into the air.

On July 29, 2009, Sheila Guidry filed a suit in Orleans Parish
against Dow and the LDEQ and averred that on July 7, 2009, she
noticed a foul smell and that the smell caused her to experience
headache, dizziness, and burning eyes. She further averred that
ethyl acrylate is an organic compound and that it is a possible
carcinogen and should be considered hazardous at all times in any
concentration. Finally, she asserted various tort theories of
liability against Dow for the ethyl acrylate release.

Ms. Guidry amended her petition to include class action
allegations and to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class.
On June 9, 2010, Ms. Guidry filed a motion for class
certification, but on May 12, 2011, before the class certification
hearing, Ms. Guidry filed a motion to substitute class
representative. The trial court granted the motion, removed Ms.
Guidry and replaced her with Ramona Alexander, Vanessa Wilson, and
Melissa Berniard.

The trial court certified the class, to which the Court of Appeals
of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit affirmed. Although the Louisiana
Supreme Court denied the defendants' writ on the certification
issue, it granted the defendants' writ, in part, on another issue,
holding Melissa Berniard the spouse of appointed class counsel is
disqualified from serving as a class representative. In all other
respects, the writ is denied. The matter is remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.

On remand, Ms. Berniard was removed as a class representative and
replaced by Bates Whiteside and Henry Homes. The case then
proceeded to discovery. Thereafter, the defendants filed a joint
motion to decertify class, to which the trial court denied. Appeal
followed.

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana held that the defendants have
failed to prove a material change in the facts or circumstances
since the initial class certification ruling that would warrant
class decertification. It cannot conclude the trial court abused
its discretion in denying the defendants' joint motion. The
judgment of the trial court denying the defendants' joint motion
to decertify the class is affirmed.

A copy of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit's
decree, penned by Judge Rosemary Ledet, dated March 1, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/rudNdKfrom Leagle.com.

The appeals case is SHEILA GUIDRY, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AND THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, No. 2016-CA-0757 (La. Ct. App.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees

     Gregory P. DiLeo, Esq.
     Benjamin W. Gulick, Esq.
     GREGORY P. DILEO, APLC
     300 Lafayette Street, Suite 101,
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: 504-522-3456
     Fax: 504-522-3888

       - and -

     Jeffrey P. Berniard, Esq.
     BERNIARD LAW FIRM, LLC
     300 Lafayette St #101
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: 504-527-6225

        - and -

     Ron A. Austin, Esq.
     AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     400 Manhattan Boulevard
     Harvey, LA 70058-4442
     Tel: 816-587-3347
     Fax: 816587-3370

        - and -

     J. Bart Kelly, III, Esq.
     Roderick R. Alvendia, Esq.
     ALVENDIA KELLY & DEMAREST, LLC
     909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625
     New Orleans, LA 70112-4500
     Tel: 504-200-0000

Neil C. Abramson -- nabramson@liskow.com -- Kelly B. Becker --
kbbecker@liskow.com -- Joe B. Norman -- jbnorman@liskow.com --
Kathryn Z. Gonski -- kzgonski@liskow.com -- Katie S. Roth --
kroth@liskow.com -- Nora B. Bilbro -- nbilbro@liskow.com -- Dana
M. Douglas -- dmdouglas@liskow.com -- at LISKOW & LEWIS; Mark C.
Dodart -- mark.dodart@phelps.com -- at PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP; Phillip
E. Foco -- Phillip.Foco@bblawla.com -- David M. Bienvenu --
David.Bienvenu@bblawla.com -- Lexi T. Holinga --
lexi.holinga@bblawla.com -- at BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR,
HOLINGA, APLLC, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit panel is
consists of Judges Terri F. Love, Edwin A. Lombard and Rosemary
Ledet.


DRILFORMANCE LLC: Kitagawa Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Kitagawa and Brandon Sheldon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Drilformance, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00726, (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2017),
seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty in a
workweek, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs
and expenses and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant operates a company that engineers, manufactures and
repairs tools and other equipment utilized in oil and gas
operations. Its principal place of business is in Conroe, Texas
where Kitagawa worked as an Applications Engineering Director
while Sheldon worked as an Applications Engineer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren Berlanga, Esq.
      Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
      WYLY AND COOK LLC
      4101 Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
      Houston, TX
      Tel: (713) 236-8330
      Fax: (713) 863-8502
      Email: wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com
             kcook@wylycooklaw.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: O&R Case Parties to File Renewed Settlement Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.),
plan to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval of their
settlement agreement.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

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

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

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

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants'
motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory.
The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the
negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims.

On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court
conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that
it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead
limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.

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

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016 the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. The parties plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Die-Mension Case Parties to Re-File Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.)
(filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)), plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.

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

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product.

On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended
complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive
service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order
granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11,
2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet,
and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9,
2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and
directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. The parties plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Vinotemp Case Parties to Re-File Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and
CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D.
Cal.)), plan to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement.

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

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

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

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

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiffs filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. The parties plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Flow Sciences Case Parties to Refile Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.)
(filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)), plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.

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

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

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying
DBCC's motion to dismiss.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11,
2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet,
and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9,
2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and
directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. The parties plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Altaflo Case Parties to Renew Settlement Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)), plan to file a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.

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

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

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.

In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.
On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to
the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss,
and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

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

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the
Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the
parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement or a joint status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. The parties plan to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: March 20 Final Settlement Hearing in "Thomas"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court
has scheduled a final approval hearing for March 20, 2017, in the
case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No.
2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

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

DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015.  On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer.

DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015,
which the Court denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and
asserted its Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015.

Discovery commenced and the Court issued a schedule for amended
pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class certification motion
and trial.

During the discovery period, the parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation.

On June 2, 2016, the parties conducted one day of mediation, and
shortly after the mediation, the parties reached an agreement to
settle the dispute on a class-wide basis. Since that time the
parties have finalized a written settlement agreement and all
attendant documents.

On September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On September
26, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval, after which the Court entered an Order
granting the motion, conditionally certifying a settlement class,
approving the class action settlement and approving the parties'
plan to give notice to class members. The Court scheduled a final
approval hearing for March 20, 2017, after the settlement has been
administered.

Dun & Bradstreet(R) is a source of commercial data, analytics and
insight on businesses.  Its global commercial database as of
December 31, 2016 contained approximately 265 million business
records.  It transforms commercial data into valuable insight
which is the foundation of its global solutions that customers
rely on to make critical business decisions.


DUTCH LLC: 3rd Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of proposed class settlement in the case
captioned SONIA HOFMANN, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUTCH LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02418-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.).

On April 26, 2016, the court denied the plaintiff's initial motion
for preliminary approval of the class settlement.  The initial
proposed settlement provided for a $20 worth of e-gift
certificates for each of the class members a $250,000 in cy pres
awards and up to $175,000 in plaintiff's attorney's fees with a
clear sailing provision attached.
The court denied plaintiff's motion as it found some deficiencies.
The court permitted the parties an additional sixty days to file a
renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
that cured the deficiencies identified. Plaintiff filed a second
motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement an on
August 16, 2016, the court denied the motion.

Plaintiff propose settlement consist of one denim tote bag worth
$128 in retail value and $20 e-gift certificates for the class
members, a $250,000 in cy pres awards, to the same charities as
proposed in the initial settlement and up to $175,000 in
plaintiff's attorney's fees with the same clear sailing provision.
The only difference between the first and second proposed
settlement was the addition of the denim tote bag. The court
denied the parties' renewed motion for preliminary approval
because it did nothing to address the court's concern that the
proposed cy pres award did not conform to Ninth Circuit legal
authority.

Plaintiff filed a third motion for preliminary approval on October
14, 2016. The proposed settlement consists of a current-Elliot
brand tote bag with a retail value of $128.00 and electronic gift
card codes redeemable on www.CurrentElliott.com only and loaded
with values of multiples of $20.00 corresponding to the number of
units of class products purchased during the class period, a
$250,000 in cy pres awards, up to $175,000 in attorney's fees,
with the same clear sailing provision and an injunctive relief.

Judge Curiel denied plaintiff's third motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class settlement stating that plaintiff's
repeated failure to abide by Ninth Circuit precedent governing cy
pres awards, standing alone, warrants denying the motion for
preliminary approval.

While the court appreciates plaintiff's point that the gift
coupons are an additional rather than the primary remedy, the
court is still not prepared to approve a settlement that contains
deficiencies that the court has identified, but the parties have
not meaningfully addressed, ameliorated, or contradicted, Judge
Curiel held.  Moreover, the court notes that plaintiff's repeated
failure to fashion a settlement that comports with its concerns,
only gives the court more reason to be suspicious of whether
plaintiff's counsel are acting in the interest of the class
members.

The court held that it must be satisfied that any proposed
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, as that phrase has
been defined by binding, legal precedent, and that any court
approval be supported by sound legal findings and arguments. The
court will permit the parties an additional sixty days from the
issuance of the order to file a renewed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement that cures the deficiencies
identified by the order.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated March 2, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/I4K5eX from Leagle.com.

Sonia Hofmann, Plaintiff, represented by John H. Donboli -- at Del
Mar Law Group, LLP

Dutch, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur K. Purcell --
apurcell@strtrade.com -- Kenneth N. Wolf --kwolf@strtrade.com --
at, Sandler Travis and Rosenberg PA; Mitchell J. Freedman --
mjf@pksllp.com -- at PK Schrieffer LLP


ELECTROLUX HOME: Sued Over Excess Shipping Handling Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Lupo, Esq. -- anthony.lupo@arentfox.com -- and Dana J.
Finberg, Esq. -- dana.finberg@arentfox.com -- of Arent Fox LLP, in
an article for Lexology, report that based on recent federal court
filings in the Central District of California, it appears that
plaintiff lawyers have found a new way to threaten retailers with
class action litigation.

In January of this year, two class action complaints were filed on
behalf of consumers who allegedly were charged shipping and
handling fees "not reasonably related to Defendant's actual costs
of shipping or delivering the items to consumers but instead
greatly exceeded those costs."  The complaints assert that the
shipping and handling fees violate "established ethical
principles" and California law.

The defendants in the two pending California cases are Electrolux
Home Care Products, Inc. and Express, L.L.C., and in addition to
seeking class certification on behalf of "[a]ll persons in the
State of California who purchased products [from the retailer] and
were charged a fee for shipping, handling, and/or delivery within
the period of the applicable statutes of limitations," the
complaints assert that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million, exclusive of interest and costs.  In support of their
allegations that the charged shipping and handling fees were
unethical, the complaints rely on the Guidelines for Ethical
Business Practices published by the Direct Marketing Association
(the DMA Guidelines), which plaintiff claims establish the ethical
principle that shipping and handling fees should reflect a
merchant's actual costs and not be a "profit center."

In the Express case, the named plaintiff (Mr. Reider) purchased a
"small, lightweight product" for which he was charged $17.93 plus
tax; he was charged $8.00 for shipping and handling on top of
that, which the complaint asserts was more than double the actual
cost of shipping and delivery as calculated using the U.S. Postal
Service's online calculator.  In the Electrolux case, the same
named plaintiff purchased a $1.99 filter and was charged $7.99 for
shipping and handling, an amount again alleged to have been more
than double the actual cost derived using the USPS calculator.
Notably, in the Electrolux case, the complaint asserts Mr. Reider
was charged $.80 for sales tax when the highest applicable tax on
his $1.99 filter should have been $.19, and that "the remaining
$.61 of sales tax was attributable to the shipping charge." Under
guidance from the California State Board of Equalization, only the
portion of a delivery charge that is greater than the actual
delivery charge is taxable; the class action complaint asserts
that Electrolux's actions "are a de facto admission that it is
making an unconscionable hidden profit from shipping and handling
charges."

Under California unfair competition law, an unfair business
practice is one that either violates an established public policy
or is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious to consumers." In these cases, the
complaints assert that the DMA Guidelines discussed above
establish a public policy against excessive delivery charges, and
that the Federal Trade Commission (in enforcing Section 5(a) of
the Federal Trade Commission Act), has recognized a similar public
policy.  In support of their Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims,
the complaints assert that the defendants falsely represent that
their shipping and handling costs "have the characteristics that
consumers expect, namely, that they are reasonably related to
Defendant's actual costs of shipping."

These lawsuits are sure to face a number of procedural and legal
barriers.  The Express complaint anticipates an obvious procedural
bar, which is the fact that the Terms & Conditions of many
retailer's websites contain arbitration provisions -- if those
arbitration provisions are held to be enforceable, then the
federal class action complaints cannot proceed.  Class
certification will certainly be an issue given the different
products consumers purchased and the shipping costs attributable
to those specific products, as well as the manner in which
shipping and handling charges were described and/or explained on
individual retailer websites.  Moreover, plaintiffs likely will
face significant standing challenges, as Article III of the U.S.
Constitution and California law both require plaintiffs to
establish some sort of injury and the allegations of the
complaints do not appear to meet this burden (which became more
difficult after the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)).  Finally, plaintiffs will have to
demonstrate that they were in fact deceived (i.e., that they had
an expectation regarding the relationship between the charged
shipping and handling charges and the actual delivery cost to the
retailer), and the factual allegations on this issue in Express
and Electrolux are scant, at best.

If past is prologue -- and given the past history of prolific
consumer class action complaints asserted and/or threatened by the
plaintiffs' firm involved in these cases -- it is likely that many
retailers may find themselves in the crosshairs for these
excessive shipping and handling fee claims.  It would be wise for
retailers to examine their shipping and handling fee practices to
determine whether they might be vulnerable, and to consult with
experienced counsel on ways to mitigate risks and exposure.


ELYSIAN NY: Faces "Grigoriou" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikolaos Grigoriou, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ELYSIAN NY CORP. d/b/a Feta Bar and
Grill, Konstantinos Manasakis, and Stacy Pucillo, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01673 (S.D.N.Y., March 6,
2017), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to
remedy Defendants' wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's lawfully
earned wages, overtime compensation, and their continuous and
frequent late payments. Plaintiff also brings these claims under
New York Labor Law as well as the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wages,
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, late payments of wages and
failure to provide wage notices and wage statements. Finally,
Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of contract.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants at some point in January 2016 to
help prepare the opening of their restaurant.

ELYSIAN NY CORP. owns and operates Feta Bar and Grill, a
restaurant with a bar, serving Greek inspired cuisine to
restaurant patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     3510 Broadway, Suite 201
     Astoria, NY 11106
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Fax: (718) 777-0599


ENCORE CAPITAL: Settlement in TCPA Case Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has
granted final approval to the company's settlement in the case, In
re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation.

On November 2, 2010 and December 17, 2010, two national class
actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v.
Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California. The
complaints allege that certain of the Company's subsidiaries
violated the TCPA by calling consumers' cellular phones without
their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages
under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including
attorney fees.

On May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 two class actions entitled
Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC
and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege on behalf
of a putative class of Illinois consumers that certain of the
Company's subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers'
cellular phones without their prior express consent. The
complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney fees.

On July 28, 2011, the Company filed a motion to transfer the
Scardina and Martin cases to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the
Tovar and Robinson cases.

On October 11, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company's motion to transfer.

All four of these cases, along with a number of additional cases
brought against the Company that allege violations of the TCPA,
are now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in a multidistrict litigation
titled In re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 11, 2012.

The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it
in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed class settlement to
avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. The proposed
class settlement is intended to resolve all cases involved in
multi-district litigation, and all claims against the Company for
alleged violations of the TCPA that occurred before August 31,
2014, other than those of persons who exclude themselves from
class settlement. The settlement agreement requires the Company to
contribute $2.0 million to a settlement fund, to be disbursed
among eligible class members, and to set aside $13.0 million in
debt forgiveness to be allocated among eligible class members.

In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the Company
will pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in an amount of $2.4 million,
and for the costs associated with administering the class relief.
On November 30, 2016, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Additional information on the case is available at:

              https://www.midlandtcpasettlement.com/

Encore is an international specialty finance company providing
debt recovery solutions and other related services for consumers
across a broad range of financial assets.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: O'Boyle Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BARBARA O'BOYLE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00301-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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


ENOVA INT'L: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sobel" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Sobel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Enova International, Inc. d/b/a Cashnet USA, Case No.
2:17-cv-00351-RDP (N.D. Ala., March 3, 2017), seeks to put an end
to Defendant's unlawful practice of placing unsolicited
telemarketing calls to consumers nationwide.

Enova International, Inc. is a Chicago based, publicly-traded,
online financial services provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
      ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
      2332 2nd Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 983-7985
      Facsimile: (888) 505-0523
      E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com

         - and -

      James H. McFerrin, Esq.
      MCFERRIN LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      265 Riverchase Parkway Suite 106
      Birmingham, AL 35244
      Telephone: (205) 870-5704
      E-mail: jhmcferrin@bellsouth.net


ENRICH FINANCIAL: Faces "Aleksanian" Suit Alleging EFTA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOLITA ALEKSANIAN and ALEN ISSAGHOLIAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Enrich
Financial, Inc. and DOES 1-10, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-
01762 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2017), was brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of Defendant
debiting Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class members' bank
accounts on a recurring basis after clear revocation of any
authorization or similar authentication for preauthorized
electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and also the putative
Class members' accounts, thereby violating the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

Enrich Financial, Inc. was a company engaged in the business of
providing credit repair services, credit card and loan settlement,
and representation for collection matters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Faces "Acosta" Suit Under FLSA, Calif. Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANA ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00391-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal., March 6,
2017), arises from Defendant's alleged wrongful scheme to deny its
employees earned wages for all overtime hours worked and for all
hours worked "off-the-clock" in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California wage and hour laws.

The case was filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees in
sorter, loader, unloader, courier, or package handler positions,
and similar and incidental positions.

Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac,
operates a national courier/messenger or delivery service and
services every zip code in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676
     E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com


FARM NECK: Faces Putative Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Martha's Vineyard Times reports that a putative class action
lawsuit against Farm Neck Golf Club was filed in District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on March 8 by a former employee
who said she was not properly paid for overtime hours she worked.

Anna Shkuratova is suing for overtime compensation under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Massachusetts law
that governs overtime pay.

Ms. Shkuratova's complaint states that she worked as a cook at the
Cafe at Farm Neck from May 9, 2016, to Sept. 17, 2016, and
reported to cafe manager Pascal Bitoun and golf club general
manager Timothy Sweet, both of whom directly supervised her
working hours and compensation. Mr. Bitoun and Mr. Sweet also are
named in the suit.

The suit alleges five subclasses of employees were not paid
minimum and overtime wages, including kitchen employees, front-of-
house cafe workers, golf course workers, golf professionals, pro
shop salespeople, tennis pros, and maintenance workers.

According to the suit, Farm Neck Golf Club violated statutory
requirements by consistently failing to pay Ms. Shkuratova and the
proposed class members the minimum wage of USD7.25 per hour under
the FLSA and USD10 per hour under the Massachusetts minimum wage
law.

"Plaintiff was subject to defendants' common practices, policies
or plans including failing to pay at least minimum wage for all
regular hours worked, failing to pay at least one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, failing to compensate plaintiff and class members
for hours worked off the clock and failing to keep accurate time
and payroll records in violation of the FLSA. . . In addition to
failing to compensate plaintiff for regular and overtime hours,
defendants directed plaintiff to work off the clock and/or without
documentation, in order to avoid paying plaintiff proper
compensation for such hours," Ms. Shkuratova's complaint states.

Four counts are listed in the suit, including FLSA claims against
the defendants, violation of Massachusetts statutory law, breach
of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Ms. Shkuratova seeks an award of damages equal to the value of her
and the proposed class members' unpaid wages and overtime,
liquidated damages under the FLSA equal to the amount of unpaid
wages, and overtime and treble damages under Massachusetts general
law.

Manager Timothy Sweet did not return calls from The Times.[GN]


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reliance Trust Defending Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Reliance Trust Company is vigorously defending a class action
lawsuit.

Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a
defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of
services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan for one of
its customers. Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and
attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The action also makes
claims against the Plan's sponsor and recordkeeper.

Reliance Trust Company is vigorously defending the action and
believes that it has meritorious defenses.

"While we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will
not have a material impact on our financial condition, we are
unable at this time to make an estimate of potential losses
arising from the action because the matter is at an early state
and involves unresolved questions of fact and law," the Company
said.

FIS is a global leader in financial services technology with a
focus on retail and institutional banking, payments, asset and
wealth management, risk and compliance, consulting and outsourcing
solutions. Through the depth and breadth of our solutions
portfolio, global capabilities and domain expertise, FIS serves
more than 20,000 clients in over 130 countries. Headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida, FIS employs more than 55,000 people
worldwide and holds global leadership positions in payment
processing, financial software and banking solutions. Providing
software, services and outsourcing of the technology that empowers
the financial world, FIS is a Fortune 500 company and is a member
of Standard & Poor's 500(R) Index.


FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory A. Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flagship Facility Services,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-01245, (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
rest and meal period compensation, minimum wages, penalties, and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Flagship Facility Services, Inc., is a dedicated facility
maintenance company that provides services that include but are
not limited to, janitorial services, facility maintenance, and
food services to various companies across California where
Plaintiff was employed as a cook. Defendants allegedly failed to
pay Bradforn minimum wage, overtime wages, rest and meal period
compensation, and final pay upon separation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory Mauro, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
      Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement in "Rehberg" Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the case,
Rehberg et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of
Jamestown, LLC, are working to obtain court approval of a
settlement.

On September 12, 2012, Scott Rehberg and certain other plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the company and one of its subsidiaries
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.  On March 22, 2013, the court conditionally certified
under the FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals
who entered into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co.
of Jamestown, LLC ("Jamestown") after September 12, 2009.

On March 24, 2015, the court certified a North Carolina state law
wage claim as a class action consisting of all individuals located
within the State of North Carolina who entered into a distributor
agreement with Jamestown after September 12, 2009.

On December 9, 2016, the company announced that it reached an
agreement to settle this matter for a payment of $9.0 million,
comprised of $5.2 million in settlement funds and $3.8 million in
attorneys' fees.  The settlement also contains certain non-
economic terms that are intended to strengthen and enhance the
independent contractor model, which remains in place.

The parties are working to obtain court approval of this
settlement.   This settlement charge has been recorded as a
selling, distribution and administrative expense in our
Consolidated Statements of Income during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2016.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: Appeal in "Martinez" Case Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the denial of the class
certification in the case, Martinez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
Flowers Bakeries Brands, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of California,
LLC, and Flowers Baking Co. of Henderson, LLC, is currently on
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On July 7, 2015, Giovanni Martinez and certain other plaintiffs
filed various California state law wage claims against the company
and certain of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On February 1, 2016, the court denied a motion to certify these
claims as a class action.  This lawsuit was settled on
confidential terms, and dismissed on July 7, 2016.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Stewart" Class Suit Underway in W.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend against the case, Stewart
et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of
Batesville, LLC, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 2, 2015, Jacky Stewart and certain other plaintiffs filed
a complaint against the company and one of its subsidiaries in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

On August 12, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of
Batesville, LLC, after July 2, 2012.  The court limited the
conditionally certified class to distributors operating out of
designated warehouse locations in the State of Tennessee only.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Coyle" Class Suit Pending in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
Coyle v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Holsum Bakery, Inc. remains
pending, Flowers Foods said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 20, 2015, Terry Coyle filed a complaint against the
company and one of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.

On August 30, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Holsum Bakery, Inc. after August
30, 2013.   The court limited the conditionally certified class to
distributors operating within the State of Arizona.    Plaintiff
also alleges in his complaint Arizona state law wage claims.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "McCurley" Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. still defends the case, McCurley v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Derst Baking Co., LLC, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 20, 2016, Paul McCurley filed a complaint against the
company and one of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina.

On October 24, 2016, the Court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Derst Baking Co., LLC after
January 20, 2013.  The company has the ability to petition the
court to decertify this class at a later date.  Plaintiff also
alleges in his complaint a South Carolina state law wage claim.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends "Neff" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. continues to defend against the case, Neff et
al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and
CK Sales Co., LLC, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 2, 2015, Nick Neff and certain other plaintiffs filed
a complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

On November 7, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC
or CK Sales Co., LLC after December 2, 2012.  The court excluded
from the class distributors operating in the State of Maine.
Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint Vermont state law wage
and consumer fraud claims.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Case Has Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court conditionally
certified the case, Noll v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries
Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC.

On December 3, 2015, Timothy Noll filed a complaint against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine.

On January 20, 2017, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC
or CK Sales Co., LLC after December 3, 2012.  The court limited
the class to distributors operating within the State of Maine.
Plaintiff also alleges in his complaint Maine state law wage
claims.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Zapata" Case Has Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court conditionally
certified the case, Zapata et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC

On March 14, 2016, Raul Zapata and certain other plaintiffs filed
a complaint against the company and one of its subsidiaries in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On December 20, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Houston,
LLC after December 13, 2013.  The court limited the class to
distributors in the State of Texas who hired helpers.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Rodriguez" Case Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the the court
conditionally certified the case, Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC

On January 28, 2016, David Rodriguez and certain other plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the company and one of its subsidiaries
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On December 13, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Houston,
LLC after December 13, 2013.  The court limited the class to
distributors in the State of Texas who did not hire helpers.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Richard" Plaintiffs Can Reassert Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Plaintiffs in the
case, Richard et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of
Lafayette, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton Rouge, LLC, Flowers
Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of New Orleans,
LLC, have been allowed to reassert claims against Flowers Baking
Co. of New Orleans, LLC, which previously had been dismissed from
the case.

On October 21, 2015, Antoine Richard and certain other plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the company and certain of its
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Louisiana.

On November 28, 2016, the court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Lafayette,
LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton Rouge, LLC, and Flowers Baking
Co. of Tyler, LLC.  The court limited the class to distributors
operating within the State of Louisiana.  Plaintiffs also allege
in their complaint a Louisiana state law wage claim.

On February 15, 2017, the court allowed Plaintiffs to reassert
claims against Flowers Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC, which
previously had been dismissed from the case.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Case Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has
conditionally certified the case, Carr et al. v. Flowers Foods,
Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, LLC

On December 1, 2015, Matthew Carr and certain other plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the company and one of its subsidiaries
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On January 26, 2017, the Court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford,
LLC after December 1, 2012.  Plaintiffs also allege in their
complaint New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland state law wage
claims.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: "Boulange" Case Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has
conditionally certified the case, Boulange v. Flowers Foods, Inc.
and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, LLC.

On March 24, 2016, Luke Boulange filed a complaint against the
company and one of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  Thereafter, this case was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and consolidated with the Carr litigation.

On January 26, 2017, the Court conditionally certified under the
FLSA a collective action consisting of all individuals who entered
into a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford,
LLC after December 1, 2012.  Plaintiff also alleges in his
complaint New Jersey state law wage claims.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement Reached in "Bokanoski" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the case, Bokanoski et al. v.
Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC and CK Sales Co., LLC, Flowers
Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On November 8, 2016, Flowers Foods' subsidiary, Lepage Bakeries,
reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit seeking class action
treatment (Bokanoski et al. v. Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC
and CK Sales Co., LLC), originally filed by Bart Bokanoski and
certain other plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on January 6, 2015, for $1.25 million,
including attorneys' fees.

The settlement also includes certain non-economic terms which are
intended to strengthen and enhance the independent contractor
model. This agreement, which includes 49 territories, is subject
to court approval.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FLOWERS FOODS: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Consolidated Class Action Complaint has been filed in the case,
In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation, Flowers Foods,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the
Hendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such
non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or
negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The
counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including
interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including
counsel and expert fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated action"), appointed Walter Matthews as lead
plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated action to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  Lead
plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("Complaint") on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and
general allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and
Hendley complaints.

Pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia's scheduling order, defendants must answer, move, or
otherwise respond to the Complaint by March 13, 2017, lead
plaintiff must file an opposition brief by May 12, 2017, and
defendants must file any reply memoranda by June 12, 2017.  The
company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorously
defending these lawsuits.

Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues
presented, the company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the
unresolved lawsuits.

The company produces a wide range of breads, buns, rolls, snack
cakes, and tortillas.


FOOT LEVELERS: Placeholder Bid to Certify Class Declared as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith entered an order in the lawsuit styled
SWETLIC CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., the
Plaintiffs, v. FOOT LEVELERS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. Case: 2:16-cv-00236-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), declaring Plaintiff's
initial placeholder motion to certify class as moot.

The Plaintiff initiated the case on March 15, 2016, and on the
same day filed a placeholder motion to certify class. On June 1,
2016, Plaintiff requested leave to amend the complaint to change
the class description.

The Court granted Plaintiff's request and the amended complaint
was placed on the docket on February 9, 2017. Simultaneously,
Plaintiff filed a second placeholder motion to certify class. In
light of the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the
second placeholder motion to certify class, Plaintiff's initial
placeholder motion to certify is now moot. The Clerk shall remove
Document 3 from the Court's pending motions list.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4GntuuG


FRAZEE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cogdell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC COGDELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FRAZEE CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., and DALE
STEPHENS FRAZEE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00042-
HLM (N.D. Ga., March 6, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked for
Defendants without being paid the correct overtime premium rate of
time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours within a work week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as laborer.  Plaintiff was
responsible for performing, including, but not limited to: (a)
minor repairs, painting, and carpentry; (b) setting up
scaffolding; (c) cutting and stacking cement blocks; and (d) usage
of construction material and equipment while building, repairing,
or cleaning the building job site.

Frazee Construction Co. in Oxford specializes in bathroom
remodeling, kitchen remodeling, basement remodeling, home
builders, and additions work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 496-7295
            (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 965-8812
     E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


FRONT RANGE: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Smith" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Smith, and Donald Hickman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Front Range Transportation LLC, d/b/a
Front Range Shuttle And Tours, and Corey Watson, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00579-MJW (D. Col., March 3, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay drivers compensation for all hours
worked at their regular rates of pay, and for overtime hours at
the overtime rates of pay.

Front Range Transportation LLC provides scheduled shuttle
transportation to and from the Colorado Springs Airport (COS) and
Denver International Airport (DIA), and also to and from Pueblo to
COS and DIA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary M. Kramer, Esq.
      GARY KRAMER LAW LLC
      1465 Kelly Johnson Blvd, Suite 210
      Colorado Springs, CO 80920
      Telephone: (719) 694-2783
      Facsimile: (719) 452-3622
      E-mail:  gary@garykramerlaw.com


GEICO CORPORATION: Oregon Court Grants Bid to Stay "Reynolds"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division, granted defendant's
motion to stay the case captioned PAM REYNOLDS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01940-SU (D. Or.).

Beginning in May 2016, Pam Reynolds began receiving unsolicited
text messages on her cellular telephone from short code 434-26, a
number associated with Geico Corporation. Reynolds received these
messages on May 27, 2016, June 25, 2016 and June 26, 2016. On June
26, 2016, plaintiff emailed defendant's customer support
requesting that the unsolicited text messages cease and that same
day, defendant replied and said it would remove plaintiff's phone
number from its marketing lists, allowing six to eight weeks to
process the removal request. Plaintiff received further text
messages in July and August 2016, including after the eight weeks
defendant said it would need to stop sending such messages.

Plaintiff brought an action on behalf of two putative classes. The
first, the Autodialed No Consent Class, consists of those whose
cellular telephones defendant sent text messages to without prior
express consent. The second, the Autodialed Stop Call Class,
consists of those whose cellular telephones defendant sent text
messages to after those recipients informed defendant that they no
longer wanted to receive text messages.

Plaintiff brought two causes of action. First, on behalf of
herself and the Autodialed No Consent Class, plaintiff alleges
that defendant violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by sending unsolicited text messages to
cellular telephone numbers using an automatic. Second, on behalf
of herself and the Autodialed Stop Call Class, plaintiff alleges
that defendant violated the same TCPA section by sending
unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones using an
automatic dialer after the recipients requested to no longer
receive such messages.

Defendant moved to stay the proceedings, or in the alternative, to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Defendant's motion to stay is based
on the matter of ACA International v. FCC, No 15-1211 (D.C. Cir.
2015), currently pending before the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, which may decide the validity of a declaratory ruling by
the Federal Communications Commission and if so, defendant argues,
could directly bear on the viability of plaintiff's claims in the
action. Defendant's alternative motion to dismiss argues that
plaintiff does not plausibly state a claim for relief under the
TCPA. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion.

Magistrate Sullivan granted defendant's motion to stay and does
not reach the merits of defendant's motion to dismiss. Using
Potential Prejudice to the Non-Moving Party, Hardship and Inequity
to the Moving Party, and Judicial Resources That Would Be Saved as
factors in deciding whether to stay the suit, Magistrate Judge
Sullivan held that only one factor, the potential prejudice to
plaintiff weighs against a stay, but only minimally. The two other
factors hardship to defendant, savings of judicial resources weigh
in favor of a stay, with the third factor doing so greatly. The
analysis of the relevant factors strongly counsels the court to
stay the action pending ACA International.

The action is stayed pending the D.C. Circuit panel's decision in
ACA International. The court instructs the parties to notify the
court when the D.C. Circuit's opinion is issued and to file
supplemental briefing regarding the impact of the opinion on the
case within 15 days of that notice.

A copy of Judge Sullivan's opinion and order dated March 1, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/S29ze4 from Leagle.com.

Pam Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth S. Mitchell-
Phillips, Sr. -- at Law Offices of Ken Mitchell Phillips; Stefan
L. Coleman -- law@stefancoleman.com -- at Offices of Stefan
Coleman, LLC
Geico Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith L. Gibson --
kgibson@jaszczuk.com -- Martin W. Jaszczuk --
mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com -- at Jaszczuk P.C.; Timothy John Helfrich
-- at Yturri Rose, LLP


GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Fla. SVP Statutes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed
the case captioned ROBERT GERING, Plaintiff, v. GEO GROUP INC.,
MIKE CARROLL, GEORGE ZOLEY, KRISTIN KANNER, DONALD SAWYER, REBBECA
JACKSON, CHRIS CATRON, WILLIAM PRICE, and BRIAN MASONY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-267-FtM-99MRM (M.D. Fla.).

On January 14, 2016, eighteen residents and former residents of
the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida,
filed a putative class action complaint in Case No. 2:16-cv-35-
FtM-99MRM, challenging the constitutionality of the Florida
statutes governing the civil commitment of sexually violent
predators and raising a litany of additional individual-specific
claims regarding the residents' treatment at the FCCC. The court
denied class certification and dismissed the action without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, but permitted each individual plaintiff to file his own
separate amended complaint.

Robert Gering filed a complaint on April 8, 2016, and generally
alleges that the Florida statutes governing the civil commitment
of sexually violent predators or the Florida SVP statutes are
unconstitutional and suggests ways to make them better. Plaintiff
also avers that the named defendants are liable in their
individual capacities for adhering to the unconstitutional
statutes. Plaintiff claims that mental health treatment at the
FCCC is ineffective and that he and other detainees have stopped
participating in treatment because they know it is futile and they
would never be released because of treatment.

Plaintiff also claims that the GEO Group, Inc., the company that
operates the FCCC, is operated as a real estate investment trust,
and as a result, is required to return ninety percent of its
profits back to its investors.

Plaintiff alleges that the Florida SVP statutes are facially
unconstitutional because they indisputably fail to require
periodic risk assessments of the detainees, they fail to provide a
judicial bypass mechanism to challenge his ongoing commitment, the
statutory discharge criteria is more stringent than the statutory
commitment criteria, they authorize the burden to petition for a
reduction in custody to impermissibly shift from the State to
plaintiff, they require civilly committed individuals to show by
clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive alternative
is appropriate when the less restrictive alternatives are barely
being used and they do not require the defendants to take any
affirmative action, such as petition for a reduction in custody
when they no longer satisfy the criteria for continued commitment.

Plaintiff requests that substantial changes be made to Florida's
sex offender civil commitment scheme, and asks the court to
dismantle the GEO Group's real estate investment trust. He also
seeks two million dollars in damages.

The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Senior District Judge Steele found that the plaintiff has not
demonstrated a legally protected interest in having the FCCC run
by the state instead of a private company. Indeed, in the prison
context, it is well-settled that he does not have such interest,
the judge said.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims based upon
the for-profit nature of GEO Group, Inc., are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Judge
Steele also held that the Plaintiff's failure to specifically
identify the portions of the Florida SVP statutes alleged to be
unconstitutional hinders the court in evaluating his amended
complaint.

Plaintiff makes no factual allegations supporting an interference
with an access to court claim, nor has he alleged facts explaining
how any named defendant's interference with his access to the
courts prejudiced him in any legal matter, Senior District Judge
Steele held.  Accordingly, the judge dismissed all claims in the
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 amended complaint filed by Gering under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A copy of Judge Steele's order dated March 1, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/7Esz7U from Leagle.com.

Robert Gering, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

     Gregory A. Kummerlen, Esq.
     Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen & Waronicki, PA
     340 Columbia Dr., Suite 111
     West Palm Beach, FL 33409
     Tel: 561-615-6775
     Fax: 561-615-7225


GEO GROUP: Class Action Status Granted to Immigrants' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorelei Laird at ABA Journal reports that a Colorado federal judge
has certified a class of about 62,000 people who claim they were
forced to work for USD1 a day while detained at a privately run
immigrant detention center, the Denver Post has reported.

The immigrants sued private prison contractor the GEO Group in
2014. An earlier Denver Post article said the lawsuit alleged that
the company's "volunteer work program" recruited detainees by
threatening them with solitary confinement if they did not agree
to clean and cook for the facility. A Washington Post article says
six detainees are chosen at random for this program each day.

The lawsuit alleges that this practice violates the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, a federal law forbidding forced labor. It
also alleges unjust enrichment of the GEO Group, which did not
have to pay minimum wage to proper employees for the services
performed by the detainees. It requests more than USD5 million in
damages to pay detainees the difference between the very low wages
they were paid and the minimum wage.

A spokesman for the GEO Group denied the allegations in an email
to the Denver Post, saying the volunteer work program, its wages
and standards were all set by the federal government. In court
records, the company has argued that no laws were broken by the
USD1 a day wages.

Prisoners in Colorado may legally work for less than minimum wage,
the newspaper notes. But immigration detainees are not detained
because they have been convicted of crimes, and thus have not lost
the right to minimum wage, said Nina DiSalvo, executive director
of Colorado nonprofit Towards Justice. Rather, they're merely
awaiting hearings on possible deportation.

"There is a big difference between someone convicted of murder or
rape and someone being held on a civil detainer for possible
deportation," DiSalvo, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs,
told the Denver Post.

As the Denver Post notes, the lawsuit could have implications for
the Trump administration, which has promised to increase detention
of immigrants and expanded the definition of "crime" widely,
likely increasing deportations. Those moves were already expected
to increase federal costs; a requirement to pay workers minimum
wage would increase them further.

According to the Washington Post, research by Northwestern
University law professor Jacqueline Stevens helped prompt the
lawsuit. Stevens began studying the issue after meeting a U.S.
citizen who had been held in a detention facility run by the other
major prison contractor, Corrections Corporation of America. Mark
Lyttle told Stevens that he'd buffed floors from midnight to 8
a.m. for USD1 a day before being wrongly deported to Mexico,
according to a Northwestern press release.

"Just slapping the word 'volunteer' in front of 'work program'
doesn't exempt the prison firm from paying legally mandated wages
any more than McDonald's can use 'volunteer' senior citizens and
pay them Big Macs," Stevens told the Washington Post.[GN]


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Acord" Lawsuit Over Zofran Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ACORD; DOMINICA ACORD, Individually and on Behalf of M.A.,
their minor child VERSUS GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
10358-FDS, MDL 2657 (Zofran MDL) (W.D. Mo., March 3, 2017), arises
from the alleged injuries to M.A. as a result of her prenatal
exposure to defendant's prescription drug, Zofran, or its generic
bioequivalent, also known as ondansetron, to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea -- that suffered as a
result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients.

Plaintiff brings claims for compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as equitable relief in an effort to ensure that similarly
situated mothers-to-be are fully informed about the risks,
benefits and alternatives attending drugs marketed for use in
pregnant women, and such other relief deemed just and proper
arising from injuries and birth defects as a result of exposure to
Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joshua M. Lewis, Esq.
     1720 Kaliste Saloom Rd., Ste C8
     Lafayette, LA 70508
     Phone: (337) 552-2057
     Fax: (225) 341-8162


GOOGLE INC: Activist Appeals Approval of $5.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis at Examiner reports that class-action activist
Theodore Frank is appealing a decision that approved Google's
USD5.5 million settlement of a class-action alleging that it
violated Safari users' privacy by circumventing their no-tracking
settings.

The deal, approved in February, requires Google to donate more
than USD3 million to six schools and nonprofits -- Berkeley Center
for Law & Technology, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard University, Center for Democracy & Technology, Public
Counsel, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the Center for Internet
& Society at Stanford University. Those groups must agree to use
the money for projects related to online privacy.

The lawyers who brought the case will receive USD1.925 million,
but individual Web users won't receive anything.

Frank, a well-known activist who founded the Washington-based
Center for Class Action Fairness, unsuccessfully urged U.S.
District Court Judge Sue Robinson in Delaware to reject the deal.
He argued that the agreement should have provided funds to
individual Safari users, as opposed to the nonprofits -- several
of which already had relationships with Google.

Frank suggested that individual users could submit claims to the
court, as happened when Facebook created a USD20 million fund to
allegations that it violated a California law with its "sponsored
stories" program. Alternatively, Frank said, individuals could be
compensated through a lottery process.

Robinson rejected those arguments, noting that the nonprofit fund
recipients research and advocate for online privacy. She said in
her ruling that donations to those groups are "an effective and
beneficial remedy" in the case.

Frank filed the paperwork to appeal the decision to the 3rd
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The class-action stemmed from Google's involvement in the "Safari
hack" -- a privacy scandal that came to light in 2012 when
researcher Jonathan Mayer published a report stating that Google
(and other companies) circumvented Safari's privacy settings and
set tracking cookies. After doing so, Google was able to serve ads
to Web users based on their Internet activity, Mayer reported.
Google confirmed Mayer's report when it came out, and said it had
stopped tracking Safari users or would soon do so. News of the
hack also resulted in charges by the Federal Trade Commission and
other officials; Google ultimately agreed to pay USD22.5 million
to settle with the FTC, and an additional USD17 million to settle
with a group of state attorneys general.

Frank is also challenging a separate privacy settlement entered
into by Google several years ago. That matter stemmed from
allegations that the company "leaked" search users' names to
publishers and advertisers through referrer headers -- the
information that is automatically transmitted by Google to
publishers and advertisers. (Some queries, like people's searches
for their own names, can offer clues to users' identities.)
Google settled that matter by agreeing to pay around USD6 million
to six nonprofits -- Carnegie Mellon University, World Privacy
Forum, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Stanford Law, Harvard's
Berkman Center and the AARP Foundation -- and more than USD2
million to the attorneys who brought the lawsuit.

Frank recently asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate
the deal, arguing that search engine users who were affected by
Google's practices won't receive any money. The 9th Circuit is
scheduled to hear argument in that case.[GN]


HARPETH FINANCIAL: "Atkinson" Asserts Breach of Loan Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Atkinson and Sylvia Cooksey, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Harpeth Financial Services, LLC, Michael Hodges and
Tina Hodges, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00504, (M.D. Tenn.,
March 9, 2017), seeks compensatory, treble and any other statutory
damages, punitive and exemplary damages, costs and expenses of
litigation, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and any
further equitable or legal remedy for breach of contract and for
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Advance Financial offers a flexible loan or "FLEX loan" which is
an open-ended line of credit. Advance Financial no longer services
its short-term loan products, refusing to accept timely
installment payments, a clear repudiation of the terms of the
short-term loan agreements. Atkinson took out an installment loan
with Advance Financial for seven equal installment payments. On
her third scheduled installment payment, she was told that the
company no longer honored its installment loan agreements with
customers and rejected the payment and demanded payment of the
full amount of the loan on the spot, or sign a FLEX loan agreement
for the amount outstanding.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
      Michael Isaac Miller, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor
      Nashville, TN 37201-1631
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Email: karlac@bsjfirm.com
             isaacm@bsjfirm.com


HELIX ENEGRY: "Wilson" Suit to Recoup OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER WILSON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. HELIX ENEGRY SOLUTIONS
GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00696 (S.D. Tex., March
5, 2017), alleges that Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. does not
pay their riggers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act; instead, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. pays its riggers
straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. is an international offshore
energy company that provides specialty services to the offshore
energy industry.  Hector Bravo worked for Helix Energy Solutions
Group, Inc. as a rigger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


HERITAGE OAKS: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Pacific Premier
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Heritage Oaks Bancorp, Simone Lagomarsino,
Michael J. Morris, Alexander F. Simas, Daniel J. O'hare, Dee
Lacey, James J. Lynch, Mark C. Fugate, Michael J. Behrman, Michael
E. Pfau, Howard N. Gould, Stephen P. Yost and Pacific Premier
Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01939 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2017)
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Heritage Oaks Bancorp by Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.

The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Heritage
stockholders will receive 0.3471 shares of Pacific common stock
for each share of Heritage common stock they own. Based on the
closing price of Pacific's common stock on December 12, 2016, the
merger consideration is valued at $11.68 per share. Following the
consummation of the merger, Pacific stockholders will own
approximately 69.9% of the outstanding shares of the combined
company, and Heritage stockholders will own only approximately
30.1%. Competing proposal are discouraged due to a no solicitation
provision that prohibits the Defendants from soliciting
alternative proposals with potential buyers. Plaintiff claims the
amount in consideration is inadequate and lacks the financial
background for the shareholder to make an intelligent vote on the
matter.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


HOLY CROSS: ERISA Church Plan Class Action Settles
--------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that, citing to the "significant
uncertainties in predicting the outcome" of their litigation
"where the critical issue is pending before the Supreme Court
(oral argument on the scope of ERISA's church plan exemption is
set in three consolidated cases for March 27), Plaintiffs in
Butler et al. vs. Holy Cross Hospital, another church plan class
action, have filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement.

In Butler, former employees of Holy Cross Hospital filed suit in
June of 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of themselves and other
participants of the Pension Plan for Employees of Holy Cross
Hospital, alleging that Defendants breached duties under ERISA by
incorrectly treating the Plan as an ERISA-exempt "church plan."
Among Plaintiffs' allegations are that Defendants underfunded the
Plan by USD31 million and improperly attempted to terminate the
Plan while it was underfunded.

The Plan was originally sponsored by Holy Cross Hospital, which
transferred plan sponsorship and liabilities to the Sisters of
Saint Casimir shortly before the hospital's merger with Sinai
Health System. Plaintiffs allege that this transfer was an
unlawful attempt to avoid liability for the Plan's underfunding.
They claim that upon the Plan's purported termination, Defendants
offered participants a discounted distribution based on incorrect
classification of the Plan as a church plan.

The parties' settlement provides for a settlement amount of
approximately USD9 million, which would consist of USD4 million
paid by Defendants into an escrow account (less attorney's fees
not to exceed 15% of the amount in escrow), as well as
approximately USD5 million in Plan assets held in trust that have
not yet been distributed. According to the motion, after notice
and administrative costs, Defendants anticipate that approximately
USD8.4 million will be available for distribution to Plan
participants. After final distribution of the settlement amount
will the Plan be fully liquidated and formally terminated.[GN]


HOMEADVISOR INC: "Goheen" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Goheen, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Homeadvisor, Inc. and Does 1-
10, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02128, (D. Kan., February 28,
2017), seeks relief for all uncompensated work, including unpaid
wages and unpaid overtime wages, all penalties, liquidated damages
and other damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of all benefits
obtained by Defendants, injunctive and declaratory relief and all
other forms of equitable relief, reasonable costs and attorney's
fees and service payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiff worked as Call Center Workers at Defendants' call center
facilities located in Kansas. Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages, bonuses, commissions and other non-discretionary
compensation from performing pre-shift and post-shift "off-the-
clock" work.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey L. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY L. GROSS, LLC
      4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 945-9591
      Facsimile: (816) 945-9578
      Email: ggross@grossllc.com


IKON BUILDERS: "Familia" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Familia, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Ikon Builders, LLC, Blok Builders, LLC, John Kovacs and Rene
Cabrera, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20903, (S.D.
Fla., March 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938.

Ikon is a Florida limited liability construction company
authorized to conduct business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Plaintiff worked for Ikon as a general laborer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2250 SW 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor
      Miami, FL 33129
      Telephone: (305) 704-3172
      Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


IL VALENTINO: "Grzybowski" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIK GRZYBOWSKI, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, v. IL VALENTINO RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a FOUR CUTS
STEAKHOUSE, LE GRAND NYC INC. d/b/a IL VALENTINO OSTERIA,
MIRSAD LEKIC and CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01651 (March 6, 2017), alleges that Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying
either the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage or the New York
State minimum wage to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff worked as bartender for Defendants' restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSMED INCORPORATED: April 3 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the lawsuit captioned Hoey v. Insmed Incorporated,
et al, No. 3:16-cv-04323-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. July 15, 2016), are
seeking dismissal of the amended complaint.

The motion to dismiss was filed March 1 by defendants Alfred F.
Altomari, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Andrew T. Drechsler,
Steinar J. Engelsen, M.D., Donald Hayden, Jr., Insmed
Incorporated, JMP Securities LLC, William H. Lewis, Leerink
Partners LLC, David W.J. McGirr, Melvin Sharoky, M.D., Wainwright
& Co., LLC, Randall W. Whitcomb.

The Motion to Dismiss will be considered by the Court on April 3
before Judge Freda L. Wolfson.  According to a March 2 docket
entry, unless otherwise directed by the Court, the Motion to
Dismiss will be decided on the papers and no appearances are
required.

Insmed said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that on July 15, 2016, a lawsuit
captioned Hoey v. Insmed Incorporated, et al, No. 3:16-cv-04323-
FLW-TJB (D.N.J. July 15, 2016) was filed in the US District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased our common stock from March 18, 2013
through June 8, 2016. The complaint alleged that the Company and
certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by misrepresenting and/or omitting the likelihood of
the EMA approving our European MAA for use of ARIKAYCE in the
treatment of NTM lung disease and the likelihood of
commercialization of ARIKAYCE in Europe.

On October 25, 2016, the Court issued an order appointing Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff for the
putative class.

On December 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that shortens the putative class period for the Exchange Act
claims to March 26, 2014 through June 8, 2016 and adds claims
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of a
putative class of investors who purchased common stock in or
traceable to our March 31, 2015 public offering. The amended
complaint names as defendants in the Securities Act claims the
Company, certain directors and officers, and the investment banks
who served as underwriters in connection with the secondary
offering. The amended complaint alleges defendants violated the
Securities Act by using a purportedly misleading definition of
"culture conversion" and supposedly failing to disclose in the
offering materials purported flaws in the Phase 2 study that made
the secondary offering risky or speculative. The amended complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company's response to the amended complaint, which it intends
to move to dismiss, was due by March 1, 2017.

"We believe that the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the
lawsuit," the Company said.

Insmed is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on the unmet
needs of patients with rare diseases.


INVENSENSE INC: "Holzman" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy Holzman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir
Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei
Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01038, (N.D. Cal.,
February 28, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable
and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge, with TDK acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in
cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an
approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion.

According to the complaint, Defendants have exacerbated their
breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with
preclusive and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other
bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company
including a no solicitation provision that prevents the Company
from negotiating with or providing confidential information to
competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances and
a matching rights provision that allows TDK to match any competing
proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges and up to
$46,700,000 in termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing
proposal.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells sensor systems on
a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for
the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and
automotive market segments.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
      Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 983-1300
      Fax: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
      Email: gegleston@gme-law.com


ISORAY INC: Judge Approves Proposed Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc., a medical technology company and innovator in seed
brachytherapy and medical radioisotope applications for the
treatment of prostate, brain, lung, head and neck and
gynecological cancers, disclosed that the previously announced
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") has been approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The Settlement, in which the parties agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action litigation, IsoRay, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS (the
"Litigation"), was first announced on September 27, 2016.

The court has entered an order and final judgment that will (i)
dismiss with prejudice and release the claims asserted in the
complaint against the defendants, including IsoRay, and any claims
that could have been asserted that arise or relate to the facts
alleged in the complaint, such that every member of the settlement
class will be barred from asserting such claims in the future, and
(ii) approve the payment of the USD3,537,500 settlement fund,
minus the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiff's
counsel, to members of the settlement class, which was previously
funded entirely by IsoRay's insurance carriers. The Defendants
have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims
alleged by the plaintiffs in the Litigation. Nevertheless, the
Defendants agreed to the Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden, and expense of further litigation.[GN]

                       About IsoRay, Inc.

IsoRay, Inc., through its subsidiary, IsoRay Medical, Inc. is the
sole producer of Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds, which are
expanding brachytherapy options throughout the body. Learn more
about this innovative Richland, Washington Company and explore the
many benefits and uses of Cesium-131 by visiting www.isoray.com.
Join us on Facebook/IsoRay. Follow us on Twitter @IsoRay


JAN RESOURCES: Faces "Bell" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKEY BELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, V. JAN RESOURCES, LLC, KATHRYN JACOBS-HELLER,
JAMES LOFTON, and JAMES LEE, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00049
(W.D. Tex., March 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants misclassified
Plaintiff as an independent contractor and paid him a flat weekly
salary; and reclassified Plaintiff as an employee but paid him
only a day rate without overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant JAN Resources, LLC provides labor to its customers' salt
water disposal wells across Texas.  Plaintiff is a water treatment
operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
     SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
     5612 Chaucer Drive
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (281) 885-8844
     Fax: (281) 885-8813
     E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


JEROME'S FURNITURE: "Rodriguez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Rodriguez as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jerome's Furniture Warehouse and
Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00460, (S.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2017), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Business and Professions
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order as well as
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and restitution.

Defendant is a furniture retail and wholesale store where
Plaintiff was employed at their Rancho Bernardo facility.
Plaintiff did not receive overtime compensation for all overtime
hours worked, worked through rest periods and meal breaks and did
not receive accurate wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


JOHN ADAMS: "Lang" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Antonio Lang, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. John S. Adams, Individually and as
Executor of the Estate of Guy Weldon Davis, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00717, (N.D. Tex., March 10, 2017), seeks unpaid back
wages due, liquidated damages, costs of this action, attorneys'
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants hired Antonio Lang for the purpose of providing
domestic service to him and his wife, providing them valet,
sitting, housekeeping, driving and general assistance for care and
activities of daily living.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Meazell, Esq.
      JOHN MEAZELL, P.C.
      1400 Gables Court
      Plano, TX 75075
      Tel: (972) 881-4300
      Fax: (972) 398-8488
      Email: attorney@meazell.net


JOSEPH CORY: Bid for Class Certification Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned OBED VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH CORY
HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01307-PGB-TBS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Paul G. Byron entered an order:

   1. overruling Plaintiff's partial objection to the report and
      recommendation on Defendant's motion to dismiss;

   2. overruling as moot Defendant's objections to Magistrate
      Judge's Report and Recommendation;

   3. adopting in part the Magistrate Judge's November 10, 2016
      Report and Recommendation and incorporating into the Order
      to the extent the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing
      Count IV for lack of standing;

   4. granting in part Defendant's motion to dismiss First
      Amended Complain, and dismissing without prejudice Count IV
      of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint due to Plaintiff's
      lack of standing;

   5. dismissing without prejudice Count II with leave for
      Plaintiff to file his claim in state court, as Court
      declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count
      II of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint;

   6. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification; and

   7. directing Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint
      which fixes the deficiencies resulting in the dismissal of
      Count IV.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9kr7bWi3


JPH HOLDINGS: "Conway" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Conway, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. JPH Holdings, LLC, d/b/a JPH Texas
Holdings, LLC, d/b/a JP Services, d/b/a JP Hydro Services and
d/b/a JP Hydro, Peter Family Properties, LLC, f/k/a JP Hydro, LLC
and Justin Peter, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00761, (S.D. Tex.,
March 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Conway's duties included, but were not limited to, pipeline
cleaning, hydro testing, nitrogen and air testing, and cleaning
and maintaining the company yard. Plaintiff worked at various
locations as assigned by Defendants. Conway often worked in excess
of 70 hours per week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Tel: (713) 683-9940


KEM REST: "Galvez" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Galvez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. Kem Rest., Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni
Ristorante, Thompson Rest., Inc. d/b/a Don Giovanni Ristorante,
Kimi Cohen and Aaron Cohen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01514,
(S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and unpaid spread of
hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Defendants operate two Italian restaurants under the common trade
name "Don Giovanni Ristorante" at 214 10th Avenue, New York, NY
10011 and 358 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036 where Galvez
worked as a dishwasher.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Judd" Alleges Misclassification, Seeks OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orson Judd, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Keypoint Government
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-08050, (D. Ariz., March 10, 2017), seeks compensatory and
statutory damages, including liquidated damages, lost wages,
earnings, and all other sums of money owed to Plaintiff,
restitution and compensation due for lost wages, earnings and
other sums of money with interest on these amounts, pre- and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc. is in the business of
security-clearance background investigation and screening services
across the United States. It employed Plaintiff as an
investigator. Judd claims that he was misclassified as an
independent contractor, thus denied overtime wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael C. McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      Email: mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
             ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Huggies Baby Wipes, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Sebastian, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide,
Inc., and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00442-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), arises out of
Defendant's unlawful merchandising practices of falsely and
deceptively labeling and advertising Huggies Natural Care Baby
Wipes as being "natural," "gentle," "hypoallergenic," and made
with the "simplest formula for a gentle clean", when in contrary
the products contain non-natural, synthetic chemical ingredients.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, marketing,
promoting, advertising, and selling baby-care products,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Naomi Spector, Esq.
      Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW, LLP
      9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (310) 400-1051
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
              cmoon@kamberlaw.com


KONA BREWING: Faces "Broomfield" Suit Over Misleading Beer Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE BROOMFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KONA BREWING CO., LLC, KONA BREW
ENTERPRISES, LLC, KONA BREWERY LLC, and CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01159 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), was
filed over Defendants' labeling, packaging, and marketing of its
Kona brand beer products, that makes references to and includes
images of Hawaii, and Hawaiian landmarks, traditions, history, and
culture, which allegedly make consumers believe that they are
purchasing a beer that is brewed in Hawaii.  According to the
suit, in reality, the Products are not brewed in Hawaii, but
instead are brewed in the continental United States, specifically
in Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, and New Hampshire.

Defendant Kona Brewing Co., LLC, began brewing beer in Hawaii in
1994.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: EoTech Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has received
preliminary approval from the court to settle five EoTech class
action consumer lawsuits filed.

During 2015 and 2016, five putative class action complaints
against the Company were filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri alleging that the Company's
EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons
sights (see Andrew Tyler Foster, et al., v. L-3 Communications
EoTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15 CV 03519 BCW).

In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the allegations in these cases. On February 15, 2017, the
Company received preliminary approval from the court to settle the
five class action consumer lawsuits filed.

Following an agreed-to notice period in which any contentions from
objectors are addressed, the court, in its discretion and
following a fairness hearing, will order final approval of the
settlement and the litigation will be resolved. Any final approval
order from the court is subject to appeal. Prior to final
resolution of this litigation, either party retains rights to
withdraw from the settlement under circumstances delineated in the
settlement agreement. There are numerous risks associated with
this settlement, including that the court finds that the
settlement is not fair and adequate to the class members or for
any other reason that the court deems appropriate to withhold
final approval. If final approval does not occur, the litigation
would recommence. As of December 31, 2016, the Company has accrued
all amounts it deems appropriate for this matter.

L3 is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including
modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and
training, night vision and image intensification equipment and
security and detection systems. L3 is also a provider of a broad
range of communication and electronic systems and products used on
military and commercial platforms.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: $34.5MM Settlement Subject to Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that parties' $34.5 million
class action settlement is subject to the execution of definitive
settlement documents and final court approval.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery.

On December 20, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve this matter for $34.5 million, subject to the
execution of definitive settlement documents and final court
approval. The Company's insurers have agreed to fund the entire
amount of the settlement.

L3 is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including
modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and
training, night vision and image intensification equipment and
security and detection systems. L3 is also a provider of a broad
range of communication and electronic systems and products used on
military and commercial platforms.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Filed
--------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a new putative class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the same 401(k)
participants and beneficiaries.

On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored
401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2016.
As amended, the complaint alleged that certain of the Company's
officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock
available as an investment alternative under the plan during a
period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors
identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The
complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages, equitable
relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On December 2, 2016, the matter was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

On January 27, 2017, a new putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of the same 401(k) participants and beneficiaries,
asserting substantially similar claims against the same officers
of the Company.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred
in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in
their early stages.

L3 is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including
modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and
training, night vision and image intensification equipment and
security and detection systems. L3 is also a provider of a broad
range of communication and electronic systems and products used on
military and commercial platforms.


LA RANCHERA INC: "Hernandez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Hernandez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Ranchera, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00730, (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages for all hours work, overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of forty per workweek, liquidated damages,
reasonable costs and attorney's fees in this action and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant manufactures and distributes corn and flour tortillas in
their manufacturing facility located at 7719 N. Shepherd Drive,
Houston, Texas 77088. Plaintiff was worked as a delivery driver
from March 2015 to October 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
      Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
      ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
      3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 960-8300
      Fax: (713) 621-6670


LANGT INC: Faces "Augustin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
VIVIANE AUGUSTIN, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. LANGT INC. and DUC NGUYEN, Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-60489-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 60 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one
half times the regular rate at which he was employed in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEADVISION LLC: Faces "Blazick" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES B. BLAZICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. LEADVISION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00113 (W.D.N.C., March 7, 2017), was filed on behalf of Account
Executives and Inside Sales Executives who LeadVision allegedly
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and did not pay overtime compensation.

LeadVision, LLC is a marketing company that provides sales leads
and marketing support to several niche industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
     15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Ste 331
     Charlotte, NC 28277
     Phone: (704) 612-0038
     E-mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com


LENNY & LARRY'S: "Cowen" Alleges Product Mislabelling in Cookies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Cowen and Rochelle Ibarrola, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lenny
& Larry's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01530 (N.D. Ill.,
February 28, 2017) seeks restitution of the monies wrongfully
acquired, compensatory and punitive damages, including actual and
statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
incurred and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and violation
of various state consumer fraud acts, Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Michigan Consumer Fraud
Act.

Lenny & Larry's, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells "The
Complete Cookie" through its own retail website and in retail
outlets, including health food stores and nutritional supplement
stores throughout the United States. Defendant markets it as
"quality baked goods that not only taste great, but also contain
healthy amounts of beneficial protein."

Plaintiffs allege that their labels grossly inflate the actual
protein content and is far below the amount of protein claimed.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLERWALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 246-2222
      Fax: (312) 346-0022
      Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Road
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

             - and -

      Steven Wasserman, Esq.
      Kathryn S. Marshall, Esq.
      Karin R. Leavitt, Esq.
      WASSERMAN LAW GROUP
      5567 Reseda Blvd., Suite 330
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Tel: (818) 705-6800
      Fax: (818) 705-8634
      Email: skw@wassermanlawgroup.com
             ksm@wassermanlawgroup.com
             krl@wessermanlawgroup.com


LG ELECTRONICS: "Munoz" Says TV's Energy-Saving Features a Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Munoz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01176, (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2017), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and costs of suit and such other relief for breach of
expressed and implied warranties, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, fraudulent inducement, intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure,
common law fraud and for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff accuses LG of misrepresenting the energy efficiency
of its televisions, which feature automatic brightness control and
motion detection dimming. Independent testing commissioned by the
Natural Resources Defence Council reveals that its television are
programmed to disable key energy-saving features when consumers
adjust the default picture settings.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq
      LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com

             - and -

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      Email: manifold@whafh.com
             rickert@whafh.com

             - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      Email: burt@whafh.com

             - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel.: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (312) 212-4401
      Email: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2100
      Los Angeles, CA. 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
      Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

             - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


LIVE NATION: Accrued $14 Million Remaining Cost of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December
31, 2016, the Company has accrued $14.0 million, its best estimate
of the probable remaining costs associated with the settlement in
the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation.

On March 18, 2016, all appeals relating to a settlement agreement
reached by the plaintiffs and Ticketmaster in respect of a
ticketing fees consumer class action litigation matter originally
filed in October 2003 against Ticketmaster were dismissed, thus
resolving this matter and allowing the implementation of the terms
of the settlement.

On March 30, 2016, the Company funded a portion of the settlement
primarily related to the plaintiffs' attorney fees and paid other
costs related to the settlement throughout 2016. Ticketmaster and
its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of
law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company has accrued $14.0 million,
its best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with
the settlement, which was recorded in prior years. The calculation
of this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption
rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption
rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the
final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.

Live Nation is a producer of live music concerts in the world.


LM FUNDING: Judge Denies Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph at Daily Business Review reports that a specialty
finance company is hailing a federal judge's denial of class
certification in a lawsuit against it as a victory for condo and
homeowners' associations looking to have new buyers cover
delinquent assessments.

But eagle-eyed lawyers, like board-certified real estate attorney
Michael Gelfand -- ga@gelfandarpe.com -- of Gelfand & Arpe PA and
Haber Slade managing shareholder David Haber, say the denial was
procedural and will likely have little effect on association debt-
collection efforts.

"The court merely determined . . . the plaintiffs didn't meet the
requirements to have a class action," Haber said. "It didn't say
that what the defendants did was right or equitable."

LM Funding heralded the order as "huge win for homeowners
associations and every person who pays their fees and mortgages on
time each and every month." It's filed a motion to dismiss, but
the litigation is ongoing.

"The claim still survives," Gelfand said.

Publicly traded Tampa-based LM Funding America Inc. says it
protects associations against mortgagees who wrongly claim reduced
liability under Florida law. It contracts with condo and
homeowners' associations, which assign it the right to recover
unpaid assessments from delinquent owners or subsequent buyers,
and then authorizes collection through a real estate law firm,
Business Law Group. It fought back a proposed class action on
usury charges from Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, an
institutional investor that purchases distressed mortgages in
default or foreclosure.

Wilmington attempted to gain class certification against LM
Funding, CEO Bruce Rodgers and Business Law Group, seeking
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy and violations of Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It claimed the finance company
knowingly sought to collect more than allowed under safe harbor
provisions in Florida condominium statutes created to limit
buyers' exposure to pre-existing debt on properties purchased in
foreclosure after the housing market collapse. These provisions
cap first mortgagees' liability at 12 months' worth of past-due
assessments or 1 percent of the original mortgage, whichever is
less.

But Wilmington claimed the defendants sought to collect well above
those limits as part of their business model. In one instance, it
claimed the defendants attempted to collect more than USD32,600,
instead of USD2,265, on a unit with an original mortgage debt of
USD226,500 and less than USD4,300 in unpaid assessments
accumulated in the 12 months before foreclosure.

"LMF earns most of its revenue by collecting or recovering the
interest, late charges and fees on the outstanding assessments,
rather than the outstanding assessments themselves," Wilmington
claimed in the lawsuit pending before U.S. District Judge Charlene
Edwards Honeywell, who rejected its case for certification.
LM Funding's chief executive celebrated the decision, saying bulk
buyers often misrepresent themselves as first mortgage holders,
and that the suit had already cost his company upward of
USD500,000.

"It was a long time coming, but class actions are the slip-and-
fall of being a corporation," Rodgers said. "There's no way to
know who is entitled to the safe harbor, unless they can show the
chain of title. If they claim they are first mortgagees, then show
chain of title."

Court records suggest Wilmington proved its standing as first
mortgagee, then attempted to sue on behalf of a proposed class of
investors, but it failed to gain certification.

"The court did not make any findings as to the merits of the case
or the legality of the defendants' conduct," Wilmington's
attorney, Brad Barrios of Bajo Cuva Cohen Turkel, said. We'll
continue to prosecute the merits of the case on behalf of our
client."[GN]


LOYAL SOURCE: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Florida Record reports that a Volusia
County man alleges his former Orange County employer failed to pay
him overtime wages and has filed a class action.

Freddie Mungen filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees on March 2 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division against
Loyal Source Government Services LLC alleging violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff worked for the defendant
as a recruiter from October 2013 to August 2015. The plaintiffs
hold Loyal Source Government Services LLC responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to compensate plaintiff for all hours
worked and failed to pay overtime work at a rate of time-and-one-
half of his regular rate of pay.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in his
favor, notice of collective action, award unpaid overtime wages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable relief as the court deems
just. He is represented by Mary E. Lytle, David V. Barszcz and
Robert N. Sutton -- lb@lblaw.com -- of Lytle & Barszcz PA in
Maitland.[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division Case number 6:17-cv-00362


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV reports that a Winter Park family claims the bamboo flooring
they installed has become a USD12,000 nightmare. They said Lumber
Liquidators sold a defective product and a class action makes the
same claim.

"You can see where it's rippling and cupping," said Mark Casey,
who calls his bamboo floors a disaster.

He said the floors have warped in every room and it's like a mini
trampoline in some places.

"This cannot be repaired.  It has to be completely taken out and
replaced," said Casey.

He had recently moved back in after a fire gutted his Winter Park
home in 2015.

Now, the flooring installed six months ago is failing. He blames
the company that sold him Morning Star Bamboo Flooring from China.

"Did Lumber Liquidators sell you a defective product?" asked
Action 9's Todd Ulrich.

"I think they did," replied Casey.

His contractor, Jason Tisdell, said he followed industry
guidelines and used the premium glue recommended by Lumber
Liquidators as a moisture barrier.

"This product failed. The product isn't made to be installed in
this environment with this glue," said Tisdell.

He said the glue stuck to a concrete slab but not the bamboo.

"You shouldn't have been able to pull that up," said Tisdell.

A class action filed by six homeowners claims Lumber Liquidators
bamboo flooring is subject to premature cracking, splitting,
warping and shrinking.

Casey said Lumber Liquidators refused to cover damages saying the
floors were not installed properly. "They changed the story every
time we contacted them," he said.

Lumber Liquidators told Action 9 it will conduct an independent
inspection of the customer's flooring.  But it stressed improper
installation related to moisture usually causes these kinds of
problems, not the product.

"Just fix the floors," said Casey.

The company said after the inspection it will work with all
parties on next steps.

The bamboo flooring is not related to the wood formaldehyde issues
the company dealt with in 2015.

Lumber Liquidators response:

Lumber Liquidators is working to find a solution for Mr. Casey
consistent with our unyielding commitment to customer service. The
cupping he's experiencing is most often a moisture issue that can
be avoided by properly following installation instructions. The
installation is not technically our responsibility but, as a
matter of goodwill, we have scheduled an inspection at our cost to
pinpoint the issue. Once we know more, we will work with all
parties to determine next steps.[GN]


LYCA TEL: "Acosta" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Acosta, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Lyca Tel, LLC, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-20907 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is in the business of selling SIM cards, which is a
memory circuit used in cell phones that carries information
necessary for a cell phone to operate on a given network.
Plaintiff worked as a sales staff. Defendant failed to pay Acosta
the agreed upon commissions in breach of contract as well as
overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary A. Costales, Esq.
      GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
      1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 375-9510 Ext. 314
      Fax: (305) 375-9511


MACY'S WEST: Faces "Straughter" Suit Over Arbitration Clause
------------------------------------------------------------
MIQUISHA STRAUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants in California, Plaintiff, v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
01143 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), arises because Defendants'
arbitration agreement contains an alleged illegal clause that
conclusively precludes Plaintiff and the putative class members
from asserting their protected rights under the National Labor
Relations Act and the Norris LaGuardia Act.

Specifically, the arbitration agreement contains an illegal class
action waiver that completely precludes Plaintiff and the putative
class members from acting in concert and filing joint, class, or
collective claims addressing their wages, hours, or other working
conditions against their employer in any forum, arbitral or
judicial, in violation of Plaintiff's and putative class members'
substantive and un-waivable rights.

Plaintiff was employed by MACY'S as a non-exempt, hourly-paid golf
and active specialist at the golf & active department of one of
MACY'S locations in Monterey, California.  Defendant MACY'S WEST
STORES, INC., is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
Ohio, and which operates as a subsidiary of Macy's, Inc. Macy's
Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates over 700 department
stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
     Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
     GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
     3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 692-0800
     Fax: (619) 692-0822
     E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
             vcordero@grahamhollis.com

        - and -

     David R. Markham, Esq.
     Maggie Realin, Esq.
     THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
     750 B Street, Suite 1950
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 399-3995
     Fax: (619) 615-2067
     E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
             mrealin@markham-law.com

        - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006
     E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com


MANHEIM REMARKETING: Faces "Campasino" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CAMPASINO Collective/Class Action Claim (520 Delmar Avenue,
Apt. 2, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061, Resident of Anne Arundel
County) Plaintiff, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Employees v. MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC., t/a
MANHEIM BALTIMOREWASHINGTON (6203 Peachtree Dunwoody Road,
Atlanta, Georgia 30328, Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service
Company, R.A., 7 St. Paul Street, Suite 820, Baltimore, Maryland
21202) and COX ENTERPRISES, INC. (6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road,
NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30328, Serve: Corporation Service Company,
R.A., 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware
19808) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00641-MJG (D. Md., March 7,
2017), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated,
Labor and Employment Article, stating in particular that:

"Although Plaintiff has to work additional hours, he is not
properly compensated for the extra work he performs. Upon being
promoted to operations supervisor, Defendants changed Plaintiff's
method of pay. Plaintiff is now paid a salary and is classified as
an exempt employee.  However, contrary to the title of his new
position, Plaintiff's role is not supervisory. Plaintiff does
not possess power or discretion over Defendants' employees or
policies. He also lacks the authority to make hiring or firing
decisions."

Defendants initially hired Plaintiff to perform work as a driver.

Manheim Remarketing, Inc. is in the business of automobile
auctions and sales. Manheim Remarketing, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


MDL 2420: Battery Antitrust Settlements Await Court OK
------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., on February 28 held off
approving settlements by LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC Corp. in
an antitrust class action accusing them of rigging prices of
lithium ion batteries, calling the information given to her
"pretty sparse."

Under the settlements:

     LG Chem agreed to pay $39 million,
     Hitachi Maxell $3.45 million and
     NEC $2.5 million

to indirect purchasers in the United States who bought laptops,
camcorders or power tools containing a cylindrical lithium ion
battery or a replacement battery made by the defendants between
Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said at the February 28
hearing that she hadn't been given enough information on how many
claimants there would be or how much they would get.

"In principle I'm delighted that people are resolving this," she
said. "But I don't know how one notifies a class that something is
happening but you have absolutely no idea what you're going to
get."

The indirect purchasers filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation in July 2013, accusing 27 defendants from
nine corporate families, including Toshiba and Samsung, of
conspiring to fix battery prices and restricting output between
2000 and 2011.

LG Chem pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing in October 2013
and agreed to pay $1.1 million in criminal fines.

At oral argument on February 28, class counsel Jeff Friedman
conceded that the lack of information was a problem.

"The court absolutely puts the court's finger on what is a very
common but bedeviling issue that comes up in class actions all the
time: 'How much are you going to get?'" Friedman told Gonzalez
Rogers. "How do we know how many [claimants] we're going to get?
There's very bad information out there in terms of prediction."

To fix that, Friedman proposed using the San Francisco tech firm
Sipree to distribute settlement awards via email and to increase
the number of claimants, prompting Gonzalez Rogers to continue the
hearing to March 14 and order additional briefing on Sipree.

Each of Sipree's email recipients would be allowed to direct their
award into a payment form of their choice, such as PayPal or a
bank account, Friedman said. He said Sipree could "force" money to
class members if they do not respond to their settlement notices,
for example, by emailing them a $5 coupon to use on Amazon.com.

Friedman said that class counsel has collected roughly 15.8
million email addresses for class members that Sipree can use to
distribute the awards.

Friedman said he proposed using Sipree for distribution in a dairy
price-fixing class action settlement awaiting final approval, also
in the Northern District of California.

"We hope there are no bumps, but it is new technology," he
conceded.

LG Chem attorney Nathan Eimer told Gonzalez Rogers that neither he
nor attorneys for the other settling defendants objected to using
Sipree because "one of the prime motivators [of the settlement
agreement] is to have the disruption of the case end."

Gonzalez Rogers expressed interest in Sipree's potential to
increase the number of claimants.

"I certainly get frustrated with low claims rates," she said. "On
the one hand, we write about how one of the goals of these class
actions is to help consumers, but when we aren't reaching them it
makes one wonder. So I look forward to seeing your updated
proposal."

In May last year, Gonzalez Rogers preliminarily approved a $19.5
million settlement with Sony, the first in the indirect purchaser
case. She has yet to grant final approval, however, saying at a
hearing in November that there were too many "moving pieces" to
sign off on the deal.

The proposed LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC settlements are the
second, third and fourth settlements in the case.

Together, the four settlements add up to a recovery of $64.45
million. A damages expert estimated that the class suffered $967
million in damages during the 11-year conspiracy.

If approved, Panasonic, Samsung, Sanyo, Toshiba and NEC Tokin
Corp. will remain in the indirect purchaser case.

Friedman is with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley; Eimer
with Eimer Stahl in Chicago.

The case is, IN RE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2420.  ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS, Case No. 13-MD-02420
YGR (DMR)(N.D. Cal.).

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Telephone: (415) 956-1000
     Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
     E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

          - and -

     Steven N. Williams, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     840 Malcolm Road
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Telephone: (650) 697-6000
     Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
     E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Vaccaro" TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00193, (C.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court of
the Southern District of California on March 8, 2017, under Case
No. 3:17-cv-00474.

Plaintiff brings this Complaint for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management is in the
business of collecting debts.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Midland Credit Management Inc. is represented by:

      Thomas F. Landers, Esq.
      Mei-Ying M. Imanaka, Esq.
      SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP
      401 B Street, Suite 1200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-0303
      Fax: (619) 231-4755
      Email: tlanders@swsslaw.com
             mimanaka@swsslaw.com


MERCER CANYONS: Settles Yakima Valley Farmworkers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Wheat at Capital Press reports that a large southern
Washington farm has agreed to pay USD1.2 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit involving 641 Yakima Valley farmworkers.

U.S. District Judge Stanley A. Bastian granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on March 7.

Farmworkers Bacilio Ruiz Torres and Jose Amador, represented by
Columbia Legal Services, filed a lawsuit in 2014 contending Mercer
Canyons Inc. violated federal and state wage laws in 2013. The
farm allegedly underpaid domestic workers for vineyard work and
failed to inform them that they were entitled to higher pay of
USD12 per hour that Mercer Canyons was paying H-2A-visa foreign
guestworkers.

Mercer Canyons has denied it violated laws. Rob Mercer, co-owner,
could not be reached for comment.

The remote family farm, more than 125 years old, is in the Horse
Heaven Hills south of Prosser and north of the Columbia River town
of Alderdale. The 12,000-acre farm includes vineyards and produces
about 365 million pounds of fresh produce annually.

The lawsuit alleged the company failed to contact former vineyard
employees about the higher-paying jobs and turned away hundreds of
local farmworkers to hire foreign H-2A workers in violation of
state and federal wage laws.

Mercer Canyons has said it was approved to hire 44 H-2A workers
but hired only 19 after hiring 22 local workers for the jobs. All
of them were paid the higher wage required by H-2A regulations,
Mercer Canyons said last August.

The judge appeared to rely upon plaintiffs' assertion that Mercer
Canyons had to inform every farmworker it had contact with about
the availability of H-2A work without pointing to any legal
requirement to do so, the farm said.

On Aug. 31, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld Bastian's April 2015 ruling that the lawsuit could
proceed as a class action.

The settlement precludes a two-week trial in April, saving money
for both sides and the uncertainty and time a trial presents, said
Lori Isley, a Columbia Legal Services attorney in Yakima.

Columbia Legal Services had two summary judgment motions pending,
she said.

"We're thrilled with the settlement and that Judge Bastian has
given preliminary approval," Isley said, adding that farmworkers
work hard and deserve respect and just compensation.

Mercer Canyon continues to deny any wrongdoing, and the settlement
does not say they violated laws, but Columbia Legal Services still
contends they did, Isley said.

Class members will be notified by mail, newspaper and radio ads
and have until June 30 to file claims to receive up to USD1,500 in
payments, which will be reduced pro rata if total claims exceed
USD545,000. Original plaintiffs, Ruiz Torres and Amador, are to
each receive USD7,500.

The remaining USD650,000 of the settlement goes to Columbia Legal
Services and co-counsel Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender in Seattle,
Isley said.

A final court order of resolution is expected in August.[GN]


MICHIGAN: Class Suit Filed Over "Robo-Adjudication" Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Michigan unemployment agency's "robo-adjudication"
program falsely accused tens of thousands of unemployment
claimants of fraud, a class claims in Detroit federal court.

The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency's automated system,
known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System, or MiDAS,
was implemented in 2013 at a cost of $47 million.  It caused an
immediate spike in adjudications of fraud, but it turns out the
spike was not a result of catching more people committing
unemployment fraud.

A state review released in December found that from October 2013
to August 2015 the system wrongly accused at least 20,000
claimants of fraud, a staggeringly high error rate of 93 percent.

These people lost access to unemployment benefits, and in extreme
cases, were issued fines of up to $100,000. Some had their federal
and state taxes garnished based on the faulty accusations.

Three wrongly accused claimants sued the software companies that
designed the now-discontinued system in Detroit federal court on
March 3 -- SAS Inc., FAST Enterprises, and Consumer Government
Services.

Lead plaintiff Patti Jo Cahoo says she received a form letter
issued by the system when it found a discrepancy between the
record submitted by her employer and information she reported when
applying for benefits.

The letter asked, "Did you intentionally provide false information
to obtain benefits you were not entitled to receive?" and second,
"Why did you believe you were entitled to benefits?"

The second question provides a list of responses, including "I
needed the money," "I did not understand how to report my earnings
or separation reason," and "Someone else certified (reported) for
me."

But none of these given responses are a valid reason for claiming
unemployment benefits.

"The form does not provide an option for claimants to state that
they believe they are legitimately entitled to unemployment
benefits and have reported their information in good faith,"
according to the complaint. "In order to give such an answer a
claimant must write in their response under the 'other' section of
the form."

The lawsuit further states, "The document does not provide the
claimant with notice of what the discrepancy actually is, making
it nearly impossible for a claimant to formulate a proper response
to the charge of misrepresentation."

If a claimant did not respond to this letter within 10 days, the
system automatically deemed the claimant to have knowingly
defrauded the unemployment office, without review by an agency
employee, and issued a letter demanding repayment of the benefits
plus penalties, according to the complaint.

Michigan says 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4
million after they were cleared of wrongdoing, but this is only a
small percent of the amount of money collected during the system's
two-year period of operation.

As of September 30, 2016, the state unemployment agency's
contingent fund was $155 million, a major leap from a balance of
$3.1 million in 2011.

The fund is now so well-provided that the Republican-led
Legislature passed a bill in December to withdraw $10 million in
surplus money from the fund to balance the state's budget.

"This system and software, including its design and
implementation, is constitutionally deficient and routinely
deprives individual unemployment claimants, who are some of the
state's most economically vulnerable citizens, of their most basic
constitutional rights," the complaint asserts.

Michigan settled federal claims related to the system's errors in
January by promising to issue mandatory refunds to the falsely
accused.

FAST Enterprises Partner James Harrison confirmed on March 3 that
his company is still involved in administering the state's
unemployment benefits system, and said a different system has been
in place for a long time.

"These claims have been swirling around for years," Harrison said,
although he said he had only recently heard the percentage of
incorrectly issued fraud letters hit 93 percent. He had not seen a
copy of the suit.

Cahoo and class members seek punitive damages for negligent design
and violation of their due process rights, plus an injunction
prohibiting the defendant companies from designing or maintaining
any software used by the unemployment agency.

They are represented by Jonathan R. Marko with Ernst & Marko Law
in Detroit.

SAS spokesperson Desiree Adkins said the company was aware of the
lawsuit, but has not yet been served.

"We take this very seriously and are looking into it," Adkins
said.


MINOR LEAGUE: Players' Wage Suit Recertified as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Artesia Daily Press reports a suit by minor league baseball
players alleging they are being paid less than minimum wage has
been recertified as a class action in federal court in San
Francisco.

The players sued in February, claiming most earn less than
USD7,500 annually in violation of several laws. Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Spero preliminarily granted class-action status in
October 2015 and withdrew the certification last July. After a
motion to reconsider, Spero ordered late March 7 to certify a
class that included players who participated since Feb. 7, 2011,
in the California League, spring training, extended spring
training or instructional leagues and hadn't signed a major league
contract before then.

Spero recertified the players who participated in spring training,
extended spring training and instructional leagues as a collective
under federal law and the California League players as a class
under California state law.

In a 69-page order, Spero told the parties to propose a case
schedule by April 28 and set a case management conference for May
12.

Major League Baseball declined comment. Baseball Commissioner Rob
Manfred said last year "this is not a dollars-and-cents issue" but
"the irrationality of the application of traditional workplace
overtime rules to minor league baseball players."


MISSOURI: Inadequately Funding Public Defender System, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Ryan at The Kansas Star reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri filed a class-action lawsuit on March
9 accusing the state of not adequately funding its public defender
system.

"This lawsuit is the result of years of neglect by legislators and
governors of both parties," said Tony Rothert, legal director for
the ACLU of Missouri. "During good financial times and bad
financial times, Missouri has consistently neglected the public
defender system. It's an embarrassment that's robbing people of
their Sixth Amendment rights.

"If you're accused of a crime, you have the right to an attorney
even if you can't afford one, and that's what keeps the system
fair."

The lawsuit names, among others, the state; Michael Barrett, the
director of Missouri's public defenders system; and Gov. Eric
Greitens. The governor's office did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Kansas City resident Shondel
Church, who was charged with misdemeanor theft in July 2016 and
jailed for nearly a month and a half before seeing a public
defender, according to the petition.

The attorney told Church that he had a winnable case, but should
plead guilty because the public defender had a large workload, and
Church would have to wait in jail for several months until the
attorney would be ready for a trial. Church remained in jail for
three months before deciding to plead guilty, the suit says.

While incarcerated, Church lost his job and his family lost their
home.

According to the suit, the Missouri state public defender's office
employs about 370 attorneys and 200 administrative staff to
represent defendants in more than 80,000 cases a year.

The suit cites 10 studies going back to 1989 that identified
"serious deficiencies in (the system's) implementation, in both
criminal and juvenile court . . . .  putting state officials on
notice that a constitutional crisis was looming."

In August, Barrett appointed Gov. Jay Nixon as a defense attorney
to represent a client who couldn't afford one of his own. The
appointment, Barrett said, was to bring attention to repeated
budget cuts that left his office unable to hire enough public
defenders.

But the court in Cole County ruled later that month that Barrett
didn't have the authority to make such appointments.

Barrett, in a statement on March 9, said:

"I've done everything short of setting myself on fire to draw
attention to the situation that the state has put us in. That poor
persons, including poor children, are being pushed through the
criminal justice system, fined excessively, and deprived of their
liberty, without receiving the benefit of an attorney who has the
necessary time to look into their case.

"Despite their claims of support for liberty and against big
government, the state has chosen to neglect an indigent defense
system that ranks 49th in the U.S. while enthusiastically spending
more than a USD100 million in new money on incarcerating the very
citizens who were deprived of their right to counsel."

The Missouri State Public Defender System had also sued Nixon in
July over whether the governor had the authority to cut the
system's budget by 8.5 percent. In November, the Cole County
Circuit Court said Nixon did.

The ACLU has similar class-action lawsuits pending against Fresno
County, Calif.; Orleans Parish, La.; and the state of Idaho.[GN]


MOUNTAIN FRUITS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Leon" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gamaliel Leon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mountain Fruits of Ave. M, Inc. (d/b/a Mountain
Fruits) and Chaim Nussenscweig, Case No. 1:17-cv-01231 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay appropriate overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 1523
Avenue M, Brooklyn, New York, 11230.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


MPW INDUSTRIAL: "Swain" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Swain, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, v. MPW Industrial Water Services, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-00725 (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant provides water purification services for power plants
across the United States. Defendant sends its various operators
and field service technicians to provide these services at power
plants in Baytown, Texas, Forney, Texas, Galveston, Texas and
other cities in Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Plaintiff worked as a
field service technician at Defendant's Baytown power plant
beginning July 22, 2016.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shane McClelland, Esq.
     Luis Baez, Esq.
     HERBERT &MCCLELLAND, LLP
     3411 Richmond Avenue, Suite 400
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 987-7100
     Facsimile: (713) 987-7120
     Email: smcclelland@shmfirm.com
            lbaez@shmfirm.com


MULTI PACKAGING: "Steinberg" Files Suit Over Sale to West Rock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Multi Packaging Solutions
International Limited, Marc Shore, Zeina Bain, George Bayly,
Richard H. Copans, Eric Kump, Gary Mcgann, Thomas S. Souleles,
Jason Tyler, Westrock Company and WRK Merger Sub Limited,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01510, (S.D. N.Y., February 28,
2017), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages, requests
double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
jointly and severally, along with court costs, interest and any
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Multi Packaging Solutions will be acquired by WestRock Company
where shareholders of Multi Packaging will receive $18.00 per
share in cash. Plaintiff alleges that the said amount is
insufficient given the company's current financial standing and
that said deal closed its doors to other potential buyers.

Multi Packaging is into print and packaging with manufacturing
operations in North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides
customers with an array of print-based specialty packaging
solutions, including premium folding cartons, inserts, labels, and
rigid packaging across a variety of substrates and finishes, which
are complemented by value-added services, including creative
design, new product development and customized supply chain
solutions. Marc Shore, Zeina Bain, George Bayly, Richard H.
Copans, Eric Kump, Gary Mcgann, Thomas S. Souleles and Jason Tyler
are members of its board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 683-3516

            - and -

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310


MULTI PACKAGING: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to WestRock
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, MARC SHORE, ZEINA BAIN, GEORGE BAYLY, RICHARD H. COPANS,
ERIC KUMP, GARY MCGANN, THOMAS S. SOULELES, and JASON TYLER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01670 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2017),
arises out of their attempt to sell the Company to WestRock
Company in a transaction valued at approximately $2.28 billion.

The Proxy, which recommends that MPS stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information in violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Specifically, it omitted among other things: (i) MPS management's
projections, utilized by the Company's financial advisor, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated in its financial
analyses; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by BofA
Merrill Lynch in connection with the rendering of its fairness
opinion.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
April 5, 2017 unless and until such problems are remedied.

MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED is a global
provider of value-added specialty packaging solutions, including
premium folding cartons, inserts, labels and rigid packaging
across a variety of substrates and finishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MXI CORP: Ordered to Pay $7.7MM to Resolve Salespeople's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that a
federal judge in Reno, Nev. ordered Reno-based MXI Corp. to pay
$7.7 million to settle a class action from salespeople who accused
it of running a pyramid scheme involving "healthy" Xocai
chocolate.

In their May 2015 lawsuit, lead plaintiffs Enrique and Michelle
Martinez said they were two of an estimated 50,000 salespeople who
bought the chocolate from MXI for resale. They claimed it was a
classic pyramid scheme, in which MXI, but not the salespeople,
made money through "endless recruiting" of new members.

U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du gave final approval to the
settlement on Feb. 28. The order includes $6.1 million to the
class, plus $1.6 million in attorney's fees and costs, and $35,000
in service awards to five plaintiffs.

"The court finds that the settlement is the product of serious,
informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arms' length by
the parties and with the initial assistance of a mediator," Du
wrote.

She certified the settlement class as all MXI associates who are
U.S. citizens and received less money than they paid to MXI, while
buying its chocolate for resale from May 1, 2011 through Nov. 3,
2016.

As of Jan. 19 this year, 1,383 of 41,200 potential class members
had submitted claims for either cash or products.

Du also ordered MXI to provide evidence it no longer is
encouraging members to buy more chocolate for resale or personal
use to qualify for bonuses or commission.  MXI also must show it
no longer requires members to have at least 51 percent of
qualifying sales volume to preferred customers to earn pay.

Du in March 2016 dismissed RICO claims against MXI. She found the
Ninth Circuit has ruled that investments in pyramid schemes are
securities, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, which precludes RICO claims. But she upheld claims of mail
and wire fraud, consumer fraud, and operating a pyramid scheme.

With the case surviving, MXI and Martinez, et al., attempted
mediation, but did not reach an agreement after an all-day
session. Du entered the settlement order after a Feb. 27 fairness
hearing.

The case is captioned, ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
MXI CORP., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00243-MMD-VPC (D.
Nev.).


NABORS DRILLING: Faces "Calderon" FLSA Suit for Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CALDERON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES
USA INC., and EXPRESS PAYROLL INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00710 (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2017), alleges that Defendants do not
pay their Welders overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act; instead, Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc. and
Express Payroll Inc. pays its welders straight time, not time and
a half for overtime hours worked.

Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. is a supplier of oil well
drilling and exploration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Holmberg" Securities Suit Over 2016 IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONA HOLMBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG,
and PAUL A. HOLT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2017), arises out of NantHealth's alleged false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
June 2, 2016; and/or (2) on the open market between June 2, 2016
and March 3, 2017, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities
Act.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant (founder
and Chief Executive Officer) Soon-Shiong funneled business to
NantHealth through his donation to the University of Utah,
pursuant to the contractual terms of which the university was
effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis
performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the number of test
orders that NantHealth reported to investors was artificially
inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong's donation
to the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a result,
NantHealth's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

NantHealth, Inc., a transformational healthcare cloud-based IT
company, purports to provide cloud-based platform solutions that
converge science and technology through integrated clinical
platform to provide actionable health information at the point of
care for critical illnesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ, LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
     E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
     E-mail: hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars
     Los Angeles, CA 90067, Suite 1100
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
     E-mail: brian@goldberglawpc.com
     E-mail: sherin@goldberglawpc.com


NANTHEALTH INC: "Deora" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATUL SINGH DEORA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK
SOON-SHIONG, PAUL A. HOLT, MICHAEL S. SITRICK, KIRK K. CALHOUN,
MARK BURNETT, EDWARD MILLER, MICHAEL BLASZYK, JEFFERIES LLC,
COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, FIRST ANALYSIS SECURITIES CORPORATION,
CANACCORD GENUITY INC., and FBR CAPITAL MARKETS & CO., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2017), alleges that
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
NantHealth founder, Patrick Soon-Shiong had donated funds through
nonprofit organizations to the University of Utah for the purpose
of funneling those funds back into NantHealth; (2) that, as such,
the Company and Soon-Shiong participated in the violation of
federal tax laws--exposing the Company to possible civil and
criminal liability; (3) that the Company improperly recorded
orders received from the University of Utah as Genomic Proteomic
Spectrometry Cancer (GPS) Cancer test orders; (4) that, as a
result, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer order
figures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading.

NANTHEALTH, INC. is a healthcare company.  It provides diagnostics
tailored to specific molecular profiles of patient tissues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com


NANTHEALTH INC.: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in NantHealth,
Inc. (NASDAQ:NH) to the securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and to
the May 6, 2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of NH between
May 31, 2016 and March 6, 2017 and suffered over $50,000 in losses
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information
visit:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/NH

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing NH@hbsslaw.com.

On March 6, 2017, STATnews published a report entitled "How the
world's richest doctor gave away millions -- then steered the cash
back to his company."  The report stated that the NantHealth's
founder Patrick Soon-Shiong ("Dr. Soon") made a $12 million gift
to the University of Utah that required the University to spend
$10 million for NantHealth's genetic sequencing work.

The report also stated: "[T]he deal made it possible for
[NantHealth] to inflate, by more than 50 percent, the number of
test orders it reported to investors late last year while updating
them on interest in a flagship product, a diagnostic tool known as
GPS Cancer.  Soon-Shiong's team counted genetic sequencing ordered
by the University of Utah in those order numbers -- even though
the work for the university did not have anything to do with
diagnosing or recommending treatments for cancer patients."

This news drove the price of NantHealth shares down approximately
23% to close at $5.50 per share on March 6, 2017.

"We're focused on management's earlier tally given to investors in
comparison to the recent news that, if true, would appear to
contradict those statements," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.[GN]


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Herrick" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GREG HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE, NATIONAL FOOTBALL MUSEUM, INC. dba PRO FOOTBALL HALL OF
FAME, Defendants (August 23, 2016) was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California
Central.  Judge Christopher A. Boyko was assigned to the case.

The suit alleges breach of contract regarding their management of
the August 7, 2016 Hall of Fame Game between the Green Bay Packers
and the Indianapolis Colts.

Plaintiff Greg Herrick is an individual and a resident and citizen
of Los Angeles, California, and a purchaser of tickets to the 2016
Hall of Fame Game.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
     Thomas E. Gray, Esq.
     Carlos X. Colorado, Esq.
     EAGAN AVENATTI LLP
     520 Newport Center Drive Suite 1400
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 706-7000
     Fax: (949) 706-7050

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Mark David Erickson, Esq.
     HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
     600 Anton Boulevard Suite 700
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (949) 202-3052
     Fax: (949) 202-3152

        - and -

     R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
     HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
     2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 651-5668
     Fax: (214) 200-0886

        - and -

     Kimberly Ann Chase, Esq.
     HAYNES AND BONNE LLP
     600 Anton Boulevard Suite 700
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (949) 202-3058
     Fax: (949) 202-3001

        - and -

     Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
     MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
     355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
     Phone: (213) 683-9100
     Fax: (213) 687-3702

        - and -

     Scott M. Zurakowski, Esq.
     KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY-CANTON
     4775 Munson Street, NW
     P.O. Box 36963
     Canton, OH 44735-6963
     Phone: (330) 497-0700
     Fax: (330) 497-4020
     E-mail: szurakowski@kwgd.com

        - and -

     Seth J. Fortin, Esq.
     MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
     355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
     Phone: (213) 683-9100
     Fax: (213) 687-3702


NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HELENE OLBINSKI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NCB MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No 2:17-cv-00308-JPS (E.D.
Wsic.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this 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 Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this 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=vdr9V3rD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OAK TRUST: Faces "Alan" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVE ALAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. OAK TRUST MERCHANT SERVICES CORP., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01766 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2017), seeks damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
alleged illegal actions of OAK TRUST MERCHANT SERVICES CORP., in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
to purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, OAK TRUST MERCHANT SERVICES CORP. is a merchant
financial services business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OLSEN TWINS: Settles Interns' Underpaid Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Corinne Heller at E News reports that Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley
Olsen have settled a class-action lawsuit interns brought against
them and have agreed to pay out up to USD140,000.

The sum is a drop in the bucket for the Full House stars and
fashion designers, who are believed to be worth USD300 million,
mostly due to their luxury label The Row.

In 2015, about 40 present and past interns for Dualstar
Entertainment Group, which released the Olsens' film New York
Minute and other movies and also provides their fashion apparel,
brought a class-action lawsuit against the company at a New York
Supreme Court. They alleged they were either unpaid or paid less
than the minimum wage after working extended hours.

Since then, about 180 present and past interns are believed to be
eligible for a payout. Under the terms of the lawsuit's
settlement, the Olsen twins' company has agreed to pay every
claimant who applies and qualifies for compensation USD530,
according to a preliminary statement released last week. A judge
has yet to sign off on the sum.

The "proposed settlement was reached only after protracted, arm's-
length negotiations between the parties and their experienced
counsel, who considered the advantages and disadvantages of
continued litigation," according to court documents obtained by E!
News.

A leading plaintiff in the lawsuit, a former design intern and
Parsons School of Design grad, had claimed that in 2012, she was
"doing the work of three interns." She said she was talking to her
boss "all day, all night. E-mails at nighttime for the next day,
like 10 p.m. at night."

She also said she worked 50 hours a week "inputting data into
spreadsheets, making tech sheets, running personal errands for
paid employees, organizing materials, photocopying, sewing,
pattern cutting, among other related duties."

The Olsen twins' company said at the time that the allegations in
the lawsuit were "groundless" and that the group was "committed to
treating all individuals fairly and in accordance with all
applicable laws."[GN]


OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Ahern" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ahern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Omega Protein Corporation, Bret D. Scholtes, and
Andrew C. Johannesen, Case No. 2:17-cv-01720 (C.D. Cal., March 3,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and management.

Omega Protein Corporation develops, produces, and delivers
products to enhance the nutritional integrity of foods, dietary
supplements, and animal feeds worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ONE WAY: "Melingonis" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. One Way Funding, LLC, a.k.a.
Fast Funding, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00465 (S.D. Cal., March
7, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mr. Melingonis received telephone calls on his cellular telephone
from Defendant through an automatic telephone dialling system
without his prior express consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Swigart, Esq.
     Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
     HYDE AND SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

            - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com


ONE WAY: Faces "Alves" Lawsuit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRI ALVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ONE WAY FUNDING, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01760
(C.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal
actions of ONE WAY FUNDING, LLC, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's
services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

One Way Funding offers flexible, working capital solutions to
small businesses in need of financing to sustain or grow their
enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: Unpaid OT Pay Sought in "Coleman" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dewayne Coleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Onshore Technology Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-868 (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2017) seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides information technology resources tailored-fit
to clients' specific needs ranging from information technology,
custom application development, application development and
integration, data services, software development, business
intelligence, rural sourcing, software testing, net, Java, BPO,
help desk, consulting, and quality assurance. Plaintiff worked for
the Defendants as a Quality Assurance Technician. Typically, the
Quality Assurance Technicians works between 50-60 hours per week
without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II
     4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: (913) 661-2900
     Facsimile: (913) 312-5841
     Email: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com

            - and -

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Tel: (404) 965-8811
     Facsimile: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


ORILUZ WINDOWS: "Andreu" Seeks Overtime Pay, Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexei A. Hernandez Andreu, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Oriluz Windows, Corp., Javier Perez, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20793, (S.D. Fla., February 28, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime and/or minimum wages, and requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, along with court costs, interest and any other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a window washer and window
installer from October 5, 2015, through February 24, 2017.
Plaintiff also suffered from hernia when lifting heavy objects
during times of work. Defendants failed to carry worker's
compensation insurance to cover Plaintiff's work?related injuries,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAN BROTHERS: "Caceres" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Caceres, Luis Barbecho and Cesar Barbecho, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pan
Brothers Associates, Inc., Tri-State Building Corp., Peter
Pantelidis, George Pantelidis and James Pantelidis, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01496 (S.D. N.Y., February
28, 2017) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, spread of
hours pay and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs are former demolition workers, construction workers,
bricklayers, carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, and
general laborers for Defendants' general construction and real
estate company. Defendants paid Plaintiffs on a daily rate basis
without overtime premiums for hours worked over forty in a given
workweek.

Defendant is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
             graham@peltongraham.com


PAYPAL INC: Diverts Charity Donations, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that a class suit in Chicago claims PayPal misled tens of
thousands of customers about their charitable donations made on
its giving platform and redirected money meant for unregistered
charities to groups of its own choosing.

Lead plaintiffs Friends for Health: Supporting the North Shore
Health Center and Terry Kass sued PayPal Inc. and PayPal
Charitable Giving Fund in Chicago federal court on February 28,
claiming the online payments giant diverted money away from
charities that did not have accounts with the company.

In 2013, PayPal added a new platform to its website, making it
easier for customers to donate money to their favorite charities
around the world, according to the class-action complaint.

When the new platform was created, PayPal also created PayPal
Giving Fund to process and disburse charitable donations made
through its platform.

Friends for Health and Kass say PayPal Giving Fund is an admirable
endeavor, but in practice falls short of its mission on numerous
fronts.

According to the complaint, PayPal Giving Fund lists charities on
its website that are not registered to receive donations and
donors are not told that their donation will not be received.

"The money donated by PayPal's customers through the giving
platform will only be delivered to their chosen charities if, and
only if, those charities have already set up a business account
with PayPal and a separate account with PayPal Giving Fund,"
according to the lawsuit. "If they don't have both of these
accounts, or don't set both of them up, they will never receive
the donation, despite being listed on the PayPal Giving website."

Instead of notifying the unregistered charities that donations
have been made to them, PayPal allegedly redirects unclaimed
donations from unregistered charities to organizations of its own
choosing.

"Tens of thousands of generous individuals after placing their
trust in PayPal, have made donations, that, unbeknownst to them,
have never reached their chosen charity," the 36-page complaint
states. "Likewise, thousands of charities have been deprived of
much needed funds they never knew were even intended for them."

While numerous national and international charities have set up
PayPal Giving Fund accounts, Friends for Health and Kass say
hundreds of thousands of smaller charities have not.

"Yet, PayPal Giving Fund nonetheless lists those same charities as
potential donation recipients without their knowledge or consent,"
the lawsuit states.

Kass says she donated $3,250 to 13 different national and local
charities that had profile pages on PayPal's giving platform, but
only three of them were actually registered with PayPal.

"As such, instead of delivering a combined $3,250 to thirteen
different charities, defendants only delivered a combined $100, or
3% of her donation, to those three charities," the complaint
states. "The remaining $3,150 -- which Kass donated to ten local-
level charities -- was withheld from the intended organizations."

According to the complaint, PayPal states on its Giving Fund
website that customers can choose from over a million charities.
The company also allegedly promises its customer, in no uncertain
terms, that 100 percent of their donations will go to whichever
charity they choose.

PayPal said in a statement that it is reviewing the complaint.

"To be clear, PayPal Giving Fund has not redirected any of the
charitable gifts donated during our holiday campaign. PayPal and
PayPal Giving Fund have a long history of fostering significant
social impact by connecting donors and charities," the company
said. "We work to ensure as many charities as possible can benefit
from our global donation campaigns. When PayPal Giving Fund
receives a donation to benefit a charity that hasn't enrolled, we
contact the charity to notify them of the gift and help them
enroll. PayPal Giving Fund does not hold any donations in interest
bearing accounts, and therefore earns no interest on any
charitable donations. We are disappointed by the lawsuit and we
are fully prepared to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter."

Friends for Health and Kass -- on behalf of a proposed class of
donors and charities -- seek actual, treble and statutory damages
for alleged violations of the Lanham Act and District of Columbia
Consumer Protection Procedures Act.  They also seek a complete
accounting of all transactions involving any funds that were
donated to PayPal with the intent that they be received by the
charities class.

The case is captioned, FRIENDS FOR HEALTH: SUPPORTING THE NORTH
SHORE HEALTH CENTER, an Illinois nonprofit corporation, and TERRY
KASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and PAYPAL
CHARITABLE GIVING FUND, a Delaware nonprofit corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01542(N.D. Ill., February 28, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
     Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 N. LaSalle St., 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com
             cdore@edelson.com
             ascharg@edelson.com

          - and -

     Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
     Claire Gorman Kenny, Esq.
     MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC
     135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3025
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312.614.1260
     E-mail: mmoirano@mgklaw.com
             cgkenny@mgklaw.com


PENG'S BODY: Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought in "Xiang" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xiang Ren Ma, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Peng's Body Work, Inc. d/b/a
Taiji Body Work, Rutie Peng, Emily "Doe," and Candy "Doe,"
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01787 (S.D. N.Y., March 10, 2017)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid
spread of hours premium, compensation for failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Laws.

Xiang was employed as a massage therapist by Peng's Body Work,
Inc., a massage parlor located 35 Saint Marks Place, 2nd Fl., New
York, NY 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


PEPSI-COLA SALES: "Helton" Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pepsi-Cola Sales and Distribution, Inc.; New Bern
Transport Corporation; and PepsiCo, Inc. sought removal of the
case filed by Nathaniel Helton in the Alameda County Superior
Court, with Case No. RG17847014, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The case is NATHANIEL HELTON on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. PEPSI-COLA SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.; NEW BERN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION; PEPSICO, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants.  The clerk of court assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-01135-MEJ to the proceeding.

Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege claims on behalf of
"[a]ll persons who are employed or have been employed by
Defendants in the State of California as hourly, Non-Exempt truck
workers, industrial truck workers, industrial truck drivers,
industrial vehicle drivers, industrial workers, and/or other
similar job designations and titles."

The Complaint alleges claims for: (1) failure to pay all straight
time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to
provide meal periods under Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (4)
failure to authorize and permit rest periods under Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and California Code of
Regulations; (5) knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized employee wage statement provisions under Labor Code
Section 226; (6) failure to pay all wages due at the time of
termination of employment under Labor Code; and (7) violation of
Unfair Competition Law under the Business and Professions Code/

Pepsi Cola Sales & Distribution is in the carbonated soft drinks,
bottled and canned business.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Samantha D. Hardy, Esq.
     Ashley T. Hirano, Esq.
     Daniel F. De La Cruz, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101-3598
     Phone: 619.338.6500
     Fax: 619.234.3815
     Email: shardy@sheppardmullin.com
            ahirano@sheppardmullin.com
            ddelacruz@shepppardmullin.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defending Suits Related to Line 901 Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. continues to defend class
action lawsuits related to the Line 901 oil spill, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release
from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California.  A portion of the released crude oil
reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a
drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline
and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command,
which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the
California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa
Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the
response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect
to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the
Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline
monitoring. Our current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil
spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that we believed
could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and
information, is approximately 2,935 barrels."

"Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims
line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release
to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a
number of claims through the claims line and we are processing
those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have
also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which
have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

"In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release, including potential classes such as persons that derive a
significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and
harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara
County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources
from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic
downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or
beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other
classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted
by the release.

"We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement
holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages.

"There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership
and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters.  Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill.  The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants.

"The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the
allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly.
Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing
organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance
policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of
our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we
are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
we previously entered into with such underwriters."

The Company owns and operates midstream energy infrastructure and
provide logistics services for crude oil, natural gas liquids
("NGL"), natural gas and refined products.


PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: "Zampirri" Alleges Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ZAMPIRRI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL HOLDINGS,
INC., PAUL BAIONI, JOHN MILLER, and JOHN WHITTAKER, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01465 (March 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Platinum's press
releases and financial information lacked veracity; (2) Platinum's
disclosure controls and procedures were inadequate; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Defendant acquires, manages, and operates technology based
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 313-1887
     Fax: (973) 833-0399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: "Celli" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Celli, Jonathan Lally, Tiffany Finch, and Russell Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01027, (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2017), seeks
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and
Massachusetts Overtime Law.

Plaintiffs Celli and Lally worked as claims adjusters for auto
damage for Progressive in their New York and Massachusetts offices
respectively.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jill Kahn, Esq.
      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: sliss@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Tel: (860) 522-8888
      Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


R.M. GALICIA: Faces "Carreon" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
CRISPIN CARREON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. R.M. GALICIA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01764 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2017),
accuses Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff in Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an
effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual
consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

The Plaintiff is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


R.M. GALICIA: Faces 2nd "Carreon" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRISPIN CARREON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. R.M. GALICIA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01765 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2017), accuses
Defendant of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff in Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an effort to
collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual
consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

The Plaintiff is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Hodges" Suit Alleges Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNI HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00481-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal., March 6,
2017), accuses Defendant of negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff in Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual
consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC is a debt collection
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class for Settlement Purposes
--------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit entitled CASSANDRA BRACKLEY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, and DANTE BUTLER, individually,
the Plaintiffs, v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., RED ROBIN
INTERNATIONAL, INC, SWAN CONCEPTS, INC., RR FAYETTEVILLE LLC, RR
HALFMOON LLC, RR LATHAM LLC, RR POUGHKEEPSIE LLC, JOHN A. SWAN,
JR., an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Gary R. Brown entered an order certifying,
for settlement purposes, a class of:

   "all individuals employed as servers in the State of New York
   by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. or Red Robin International
   Inc. or Swan Concepts, Inc., RR Fayetteville LLC, RR Halfmoon
   LLC, RR Latham LLC, RR Poughkeepsie LLC, and/or John A. Swan,
   Jr., at any time during the period January 20, 2010 to
   December 31, 2016".

The Court approves Shulman Kessler LLP and Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, as Class Counsel. The Court approves Rust Consulting as the
Claims Administrator. The proposed Notice fully and accurately
informs the Class Members of all material elements of the action
and the proposed Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement
Agreement satisfies all the requirements for certification of a
settlement class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eie3OYt3


RENTECH INC: Faces "Cuadra" Suit Over Securities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RAUL CUADRA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RENTECH, INC., JEFFREY R. SPAIN,
and KEITH B. FORMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01284 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 7, 2017), accuses Defendants of issuing materially false
and/or misleading statements in violation of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rentech's resources were not
sufficient to overcome any operating challenges and remaining
bottleneck at the Wawa facility; (2) consequently, the Wawa
facility would not reach approximately 60% of production capacity
within the next couple quarters and achieve full capacity in the
range of 400,000 to 450,000 metric tons late in the year; (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times.

Defendant Rentech, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides wood
fiber processing services, wood chips, and wood pellets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


RHINO RELOCATION: Faces "Clayton" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RHINO RELOCATION, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
at-00187 (E.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), accuses Defendants of
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
to purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Rhino Relocation offers offers long distance and commercial moving
services, as well as storage services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCKNE'S INC: "Harrison" Sues for Being Paid Below Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Harrison and Angela Zabor on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs,
v. Rockne's, Inc., 155 Lincoln Way, Inc., 1450, Inc., 4754, Inc.,
2914 Market Street, Inc., 9406, Inc., Joseph M. Shannon, Joseph W.
Shannon, John M. Shannon and Mark J. Shannon Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00477 (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2017) seeks unpaid minimum
wages, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements of this action and any additional
relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate at least 5 Rockne's restaurants all
over Ohio where Plaintiffs were employed as servers and bartenders
but also performed taking out trash, scrubbing walls, sweeping
floors, cleaning booths, sweeping, mopping, washing dishes,
breaking down and cleaning the expo line and cleaning and
restocking restrooms. They all claim to be paid below the minimum
wage rate.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176 (Arizona)
                 (216) 395-4226 (Ohio)
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


RUSTOLEUM: Judge Approves USD9.3 Million Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that a Chicago
federal judge has signed off on a USD9.3 million settlement deal -
- including more than USD3 million in attorney fees -- ending
years of litigation against Rustoleum over damage allegedly caused
to decks and patios by the company's "Restore" product line.

On March 6, U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve granted final
approval to the settlement between Rustoleum and attorneys
representing a class of potentially tens of thousands of
plaintiffs who claimed their wooden decks and patios had been
damaged or ruined by the Rustoleum products.

The judge's approval was delivered in a short order, in which St.
Eve said she was approving plaintiffs' motions for attorney fees,
class representative incentive awards and final approval of the
settlement.

With the settlement approval, the judge dismissed the case with
prejudice.

St. Eve had granted preliminary approval to the settlement in
October, and had overruled all objections to the settlement in a
Feb. 21 order.

In a motion presented to the court in February, lawyers for the
plaintiffs said the settlement would result in awards potentially
worth hundreds of dollars to every class member who could submit
valid claims demonstrating Rustoleum's products had damaged their
property.

The huge consolidated case had landed in Chicago federal court in
2014, after a federal judicial panel combined lawsuits filed by a
group of 40 named plaintiffs in federal district courts across the
country. The lawsuits all accused Rustoleum of selling its
products under the "Restore 10X" and "Deck & Concrete Restore"
labels, despite allegedly knowing the products contained "latent
defects" that caused the product to prematurely chip, blister and
peel, and otherwise damaged decks and patios to which they were
applied.

The plaintiffs said they had purchased and applied the products
from 2010-2015.

The lawsuits alleged breach of warranties and violations of
consumer fraud and false advertising laws throughout the U.S.,
among other allegations.

While the litigation had survived Rustoleum's attempts to dismiss
it, the two sides told the judge in the fall of 2016 that they had
reached a deal to end the matter before it went to trial.

Under the deal, Rustoleum would pay more than USD 9.3 million into
a settlement fund.

Plaintiffs' attorneys would receive a little more than USD 3.1
million in fees and costs.

The remaining USD6.2 million would be sued to pay administration
costs and claims, according to the motion for settlement.

Claims would be paid based on three tiers: Class members who can
establish an eligible claim could be in line to be reimbursed for
the cost of the product they purchase; paid USD2 per square foot
of their deck, if they paid to have the product removed from the
deck; or paid USD6 per square foot of their deck, if they paid to
have decking repaired or replaced. The settlement noted some
eligible class members could qualify for payment under multiple
tiers, meaning their total reimbursement could reach into the
thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the deck to which
the Restore product was applied.

"Those who experienced greater levels of damage will be able to
recoup a higher payment in multiple tiers from the Settlement
Fund," the plaintiffs' lawyers said in their settlement motion.

The final settlement motion indicated direct notice of the
settlement was sent, either by email or the U.S. Postal Service,
to more than 24,000 potential class members. Attorneys for the
plaintiffs also advertised the settlement in newspapers, online
and in other ways, the settlement motion said.

Lead attorneys representing the plaintiffs included those of the
firms of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, of Chicago, and Audet &
Partners LLP, of San Francisco. Other law firms who represented
plaintiffs in the action included: Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
of Minneapolis; Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, of Philadelphia;
Wexler Wallace LLP, of Chicago; Kohn Swift & Graf P.C., of
Philadelphia; Cueno Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, of Washington, D.C.;
Quantum Legal LLC, of St. Louis; McCuneWright LLP, of Berwyn, Pa.;
Bloom & Bloom P.C., of New Windsor, N.Y.; Rhine Martin Law Firm
P.C., of Wilmington, N.C.; Law Office of Jean Sutton Martin PLLC,
of Wilmington, N.C.; and attorney Robert N. Isseks, of Middletown,
N.Y.

Rustoleum was defended by the firms of Mayer Brown LLP, of
Chicago; Millberg Gordon and Stewart PLLC, of Raleigh, N.C.; and
Hangley Aronchick Segal and Pudlin, of Philadelphia.[GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Menzer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 9:17-cv-80311 (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2017), asks the Court to
require Samsung to issue corrective actions including
notification, recall, service bulletins and fully-covered
replacement parts and labor or replacement, plus damages
associated with the replacement of the defective products and
parts.  The suit further seeks attorneys' fees and costs resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, negligence, and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act
and violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Menzer purchased a Samsung washing machine with model number
WA48H7400AW/A2 on or around March 2015 from HHGREGG Inc. in
Wellington, Florida. It is one of those recalled units. Samsung's
offer to repair or rebate was deemed impractical by the Plaintiff
due to the hassle and inequitable compensation value of the rebate
offered. The full replacement option was not honored by the
Samsung dealer.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary S. Menzer, Esq.
     Michael S. Hill, Esq.
     MENZER & HILL, P.A.
     7280 W. Palmetto Pk. Rd. Ste 301-N
     Boca Raton, FL 33433
     Telephone: (561) 327-7207
     Facsimile: (561) 880-8449
     Email: gmenzer@menzerhill.com
            mhill@menzerhill.com

            - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma, City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560
     Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
     Email: WBF@federmanlaw.com


SELMA HEART: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Remand "Blevins"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to
remand, vacate the district court's grant of defendants' motion to
dismiss, and remanded the appeals case, ELIZABETH BLEVINS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEYDI V. AKSUT, M.D., SELMA HEART
INSTITUTE, PC, VAUGHAN REGION MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, LIFEPOINT
HOSPITALS, INC., LIFEPOINT RC, INC., LIFEPOINT CSGP, LLC, BAPTIST
MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, JACKSON HOSPITAL & CLINIC, INC., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 16-11585 (11th Cir.).

According to the plaintiffs, after an examination, Doctor Seydi V.
Aksut would falsely tell a patient that the patient needed heart
surgery.  Doctor Askut would then perform the procedure at a
facility operated by defendants Selma Heart Institute, P.C.,
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc., LifePoint RC, Inc., LifePoint CSGP,
Inc., Baptist Medical Center South, or Jackson Hospital & Clinic,
Inc. Defendants would then bill the patient for the procedure.
After learning about the practice, plaintiffs filed a suit in
February 2015 in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama.
Plaintiffs' complaint asserts a civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations claims and alleges that defendants operated
a racketeering enterprise through which they performed and billed
for the unnecessary heart procedures.

Defendants timely removed the case to the Southern District of
Alabama based on federal question jurisdiction. Defendants then
moved to dismiss the complaint and argued that plaintiffs allege
only personal injuries, which are not recoverable under RICO, and
that they failed to plead sufficient facts to support their
claims. Around the same time, plaintiffs moved to remand and
argued that CAFA's local-controversy provision prohibited the
district court from exercising jurisdiction.

The magistrate judge assigned to the case reported and recommended
that the district court deny plaintiffs' motion to remand because
CAFA was inapplicable and grants defendants' motion to dismiss
because plaintiffs had failed to plead RICO-recoverable injuries.
The district court adopted it as its opinion and dismissed the
case. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of
plaintiffs' motion to remand, vacated the district court's grant
of defendants' motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. The district court's grant of defendants'
motion to dismiss is vacated because plaintiffs allege economic
injuries that are recoverable under RICO.

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion, penned by Judge Hall
dated March 1, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/FQywwh from
Leagle.com.

James Flynn Mozingo; Michael Kevin Wright --
mwright@starneslaw.com -- John Peter Crook McCall --
jmccall@starneslaw.com -- Allen C. King -- aking@starneslaw.com --
at Starnes, Davis, Florie, LLP; Walter Jasper Price, III; T. Grant
Sexton, Jr. -- gsexton@rushtonstakely.com -- Lewis Peyton Chapman,
III -- LPC@rushtonstakely.com -- at Rushton Stakely; James E.
Williams -- jwilliams@mewlegal.com -- at Law Offices of Melton,
Espy & Williams, P.C.; H. Cannon Lawley -- Cannon@huielaw.com --
at Huie Law; Rickman E. Williams, III; Natalie Theresa Johnston;
David L. Brown, Jr. -- dbrown@goldbergsegalla.com -- at Goldberg
Segalla; Brandon Marshall Howell; B. Todd Thompson --
tthompson@tmslawplc.com -- Lon Stuart Hays -- lhays@tmslawplc.com
--  at Thompson, Miller & Simpson PLLC; Alan S. Bean; Clarence
James Gideon, Jr. -- Justin Blake Carter -- Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLLC; Amanda C. Hines, for Defendant-Appellee
Greg William Foster; Joshua P. Hayes -- at Prince Glover & Hayes,
for Plaintiff-Appellant

The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Charles R.
Wilson and Julie Carnes and District Judge Hall.


SEPHORA USA: Duran Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missing Pay Stubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Duran, an individual, for herself and those similarly
situated; ROES 1 through 30,000 and the Putative Class,
Plaintiffs, v. Sephora USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01261,
(N.D. Cal., March 9, 2017), seeks wages owed, prejudgment interest
at the statutory rate, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs of suit and such other and further relief under the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Sephora USA is an affiliate of a French chain of cosmetics stores,
with its own private label. Sephora offers beauty products
including makeup, skincare, body, fragrance, nail color, and
haircare, with its U.S. corporate headquarters in San Francisco,
California.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of failing to provide proper wage
statements, thus failing to fully account for all hours of work
rendered.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
      HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS,
       CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC
      200 Hathaway Building
      5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
      Post Office Box 3577
      Ventura, CA 93006-3577
      Telephone: (805) 644-7111
      Facsimile: (805) 644-8296
      E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com

              - and -

      Daniel J. Palay, Esq.
      Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
      PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
      1484 E. Main Street, Suite 105-B
      Ventura, CA 93001
      Telephone: (805) 628-8220
      Facsimile: (805) 765-8600
      E-mail: dip@calemploymentcounsel.com


SEYDI V AKSUT: 11th Circuit Appeals Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Gilman, Esq. -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that few class actions tug at the
heart, but Blevins v. Aksut does.

Elizabeth Blevins and 180 others brought a class action in Alabama
state court against Seydi V. Aksut, M.D., alleging that "after an
examination, Doctor Aksut would falsely tell a patient that the
patient needed heart surgery" and then perform the unnecessary
procedure and bill the patient.  Also sued were the clinics where
the procedures took place.

Among plaintiffs' claims were three under RICO:  the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  They
contended that "defendants operated a racketeering enterprise
through which they performed and billed for the unnecessary heart
procedures."

Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Alabama,
claiming federal question jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs, in turn,
moved to remand, contending that this was a "local" and "home
state" controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")
over which the federal court must refrain from exercising
jurisdiction.

The district court declined to remand, and on March 1, 2017, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  Here's why:

Under CAFA, federal district courts have jurisdiction over class
actions "in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000" and diversity of citizenship exists between
any class member and any defendant.  But there are exceptions.

Among them are the "local" and "home state" controversy exceptions
codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4).  The local controversy
exception exists in cases -- and bear with me now -- "in which
greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the
action was originally filed; at least 1 defendant is a defendant
from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff
class; whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the
claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and who is a
citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and
principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any
related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in
which the action was originally filed; and during the 3-year
period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class
action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual
allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or
other persons."

That's an interminable sentence, so let's break it down.
Generally speaking, federal courts cannot adjudicate class actions
if more than two-thirds of the anticipated class members reside in
the same state, at least one of the key defendants also resides in
that state, the primary injury occurred in that state, and no
similar class actions were filed by or on behalf of the same
plaintiffs against any of the same defendants during the prior
three years.

That's still a long sentence, but the bottom line is that Congress
said that if a class action is essentially a local dispute, the
federal court should step aside let the state court decide it.

The same philosophy underlies CAFA's "home state" exception.  That
exception applies when "two-thirds or more of the members of all
proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary
defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was
originally filed."  That sentence is mercifully shorter.

Here, plaintiffs contended that the local and home state-
controversy exceptions applied, given that plaintiffs and
defendants were largely Alabamans and the alleged procedures
occurred in Alabama.  Seems pretty local, doesn't it?

Perhaps, but the Eleventh Circuit deemed that irrelevant to
whether the case should return to state court.  Why?  Because even
if those exceptions apply, they do not affect a district court's
ability to exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sec 1331.  "When the requirements of federal-question jurisdiction
are met," the court noted, "district courts may exercise
jurisdiction over class actions, even if they involve only local
parties."  And here, the requirements of federal-question
jurisdiction were met because plaintiffs asserted RICO claims.

So the case remained in federal court, where defendants wanted it.
And they moved that court to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO claims,
arguing that plaintiffs alleged only personal injuries, which are
not actionable under RICO, rather than injuries to "business or
property," which are.

The district granted defendants' motion, reasoning that plaintiffs
"had failed to plead RICO-recoverable injuries."  But the Eleventh
Circuit vacated that decision, holding that "in the context of
unnecessary medical treatment, payment for the treatment may
constitute an injury to property."  The plaintiffs, it noted, were
seeking to recover damages "for the amounts they paid for the
unnecessary heart procedures.  These injuries do not flow from any
personal injuries.  Rather . . . the payments themselves are
economic injuries because they were for medically unnecessary
procedures."

And so the RICO claims remain in the case, which could have a big-
dollar impact on the outcome, given RICO's treble damages and
attorneys' fees provisions.  But first, plaintiffs have to prove
their case.

The case is Blevins v. Aksut, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
case no. 16-11585, and the opinion can be found at
https://goo.gl/N9IaEg


SIMPLY THALIA: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
GONZALO CALDERON, on behalf of himself and similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SIMPLY THALIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01744 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff Gonzalo
Calderon was required to work more than 40 hours per week in
certain workweeks, but was not paid the premium rate of one and
one half times his regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant operates a restaurant.  Plaintiff Gonzalo Calderon is a
current employee of Defendant; he prepared sushi for Defendant's
customers and washed dishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
     BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
     11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312)957-9005
     Fax: (888)826-5848
     E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


SUPERVALU INC: 8th Cir. Denies Colella's Bid to Intervene
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the district court denying Colella's Super Market,
Inc.'s motion to intervene in the antitrust litigation.

In 2003, wholesale grocery suppliers SuperValu, Inc. and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. entered into an Asset Exchange Agreement
(AEA). C&S had recently purchased Fleming Companies, Inc.'s
Midwest wholesale grocery business assets out of bankruptcy. In
the AEA, C&S sold Fleming to SuperValu and C&S purchased
SuperValu's New England business. Among the assets exchanged were
supply agreements and arbitration agreements between each
wholesaler and a number of its retail customers. Several retailers
sued SuperValu and C&S, alleging the AEA violated the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 1, et seq., because it unlawfully allocated the
New England market to C&S and the Midwest market to SuperValu.

The retailer-plaintiffs proposed two classes, the Midwest
SuperValu customers and New England C&S customers. DeLuca's
Corporation was the putative New England class representative and
D&G, Inc. was the putative Midwest class representative. Each
class had an arbitration subclass of retailers who had arbitration
agreements with their current wholesaler during the class period,
and thus could only sue their pre-swap wholesaler. Village Market
was the representative of the putative New England arbitration
subclass.

In July 2011, the arbitration subclasses were dismissed from the
case, but on February 2013, the dismissal was reversed. By the
time the arbitration subclasses were reinstated in February 2013,
the class certification for the broader New England and Midwest
classes had been denied, and the district court had granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants against D&G and DeLuca
as individual plaintiffs. D&G appealed the summary judgment
ruling, but DeLuca did not.

In May 2014, the Eight Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of the Midwest class certification, but reversed and
remanded the grant of summary judgment against D&G, and ordered
the district court to consider a narrower class of Midwest
plaintiffs. The issues on remand were referred to a magistrate.
The issue of the Champaign class was pending, and an additional
complaint had been filed by two putative classes of Midwest
plaintiffs. Nemecek Markets, Inc. proposed to represent a class of
retailers serviced by SuperValu's Green Bay, Wisconsin,
distribution center. Elkhorn-Lueptows, Inc., Jefferson Lueptows,
Inc., and East Troy Lueptows, Inc. proposed to represent a class
of retailers serviced by SuperValu's Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin,
distribution center. On October 24, 2014, Colella moved to
intervene to seek certification of a narrower New England class in
concert with Village Market, the New England Arbitration Subclass
representative.

The magistrate judge permitted the Midwestern Champaign, Nemecek,
and Lueptows plaintiffs to seek certification of their narrower
classes but denied Colella's motion to intervene. The
distinguishing factor was that the district court's rejection of
the broader New England class had never been appealed. The
magistrate judge decided Colella's motion was untimely, and even
if it were timely, Colella would have no right to intervene.

The parties presented to the district court objections to the
magistrate judge's rulings. The district court ruled the
magistrate judge sufficiently and correctly determined that the
New England plaintiffs may not relitigate certification for a New
England class and agreed with the magistrate judge that allowing
Colella to intervene would give New England plaintiffs an
unwarranted second bite at the class-certification apple.

The district court also rejected Colella's and Village Market's
argument that D&G represented the New England class's interests
when it appealed the denial of certification as to the Midwest
class. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's
recommendation that the Midwest plaintiffs be permitted to seek
certification of narrower classes.

Colella and Village Market appeal, arguing they should not be
bound by DeLuca's failure to appeal the denial of the New England
class certification, because Village Market, as the arbitration
subclass representative, had been dismissed from the case and was
not reinstated by the ruling until after the larger class was
denied certification.

The Eighth Circuit is unpersuaded by appellants' argument that the
district court abused its discretion in determining Colella's
motion to intervene was untimely.  Although the Chief Judge is
concerned by the district court not explicitly addressing
Colella's affidavit concerning its knowledge of the litigation,
Colella's incomplete explanation about its knowledge of the
litigation and its reason for any delay leaves him with more
questions than answers, the Eighth Circuit held.  Accordingly, the
Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Colella's
motion to intervene as not an abuse of discretion.  Village
Market's appeal is dismissed.

A copy of the Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit opinion, penned by
Chief Judge William J. Riley, is available at
https://goo.gl/iwUbD6 from Leagle.com.

The appeals cases are In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust
Litigation, relating to Colella's Super Market, Inc., Movant-
Appellant, v. SuperValu, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees; and In re: Wholesale Grocery Products
Antitrust Litigation, relating to JFM Market, Inc.; MFJ Market,
Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SuperValu, Inc., Defendant-
Appellee, Nos. 15-3089, 15-3174 (8th Cir.).

Ochen D. Kaylan -- Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason --
JGleason@RobinsKaplan.com -- Martin Richard Lueck --
MLueck@RobinsKaplan.com -- Karl Craig Wildfang --
KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com -- Stephen Paul Safranski --
SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com -- at Robins Kaplan LLP; Todd Alan
Wind -- twind@fredlaw.com -- Nicole M. Moen -- nmoen@fredlaw.com -
- at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.; Charles A. Loughlin -- Christopher
J. MacAvoy -- christopher.macavoy@bakerbotts.com -- Erik T. Koons
-- erik.koons@bakerbotts.com -- Hugh Hollman --
hugh.hollman@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker, Botts LLP; Lisa Louise
Beane; Rajat Rana -- rajat.rana@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, for
Defendant-Appellee

Edward T. Dangel, III, for Movant-Appellant

The Eight Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge William J. Riley
and Circuit Judges Steven M. Colloton and Jane Kelly.


SUPERVALU INC: JND Named Notice Administrator in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the
parties' motions in the case titled In re Wholesale Grocery
Products Antitrust Litigation, Court File No. 09-MD-2090 ADM/TNL
(D. Minn.).

Plaintiffs allege that in 2003, defendants SuperValu and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. conspired to allocate customers and
territories through an Asset Exchange Agreement, and that, as a
result of the reallocation, defendants charged retailers supra-
competitive prices, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1. On September 7, 2016, the court certified
five litigation classes of customers served from SuperValu's
distribution centers in the Midwest.

Plaintiffs move for approval of their proposed notice program that
consists of: (1) direct mailing of a long-form notice to all class
members who can be reasonably identified; (2) supplemental
publication of a short-form notice in four regional trade
publications and a PR1 Newswire release; and (3) the creation of a
case-specific website and toll-free phone number.

Defendants move for approval of a limited customer communications
program. Defendants seek permission to send a letter to its
customers shortly after class notice has been issued, as SuperValu
anticipates getting a number of questions from its customers after
they receive the class notice, and the letter may minimize
customer confusion and enable SuperValu to maintain its customer
relationships.

Judge Montgomery granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion and granted in part SuperValu's motion. Judge Montgomery
held that where individualized notice by mail will reach a large
majority of class members, supplemental notice by publication is
not required. Publication in multiple regional trade journals and
a newswire press release is not required by due process and will
be of little value in alerting the small number of remaining class
members who might not be reached by mail. The notice program will
not include a supplemental publication component.

The court also orders that the case-specific website include an
online opt out form that can be completed and submitted
electronically.

The court will allow SuperValu to disseminate an abbreviated
version of its proposed letter. The letter will briefly explain
that federal court rules limit SuperValu's ability to discuss the
lawsuit with its customers now that classes have been certified. A
shortened version of SuperValu's proposed letter is approved. An
abbreviated version of SuperValu's telephone script is also
approved.

The court appoints JND Legal Administration LLC as the notice
administrator. The administrator shall provide notice of the
classes certified.

The administrator shall cause the long form notices to be mailed,
by first class mail, postage prepaid, on or before May 1, 2017 to
all class members at the address of each as stated in the records
of defendants, or who otherwise can be identified through
reasonable efforts of the defendants. On or before May 5, 2017,
the administrator will file with the court proof of distribution
of the class notice. The claims administrator shall cause creation
of the case-specific website to be made publicly available and
updated with relevant court information and documents. The claims
administrator shall cause creation of the toll-free number, to be
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that class members may
call for more information about the lawsuit.

Each class member shall have the right to be excluded from the
classes by utilizing a separate opt-out form that shall be
included with the Long Form Notice and mailed to the administrator
no later than July 1, 2017. Class members may also exclude
themselves from the classes by completing and submitting an
electronic opt-out form on the Website no later than the July 1,
2017 deadline for exclusion. No later than 30 days after the
deadline for exclusion, class counsel shall file with the court a
list of all persons and entities who have timely requested
exclusion from the classes.

A copy of Judge Montgomery's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 1, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/Z2nmgf from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- Matthew J. Henken --
mhenken@bsfllp.com -- Richard B. Drubel -- rdrubel@bsfllp.com --
at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Daniel B. Allanoff -- Joel C.
Meredith -- at Meredith & Cohen; Steven J. Greenfogel -- at
Meredith Cohen Greenfogel & Skirnick; Daniel Kotchen --
dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Daniel Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- at
Kotchen & Low LLP; Edward T. Dangel, III -- at Dangel & Mattchen,
LLP; Elizabeth R. Odette -- erodette@locklaw.com -- Kate M.
Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- W. Joseph Bruckner --
wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP

Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen G.
Marttila -- kgmarttila@locklaw.com -- Elizabeth R. Odette --
erodette@locklaw.com -- Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- W. Joseph Bruckner -- wjbruckner@locklaw.com -
- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP

Supervalu, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Kohnstamm --
AKohnstamm@RobinsKaplan.com -- Geoffrey H. Kozen --
GKozen@RobinsKaplan.com -- James S. Harrington --
JHarrington@RobinsKaplan.com -- Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason --
JGleason@RobinsKaplan.com -- K. Craig Wildfang --
KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com -- Martin R. Lueck --
MLueck@RobinsKaplan.com -- Stephen P. Safranski --
SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com -- at Robins Kaplan; Gordon J.
MacDonald -- gmacdonald@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP

C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
J. MacAvoy -- christopher.macavoy@bakerbotts.com -- Erik Koons --
erik.koons@bakerbotts.com -- Hugh M. Hollman --
hugh.hollman@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; David J.
Lender -- david.lender@weil.com -- Eric Shaun Hochstadt --
eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Luna Ngan Barrington --
luna.barrington@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP; Nicole
M. Moen -- nmoen@fredlaw.com -- Todd A. Wind -- twind@fredlaw.com
-- at Fredrikson & Byron, PA


TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brazil S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a collective action
filed by SISTEL Participants' Association (ASTEL) in the state of
Sao Paulo is in the appeal phase.

SISTEL associates in the state of Sao Paulo challenge the changes
made in the Medical Care Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) and
claim for the reestablishment of the prior status quo. This
proceeding is still in the appeal phase, and awaits a decision as
regards the possible admission of the Special and Additional
Appeals in connection with the Court of Appeals' decision, which
changed the decision rendering the matter groundless. The amount
cannot be estimated, and the claims cannot be settled due to their
unenforceability, in that it entails a return to the prior plan
conditions.


TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in Services Quality Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brazil S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an appeal by plaintiff
in the services quality class action remains pending.

The Public Prosecutor Office of the state of Sao Paulo commenced a
class action suit claiming moral and property damages suffered by
all consumers of telecommunication services from 2004 to 2009 due
to the bad quality of service and failures of the communications
system. The Public Prosecutors Office suggested a total award
against the company of R$1 billion. A judgment was rendered on
April 20, 2010 imposing the payment of damages to all consumers
who proved to be eligible for the award.

Alternatively, if clients do not prove themselves eligible in a
number compatible with the severity of the damage after a period
of one year, the judgment establishes that R$60 million should be
deposited in a special fund for protection of diffuse customer
interests (Fundo Especial de Defesa de Reparacao de Interesses
Difusos Lesados). It is not possible to estimate how many
consumers may present themselves in this procedure nor the values
to be claimed by them.

The parties filled an appeal and the effects of the sentence were
suspended. The appellate court has ruled in the Company's favor
and changed the lower court decision. The plaintiff filed an
appeal to the Supreme Court, which is awaiting decision.

"Despite the possible degree of risk, no value amount was
attributed to this action because currently we are unable to
calculate the total amount to be paid by us in the event we lose
and, as a result, we have not recorded any provisions," the
Company said.


TELORO CORP: Faces "Candelario" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TELORO CORP. d/b/a GUARANTY
SOLAR, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00474-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), seeks to stop Teloro's
practice of making unsolicited autodialed telephone calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Teloro Corp. operates a call center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
     P.O. Box 27414
     Oakland, CA 94602
     5101 Crockett Place
     Oakland, CA 94602
     Phone: (510) 336-2181
     Fax: (510) 336-2181
     E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net


TENET CONCEPTS: Faces "Mukes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willie J. Mukes, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Tenet Concepts, LLC, Case No.
4:17-cv-00692 (S.D. Tex., March 3, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tenet Concepts, LLC is a Texas limited liability company engaging
in commerce in Texas and several other states as a delivery
service for companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Bruster Loyd, Esq.
      JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD LLP
      4400 Post Oak Pkwy Suite 2360
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 225-9000
      Facsimile: (713) 225-6126
      E-mail: bruse@jgl-law.com

         - and -

      Joe M. Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 384
      Houston, TX 77017
      Telephone: (713) 980-8900
      Facsimile: (713) 400-1104
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


THERANOS: Challenges Plaintiffs' Standing to Sue
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
blood-testing company Theranos attempted to skirt a federal
lawsuit on March 1, by arguing people who claim in San Jose,
Calif. to have invested in the company aren't actually investors
and have no standing to sue.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins gave little indication of
how he'd rule as he presided over a motion to dismiss hearing
where plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Theranos said they do
indeed have standing to sue.

Robert Colman and Hillary Taubman-Dye bought private shares of
Theranos through two venture capital funds, LVG XI and Celadon
Technology Fund, respectively, according to the initial complaint.

The pair say Theranos violated California's securities law when it
induced billions of dollars of private investment on the false
premise that it had developed an exclusive and proprietary blood
test that could determine the presence or absence of a myriad of
diseases through a simple finger prick.

"The truth -- there was no revolutionary technology," Colman and
Taubman-Dye say in their complaint.  They accuse Theranos CEO
Elizabeth Holmes of personally enriching herself at the expense of
investors like themselves by cooking up a story that this supposed
revolutionary technology could save millions of lives while
cutting costs.

Holmes said she had thoroughly vetted the blood test and attracted
notable luminaries including George Schultz and Henry Kissinger to
the board of directors, all with the express purpose of attracting
major investment, the investors say.

Problems for Theranos surfaced in October 2015, when the Wall
Street Journal reported the company was struggling to deliver on
its promises of a revolutionary advance in testing technology and
that several of the company's employees did not trust the test's
accuracy.

Despite assurances from Holmes and other executives at the
fledgling company, the reports have severely damaged Theranos'
reputation and spawned a series of lawsuits, including a contract
action filed by Walgreens and other lawsuits similar to Colman and
Taubman-Dye's involving whether Holmes misled investors.

On March 2 hearing, Theranos attorney Christopher Davies said the
case should be dismissed because Colman and Taubman-Dye never
actually invested in Theranos. He said they instead invested in a
venture capital firm which in turn bought private shares in the
health science corporation.

"They lack standing," he said of the two plaintiffs. "Despite what
the plaintiffs are saying, these are not fractionalized shares."

If someone bought an index fund with shares of different S&P 500
companies or a mutual fund, they would not be entitled to sue
should one of those companies be found culpable for misleading
investors, Davies said.

Paul Geller, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the analogy was
misleading.

"This wasn't a mutual fund available on the open market," he said.

Instead, the investors employed venture capital funds for the
express purpose of buying shares in Theranos because they believed
the statements of Holmes and other high-level executives.

Whether Cousins allows the case to go forward will likely hinge on
whether using the venture capital funds in this instance
establishes a direct relationship between Theranos and the two
jilted investors, a legal concept called privity.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and believe there
are as many as 50 others with identical claims.

Cousins said he would pause other aspects of the case, including a
schedule for discovery, until he rules on the motion to dismiss.

Geller works for Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd based in Boca
Raton, Florida.


TJX COMPANIES: "Chester" Suit Seeks Certification of Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STACI CHESTER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
TJX COMPANIES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01437-ODW-DTB (C.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs will move the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying the following subclasses:

      a. TJ Maxx Subclass, consisting of: "All persons who, while
         in the State of California, and between July 17, 2011,
         and the present, purchased from TJ Maxx one or more
         items at any TJ Maxx store in the State of California
         with a price tag that contained a "Compare At" price
         which was higher than the price listed as the TJ Maxx
         sale price on the price tag, and who have not received a
         refund or credit for their purchase(s). Excluded from
         the Class are Defendants, as well as Defendants'
         officers, employees, agents or affiliates, and any judge
         who presides over this action, as well as all past and
         present employees, officers and directors of any
         Defendant.";

      b. Marshalls Subclass, consisting of: "All persons who,
         while in the State of California, and between July 17,
         2011, and the present, purchased from Marshalls one or
         more items at any Marshalls store in the State of
         California with a price tag that contained a "Compare
         At" price which was higher than the price listed as the
         Marshalls sale price on the price tag, and who have not
         received a refund or credit for their purchase(s).
         Excluded from the Class are Defendants, as well as
         Defendants' officers, employees, agents or affiliates,
         and any judge who presides over this action, as well as
         all past and present employees, officers and directors
         of any Defendant.";

      c. HomeGoods Subclass, consisting of: "All persons who,
         while in the State of California, and between July 17,
         2011, and the present, purchased from HomeGoods one or
         more items at any HomeGoods store in the State of
         California with a price tag that contained a "Compare
         At" price which was higher than the price listed as the
         HomeGoods sale price on the price tag, and who have not
         received a refund or credit for their purchase(s).
         Excluded from the Class are Defendants, as well as
         Defendants' officers, employees, agents or affiliates,
         and any judge who presides over this action, as well as
         all past and present employees, officers and directors
         of any Defendant."

   2. appointing plaintiffs Staci Chester and/or Daniel Friedman
      as representatives for the TJ Maxx Subclass;

   3. appointing plaintiff Robin Berkoff as representative for
      the Marshalls Subclass;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs Robin Berkoff and/or Theresa Metoyer
      as representatives of the HomeGoods Subclass;

   5. appointing as counsel for the class attorneys Douglas
      Caiafa of Douglas Caiafa, A Professional Law Corporation,
      Christopher J. Morosoff of the Law Office of Christopher J.
      Morosoff, and Greg Hafif of the Law Office of Herbert
      Hafif; and

   6. ordering the parties to meet and confer and present this
      Court, within 15 days of an order granting class
      certification, a proposed notice to the certified class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uUhE1l2h

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444 5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312 8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345 1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

               - and -

          Greg K. Hafif, Esq.
          Michael G. Dawson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT HAFIF
          269 W. Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 624 1671
          Facsimile: (909) 625 7772
          E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com


TOP & QUALITY: "Duchitanga" Sues for Harassment, Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Duchitanga, Francisco Martinez, Luis Juncal, Estela Perez,
And Edwin Bustillo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The 43 Ave Top N' Quality Corporation
d/b/a Top & Quality Cleaners, Sang Hun Kim, "John" (first name
unknown) Pack, "John" (first name unknown) Jong, Sunny Cleaners
Inc. d/b/a Top & Quality Cleaners, Sun Cleaners Inc. d/b/a Clean
Tech 47, Jae Hee Sim, Charlie "Doe" (last name unknown), Thomas
"Doe" (last name unknown) and YSB Cleaners Inc. d/b/a Steve's Dry
Cleaners, Defendants, Case No.1:17-cv-01145, (E.D. N.Y., February
28, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, spread of hours and overtime
wage including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs under New York Labor Laws as well as violations of
the New York Human Rights Law.

Defendants operate a laundromat where Plaintiffs worked. Aside
from unpaid overtime wages, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
tolerate sexual assault in the workplace as well as paying female
employees dramatically less than similarly situated male
employees. Plaintiff Duchitanga, in particular, was terminated in
retaliation for speaking out and reporting such atrocities.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Florida Woman Wants to Opt-Out of Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Florida woman on March 6, threw a wrench into what was expected to
be a smooth approval hearing in federal court in San Diego,
California, later this month in the $25 million Trump University
settlement by objecting to the settlement agreement and insisting
class members be allowed to opt out, despite already being given
that opportunity years ago.

Sherri Simpson, through her attorney Gary Friedman of New York,
filed an objection to the global class action settlement reached
last November when Trump agreed to pay $25 million to a class of
7,000 former Trump University students who said they were duped
into investing in a real estate education that offered industry
insight equivalent to that of an infomercial.

Trump did not admit any wrongdoing or liability by settling.

Simpson said the settlement agreement violates the class members'
rights to opt out of the settlement, which was expressly outlined
in the "What if I do Nothing?" section of the 2015 class notices.

The class notices were sent to former Trump University students
with the opt-out deadline falling on Nov. 16, 2015. Only 13 people
opted out of the class, with many of the opt-outs considered
"Trump supporters" who did not want to sue him. None of the opt-
outs have so far filed their own lawsuits against Trump and his
real estate school, according to Simpson.

Simpson attended a three-day Trump University seminar in April
2010. She later purchased the $35,000 "Gold Elite" package in May
2010 which was supposed to come with a year of mentorship from a
real estate expert purportedly "handpicked" by Trump himself.


But Simpson says she later learned Trump University was "film-
flam, a hoax, a scam" and that there were "no materials at all
that one couldn't have just grabbed off the internet." She
demanded a refund but got no response, and eventually retained an
attorney to file her own case.

Simpson decided to hold off filing her own lawsuit when she
learned about the class action, according to her filing.

"From the point of view of class members such as Ms. Simpson,
there was precious little reason to exercise the right to opt out
at that juncture. The case was barreling towards trial, by all
accounts. The plaintiffs' lawyers were obtaining excellent
results, having prevailed against hotly litigated dispositive
motions. And, if the case were to settle down the road, the class
member could rest assured that she would be afforded the
opportunity to 'ask to be excluded from any settlement' at that
point," according to the memorandum.

The settlement violates the due-process rights of class members
"robbed" of their right to request exclusion, Simpson says.

Rather than reject the settlement outright for not including an
opt-out notice, Simpson suggests U.S. District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel should require a "settlement-stage opt-out opportunity."
Now that class members have more information about the settlement
terms then when the initial class notices were sent out in 2015,
Simpson claims they may want to pursue their own litigation. At
the time the 2015 notices went out, there was no settlement or
prospective settlement terms on the table and class members were
assured there would be a second opt-out opportunity if a
settlement was reached.

The settlement also "releases Trump from liability" on claims the
class could not have brought, but which individual opt-out members
could have raised in their own lawsuits, such common-law fraud
claims under Florida law where Simpson lives.

"If the settlement indeed represents 50 cents on the dollar of
loss, as has been reported, it is certainly a beneficial
settlement by the standards of class actions. But there is no
principle of law or fairness that requires Sherri Simpson to
accept 50 cents on the dollar. What Ms. Simpson seeks is her day
in court, at which she will press for the complete vindication of
all her rights, including her full damages plus punitive damages
and injunctive relief. Due process guarantees her the autonomy to
pursue these goals," Simpson says in the filing.

She filed a claim with the settlement administrator in case her
motion to opt out is denied by Judge Curiel.

Friedman said in an interview with Courthouse News the attorneys
who worked on the settlement agreement reneged on their explicit
notice there would be a second opportunity to opt out.

The attorney said Trump would likely not have agreed to a
settlement if opt out notices were required to again be sent out
following the nearly seven-year litigation.

Friedman said they are asking Curiel to require the class
attorneys to circulate opt-out notices to all class members. He
said doing so would not necessarily render the $25 million
settlement moot but would give Trump and his attorneys insight
into how many people want to opt out of the settlement.

While Curiel preliminarily approved the settlement late last year,
the oversight on the need to provide a second opt-out notice was
on the part of the attorneys, and not the court, Friedman said.

"It is never really the responsibility of the court to know all
the details of a settlement. It's the lawyers' job," Friedman
said.

Friedman plans to attend the final settlement hearing in San
Diego's federal court March 30 to argue why Simpson's objection
and request to be excluded from the settlement should be allowed.

Attorneys for the class members and Trump did not respond to email
requests for comment.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Hearing in Q2 2017 on Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing in an appeal in a class action lawsuit against Umpqua
Holdings Corporation is scheduled for second quarter 2017, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class
period, alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. Appellant filed its opening brief on April
3, 2015 and the Company filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015;
additional appellate briefing was filed in the third quarter 2015
and the appeal hearing is currently scheduled for second quarter
2017.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, was formed as
a bank holding company in March 1999.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Consolidated Suit Pending in D.C. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Continental Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

On June 30, 2015, UAL received a Civil Investigative Demand
("CID") from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking documents
and information from the Company in connection with a DOJ
investigation related to statements and decisions about airline
capacity. The Company is working with the DOJ and has completed
its response to the CID. The Company is not able to predict what
action, if any, might be taken in the future by the DOJ or other
governmental authorities as a result of the investigation.

Beginning on July 1, 2015, subsequent to the announcement of the
CID, UAL and United were named as defendants in multiple class
action lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust
Act, which have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints generally
allege collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity impacting
airfares and seek treble damages. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the class action lawsuits.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and its
principal, wholly-owned subsidiary is United Airlines, Inc.


UNITED STATES: "Soto" Suit Seeks Certification of US Navy Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Simon A. Soto, on behalf of himself and
all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
United States of America, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00051
(S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of
persons who:

   a. are former service members of the United States Army, Navy,
      Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard;

   b. whose CRSC applications under 10 U.S.C. par. 1413a were
      granted, but who were denied the full extent of their
      retroactive CRSC payment as a result of Defendant's use of
      a Retroactive Payment Cap that is inconsistent with and
      violates the law; and

   c. have a claim of less than $10,000.

On March 2, 2017, Mr. Soto filed this action, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated seeking monetary relief.

                Gov't Accused of Cheating Veterans

Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News service, reported
that a retired Marine corporal who bagged up pieces of dead
soldiers in a mortuary affairs unit in Iraq brought a class action
in Brownsville, Texas for thousands of veterans he claims are
being cheated out of disability benefits.

Simon Soto says in his federal lawsuit that he has vivid
nightmares from his two tours in Iraq more than 10 years ago,
haunted by memories of his time in the unit that was called out to
recover the remains any time a U.S. soldier was shot or blown up.

"Soto has described one mission where 'we picked up over 300
pieces of five or seven soldiers, in which case it wasn't really
easy to identify who and it was just literally chunks and pieces
of flesh that we were processing,'" according to the March 2
lawsuit.

Soto received seven medals and other honors during his nearly six
years with the Marine Corps. He retired from active duty in April
2006.

As he struggled with suicidal thoughts and civilian life, Soto
says, the Department of Veterans Affairs found him 100 percent
disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder and deemed him eligible
for disability payments, formally called combat-related special
compensation.

But because he waited until June 2016 to apply for disability pay
with the Navy, which oversees the Marine Corps, he did not beat a
6-year statute of limitations, and the government capped his
retroactive disability payments at six years.

"If you file your claim more than 6 years after initial
eligibility, you will be restricted to 6 years of any retroactive
entitlement," the lawsuit states, citing a section of U.S. code
that governs military benefit claims.

Soto says the government is misreading the statute. He says the
code, 31 U.S.C. Section 3702(b), puts the 6-year limit on
retroactive claims for survivor benefits, travel costs, payments
for unused leave and retirement pay, but not combat-related
special compensation, which is not explicitly included in the
code.

So Soto says the government is illegally capping retroactive
disability benefits and he should get 8ยด years of those payments
instead of six.

He estimates that thousands of the 88,610 military retirees who
get combat-disability pay also have been shorted by the cap.  He
seeks class certification and damages of up to $10,000 per member.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sqgpre18

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tracy LeRoy, Esq.
          Gerard D. Kelly, Esq.
          Emily M. Wexler, Esq.
          Jeff Carroll, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 495 4510
          Facsimile: (713) 495 7799

               - and -

          Barton F. Stichman, Esq.
          Thomas A. Moore, Esq.
          NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
          SERVICES PROGRAM
          1600 K Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006-2833
          Telephone: 202-621-5687


USCB INC: Faces "Burbano" Lawsuit Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN BURBANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. USCB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01763 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2017), is a Complaint for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual
consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

USCB, Inc. is debt collection company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VARICOSIS LASER: Illegal SMS Ads Hit in "McFerrin" TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne McFerrin, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Varicosis and Laser
Center of Alabama, P.C., D/B/A Parish Vein Laser Dermatology,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00380, (N.D. Ala., March 10, 2017),
brings this Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited telephone call and
text messages to consumers nationwide, which is in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (TCPA).

Defendant's primary services involve providing skin care services
and products. It utilizes mass text messaging activities to
generate sales leads for its services and products. Plaintiff is a
recipient of unsolicited SMS advertisements from the Defendant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
      ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
      2332 2nd Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 983-7985
      Fax: (888) 505-0523
      Email: fuli@zarzaur.com


VECTREN CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employee Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit against Vectren Corporation
have reached a settlement in principle to resolve the matter,
Vectren said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims related to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan (Plan) and the
Company.

The Company denied the allegations set forth in the Complaint and
moved to dismiss the case.

In April 2016, the court dismissed part of the complaint but
allowed the remaining claims to proceed.

On February 6, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter. The terms of the settlement in principle
are not expected to have a material impact on the Plan or the
Company.

Vectren Corporation (the Company or Vectren), an Indiana
corporation, is an energy holding company headquartered in
Evansville, Indiana.  The Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. (Utility Holdings or VUHI), serves
as the intermediate holding company for three public utilities:
Indiana Gas Company, Inc. (Indiana Gas or Vectren Energy Delivery
of Indiana - North), Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company
(SIGECO or Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana - South), and
Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. (VEDO).  Utility Holdings
also has other assets that provide information technology and
other services to the three utilities.  Utility Holdings'
consolidated operations are collectively referred to as the
Utility Group.  Both Vectren and Utility Holdings are holding
companies as defined by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  Vectren
was incorporated under the laws of Indiana on June 10, 1999.


VEREIT INC: TIAA-CREF Files Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff TIAA-CREF on March 15 filed a Motion to Certify
Class in the case, In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.
Litigation.

Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the Court directed plaintiffs to file the class certification
motion by that date.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed
a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015,
which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP,
filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint
(or portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in
part by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company
and the OP filed an answer to the second amended class action
complaint on July 29, 2016. On September 8, 2016, the Court issued
an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to
reflect certain prior rulings by the court. The third amended
complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the defendants are
not required to file new answers. In the September 8, 2016 order,
the court also directed that document production should be
substantially complete by December 15, 2016.

On January 25, 2017, the court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by March 15,
2017 and defendants to file an opposition to the motion by May 5,
2017. The court scheduled a status conference on May 16, 2017.


VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that Cole Litigation Matter remains pending.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and
abetted those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.


VERONICAS AUTO INSURANCE: "Ramirez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Ramirez, an individual; on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees,
Plaintiffs, v. Veronica's Auto Insurance Services, Inc., Adriana's
Insurance Services, Inc. and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC652263, (Cal. Super., February 28, 2017),
seeks compensatory, consequential and incidental damages
(including past and future lost wages, bonuses, expenses and other
losses), general damages, including money damages for mental pain,
anguish, and emotional distress, prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees, civil penalties, waiting time, punitive damages and such
other and further relief under the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a sales marketer. She
claims to have been denied overtime pay via skipped rest periods,
waiting time and inaccurate wage statements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Tel: (213) 814-4940
      Fax: (213) 814-2550
      Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com
             grant@soloukisavoy.com


WALGREENS CO: Sued Over Payment and Reimbursement Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mayberry, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Walgreens, Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., Supervalu,
Inc., and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01748 (N.D. Ill.,
March 3, 2017), arises from the Defendants' repeated and
systematic violation of basic rules of payment and reimbursement
for claims processed by the Defendants on behalf diabetic patients
prescribed insulin pump supplies, by representing to the diabetic
patients that they were responsible for a significantly larger
portion of the equipment and supply costs than was actually true
pursuant to their Medicare benefits and coverage.

Walgreens, Co. owns and operates approximately 8,300 stores
throughout the United States.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. owns and operates in-store pharmacies
commonly known as Osco Drug throughout the United States.

Supervalu, Inc. owns and operates in-store pharmacies commonly
known as Osco Drug and Sav On throughout the United States.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. owns and operates in-store pharmacies
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
      120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com


WPX ENERGY: 2nd Class Cert. Bid in Royalty Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has not yet
ruled on plaintiffs' second motion for class certification in the
Royalty litigation.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County
of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure
to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent
concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and
affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in
Colorado, breach of implied duty to market, violation of the New
Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of
contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a declaratory
judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and
future reporting. This matter was removed to the United States
District Court for New Mexico where the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunctive relief.

On August 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
motion for reconsideration and filed a second motion for class
certification, and the Court held a hearing on that motion on
January 24, 2017 but has not yet ruled.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims," the Company said.


WPX ENERGY: Class Certification Motions Pending in Nevada Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has not yet
ruled on class certification motions in in the case related to
Williams' former power business.

The Company is currently a defendant in class action litigation
and other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases
were transferred to the federal court in Nevada.

The Company said, "In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in
the Colorado case in favor of us and most of the other defendants
based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the
court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the
Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in our favor."

"In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted our joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the
plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act
gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.

"The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the In re:
Western States Wholesale Antitrust Litigation, holding that the
Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust
claims and reversing the summary judgment previously entered in
favor of the defendants.

"The U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants' writ of certiorari. On
April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state
antitrust claims are not preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act.

"On March 7, 2016, the putative class plaintiffs in several of the
cases filed their motions for class certification. The hearing on
the class certification motions was held on January 26, 2017, and
the court has not yet ruled.

"On May 24, 2016, in Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies,
Inc., the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in
its entirety, and an agreed amended judgment was entered by the
court on January 4, 2017. Because of the uncertainty around
pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description
of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time."


YOUR WIRELESS: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN JACKSON and MELISSA KIVO, individually
and on behalf of the classes, the Plaintiffs, v. YOUR WIRELESS
INC.; PLAINVIEW : CLASS CERTIFICATION
WIRELESS INC., and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07067-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a class consisting of:

Count 1: alleging violation of the TCPA:

   "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after December 11, 2011, (c)
   were sent text message calls by or on behalf of defendants (d)
   with respect to whom defendants have no evidence of express
   consent";

Count II, alleging violation of New York General Business Law:

   "(a) all persons with telephone numbers in New York area codes
   (b) who, on or after December 11, 2009, (c) were sent text
   message calls by or on behalf of defendant Your Wireless Inc.
   (d) with respect to whom defendants have no evidence of
   express consent.

The Plaintiffs further asks that Kleinman LLC and Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YLywR5ft

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522 2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522 1692


* Merkel to Warn Trump That U.S. Tax Changes May Spark Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Barett at Bloomberg reports Republicans and their business
allies perennially push tort-reform bills aimed at restricting
what's sometimes called the litigation industry. They haven't had
much luck of late. It's been 12 years since one of those measures
succeeded. But with Donald Trump in the White House, pro-business
groups see an opening for a series of bills moving through the
House that would discourage class actions and generally make it
harder to sue businesses.

It's an issue the president has some experience with. Only days
after his election, Trump agreed to pay USD25 million to settle
claims that his defunct Trump University cheated more than 6,000
students with false promises of teaching them his real estate
secrets. On the other hand, Trump has frequently initiated suits
against business adversaries, so it's tricky to predict what
position he'll take. The White House did not respond to requests
for comment.

Three bills, each of which would make life tougher for plaintiffs'
lawyers, were scheduled for votes by the full House on March 9 and
10. Several more are in the legislative pipeline. While House
passage is a virtual certainty, the Senate presents a bigger
challenge. With a 52-48 majority, Republicans would need to find
eight Democratic votes to reach 60 and avoid a potential
filibuster. Lisa Rickard, president of the Institute for Legal
Reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's legal arm, says the chamber
and other business advocates are focusing attention on 10
Democrats in red states who are up for reelection in 2018,
including Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Heidi Heitkamp of North
Dakota, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Plaintiffs' advocates predict the legislation will stall in the
Senate with little or no Democratic support. "These bills are
driven by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the largest
corporations, who want to escape responsibility for hurting people
or other businesses," says Pamela Gilbert, a consumer attorney in
Washington.

The broadest bill, sponsored by Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte,
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would make it harder in
several ways to bring class actions. The measure would bar
plaintiffs' firms from repeatedly representing the same client in
class actions. The most obvious targets are prominent law firms
that represent plaintiffs in securities suits. Such firms
routinely represent institutional investors in multiple cases over
time. Professor John Coffee Jr. of Columbia Law School wrote on
his Blue Sky Blog that the restriction "seems either a death
sentence for the large plaintiffs' firm or the end of large public
pension funds serving as lead plaintiff."

Statistics on class actions are sparse, partly because there's no
central clearinghouse for state cases. But numbers are gathered
for federal securities cases. Plaintiffs filed a record 270
federal class-action securities cases in 2016 -- 44 percent more
than the historical average of 188 filings from 1997 to 2015,
according to Cornerstone Research.

Another part of Goodlatte's bill would allow class actions to move
forward only when a judge certifies that all plaintiffs have
suffered the same type and scope of injury. Imposing such
obligations at the outset of a case would encourage more
preliminary skirmishing and deter some class actions from ever
getting off the ground.


* Neil Gorsuch's Rulings in Class Actions Examined
--------------------------------------------------
Amy Howe, writing for Scotusblog, reports that when Justice
Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, one of the petitions for
review awaiting the Supreme Court's consideration was an appeal by
Dow Chemical Co., which had asked the court to review the billion-
dollar judgment against the company in a price-fixing case.  But
less than two weeks later, Dow announced that it was settling the
case for $835 million.  The company maintained that it "was not
part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed
as a matter of class action law."  But, Dow explained, that the
settlement was nonetheless "the right decision for the company and
its shareholders" in light of uncertainty stemming from "recent
events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for
unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits."

Dow pointed to two important class-action decisions, both authored
by Scalia and decided by a vote of 5-4, on which it had relied.
In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the court struck down a lower-court ruling
that approved the certification of a class of roughly 1.5 million
Wal-Mart female employees, who had argued that the leeway over pay
and promotions that the store gives to its local supervisors
discriminates against women.  The court ruled that the women
lacked the kind of common legal claim that would allow them to
bring a lawsuit collectively, because they were suing "about
literally millions of employment decisions at once."  And in
Comcast v. Behrend, the justices held that the lower courts were
wrong to certify a class of cable-television subscribers in an
antitrust lawsuit against the cable company because the
subscribers could not show that their damages could be measured on
a classwide basis.  Although Dow emphasized that, in its view, the
judgment against it violated both of those decisions, it opted to
settle the case rather than take its chances with a Scalia-less
court.

Covering the Wal-Mart decision for this blog, Lyle Denniston
described Scalia as the court's "most dedicated skeptic about the
class-action approach to litigation."  Whether Gorsuch, if
confirmed, would follow in Scalia's footsteps remains to be seen.
During his decade on the bench, Gorsuch has participated in
relatively few class action cases.  In the cases involving class
action issues in which he has participated, he has generally, but
not always, ruled for the defense. Notably, both in cases in which
he has ruled for the defense and those in which he has ruled for
the plaintiffs, Gorsuch has emphasized the need for courts to stay
in their lane, so to speak -- that is, not to exceed their
authority, particularly when it comes to decisions that are in his
view best left to Congress.

Gorsuch adhered to this principle just a few months ago in ruling
for the defense in Hammond v. Stamps.com, a case in which the on-
demand postage company had wanted to remove a proposed class
action against it, in which the plaintiffs alleged that the
company's monthly subscription costs were misleading, from a New
Mexico state court to federal court.  The district court ruled
that the company could not remove the case because the Class
Action Fairness Act's "amount in controversy" requirement -- more
than $5 million -- had not been met: The company could not show
how many of its customers who cancelled their accounts had
actually been misled, rather than cancelling for other reasons.

In an opinion by Gorsuch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit reversed, emphasizing that the district court's conclusion
that the "amount in controversy" requirement had not been met
"rests on a legal error about the meaning of a key statutory term"
-- "in controversy."  In other contexts, the court explained, the
phrase "has never required a party seeking to invoke federal
jurisdiction to show that damages 'are greater' or will likely
prove greater 'than the requisite amount' specified by statute."
Instead, it has "required a party seeking federal jurisdiction to
show only and much more modestly that 'a fact finder might legally
conclude' that the damages exceed the statutory amount."  With no
reason to believe that Congress intended the term to have another
meaning in the CAFA, Gorsuch concluded, "[o]ur job is to abide
Congress's policy directions, not replace them with others of our
own hand."

Gorsuch thus agreed with the district court "that it is unlikely
all 312,000 persons who cancelled service" will actually be
entitled to damages, and he acknowledged that the district court
had articulated "the correct legal test for jurisdiction (focusing
on what's legally possible, not what's likely)."  But the district
court failed to actually apply the correct test to the facts of
the case, instead "mistakenly focusing not on the legally possible
but the factually probable. And that is an error of law we are not
free to disregard."

In McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, Gorsuch once again relied on
the idea of the court's limited authority, but this time to rule
in favor of the plaintiffs in what he described as a "long-
running" class action challenging the conditions in city's jails.
The question before the court was whether an order withdrawing
approval of a class action settlement was a "final decision" that
would allow the defendants -- city and prison officials -- to
appeal.

Gorsuch cautioned that, although final judgments are the
"paradigmatic 'final decision' appealable under" federal law, that
does not mean "that every case with a final judgment in it is
appealable."  To illustrate this point, Gorsuch used (as he so
often does) a "plain language" example to explain, writing that
"[j]ust because all the people you've met lately are kind doesn't
mean all people are kind."  Instead, Gorsuch reasoned, the
district court's order withdrawing approval "essentially indicates
that any prior decision is defunct, gone, and further litigation
on the merits must resume, and the usual rule that we must not
interfere with ongoing district court proceedings governs."  "If
there is to be any change to the Supreme Court's bright line rule
disallowing immediate appeals based solely on a settlement or plea
agreement purporting to grant a right not to stand trial," Gorsuch
emphasized, it should come from Congress, rather the courts.
Gorsuch also acknowledged (and was sympathetic to) the defendants'
argument that, if they were not allowed to appeal, the case would
continue to drag on.  He agreed with them that "the delays and
costs associated with civil litigation in modern America are
substantial and worrisome." "But one thing we may never do," he
concluded, "is disregard the bounds of our legal authority" -- "no
less when it is hard to do so than when it is easy."

Gorsuch was more sympathetic to a different group of prison
officials in Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, in which the
court upheld a district court's order denying class certification
in a case filed by inmates who alleged that the lack of access to
mental health care in a county jail violated their constitutional
rights.  Gorsuch explained that the different kinds of mental
health issues and treatment required for the different inmates in
the proposed class were too dissimilar for the district court to
issue a single order addressing their claims.  And he used another
"explainer" to push back against the inmates' suggestion that
class actions "are generally 'well suited' to civil rights cases":
He countered that the fact that "many civil rights actions may
properly proceed under Rule 23(b)(2) does not mean that we may
assume that all such actions should so proceed."

It is important to note that here too Gorsuch stressed the
relatively limited role of the court of appeals in reviewing the
district court's ruling.  He emphasized that "the district court
enjoys considerable discretion."  Thus, he explained, although "we
very well may have made a different decision had the issue been
presented to us as an initial matter, and while other district
courts perhaps could have chosen, or could choose, to certify
similar classes, we cannot say the district court's assessment was
beyond the pale."

Gorsuch also ruled in favor of the defense in BP America v.
Oklahoma ex rel.  Edmondson, a lawsuit brought by the Oklahoma
attorney general against BP and others, alleging that the
companies had manipulated national gas prices.  BP removed the
case to federal district court, but the district court remanded it
to state court; the question before the 10th Circuit was whether
BP could appeal the district court's remand order.

"As a general rule," Gorsuch began, "remand orders aren't
appealable.  But like so many rules, this one has its exceptions."
The Class Action Fairness Act indicates that the courts of appeals
may consider appeals of remand orders, leading to the question of
when the courts of appeals should "exercise the discretion
afforded to us by Congress to 'accept' such an appeal."  Relying
on decisions by other courts of appeals, Gorsuch identified
factors that courts should consider when deciding whether to use
their discretion to allow immediate appeals -- for example,
whether the question presented by the case is important,
unsettled, and likely to recur, whether the potential harm from an
immediate appeal is outweighed by the harm if an immediate appeal
is denied, and whether the question presented in the case "appears
to be either incorrectly decided or at least fairly debatable."
Concluding that all of the factors weighed in favor of reviewing
BP's appeal, the court granted leave to appeal.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tile Council Dropped as Defendant in "Hanson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, issued an
order dated March 3, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available
at https://is.gd/d460H4 from Leagle.com, granting the joint motion
to dimiss, without prejudice, the case captioned LISA HANSON, as
Executrix of the Estate of DELMONT D. HANSON, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00328-
MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.) only with respect to the Plaintiff's claims
against Defendant Tile Council of North America, Inc.

Lisa Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar
Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Lisa Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham, Wallace
& Graham.

Tony Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar
Branham, LLP & William M. Graham, Wallace & Graham.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

American Biltrite, Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric T. Hawkins,
Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Cyprus-Amax Minerals Co., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Domco Products Texas, L.P, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Mannington Mills Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan Shreffler
Dinsmore, McGuireWoods LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Pfizer, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Esq. -- jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett & Guthrie,
P.L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Narrows Claims in WECCO Coverage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. THE
WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. et al., Case No. WMN-12-3307 (D.
Md.), involves an insurance coverage dispute between Walter E.
Campbell Company, Inc., and several of its insurers.  WECCO is a
company which, for decades, engaged in the business of handling,
installing, disturbing, removing, and selling asbestos-containing
insulation materials.  As a result, WECCO has been named in
hundreds of personal-injury asbestos lawsuits and its insurers
have paid out millions of dollars in claims.  The insurers
involved in this suit assert that the policies that they issued
provided coverage for periods of time after WECCO ceased selling
or installing those asbestos-containing products.  On that basis,
they contend that claims under their policies are "completed
operations" hazard claims which are subject to aggregate limits of
liability that have now been exhausted.

In a memorandum dated March 10, 2017, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/cXn6o0 from Leagle.com, Judge William
M. Nickerson of the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland determines that no hearing is necessary and that
WECCO's motion for partial summary judgment will be denied and the
remaining motions for summary judgment will be granted.  St.
Paul's motion to strike will be granted in part and denied as moot
in part, and U.S. Fire's motion to strike will be denied as moot.

Specifically, Judge Nickerson finds WECCO's proffered evidence
woefully inadequate to support its claim for defense costs.  When
presented with essentially the same evidence regarding this claim
in St. Paul's Motion to Compel, the Court concluded that WECCO has
"provided no explanation as to how it arrived at these figures
[for the alleged defense costs] and provides no documentation to
support them," the judge said.  The Court also noted that under
the Operating Agreement for WECCO's QSF, supporting documentation
should exist and ordered WECCO to produce that documentation, the
judge noted.  The Court cautioned that should WECCO fail to do so,
it would be precluded from introducing evidence in support of its
damage claim absent a showing of exceptional circumstances," the
judge related.  In response to that order, WECCO states that it
produced the four page WECCO QSF Annual Fund Accounting Records,
referenced above, and "another 500 pages of additional damage
documents."  St. Paul counters in its reply that those 500 pages
of documents all related solely to indemnity issues and had
nothing to do with defense costs.  Significantly, while WECCO
trumpets that it produced 500 pages of documents in response to
the Court's order, it did not submit a single page of those
documents with its opposition, Judge Nickerson held.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Esq. -- bdryden@foley.com -- Foley and
Lardner LLP.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, represented by
Ana M. Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com -- Foley and
Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Thompson, Esq. --
mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Esq. -- brandon.almond@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Thomas Blair, Esq. --
tom.blair@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac
vice, Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action & Syed Mohsin Reza,
Esq. -- mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Brandon D.
Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause
of Action.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn, Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick Shelley,
Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman and Goodwin LLP,
pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer, Esq. -- jmayer@goodwin.com --
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Harry Lee, Esq. -- hlee@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP,
Catherine Cockerham, Esq. -- ccockerham@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and
Johnson LLC, pro hac vice & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Esq. --
cbarenholtz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Esq. --
aradocha@postschell.com -- Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice, John
C. Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@postschell.com -- Post & Schell,
P.C., pro hac vice & Vincent Candiello, Esq. --
vcandiello@postschell.com -- Post and Schell PC.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by
Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Claimant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Esq. -- jeffrey.raskin@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Steven Andrew Luxton,
Esq. -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP, Teri J. Diaz, Esq. -- teri.diaz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Esq. --
brad.nes@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Esq. --
amezzanotte@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston & Gardner
M. Duvall, Esq. -- gduvall@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Thomas Blair, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Prashant Kumar
Khetan, Cause of Action & Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC, pro
hac vice & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Charles
Thomas Blair, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Counter
Claimant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

General Insurance Company of America, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana
M. Francisco, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
Thompson, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Jeffrey S.
Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Teri J. Diaz,
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Whiteford
Taylor and Preston.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Thomas Blair, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Prashant Kumar
Khetan, Cause of Action & Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC, pro
hac vice & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Thomas Blair, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Gabriela
Richeimer, Troutman Sanders LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob
C. Cohn, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William
Patrick Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

General Insurance Company of America, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana
M. Francisco, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
Thompson, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP & Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC &
Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Teri J. Diaz, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William
Brad Nes, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob
C. Cohn, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William
Patrick Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

General Insurance Company of America, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana
M. Francisco, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
Thompson, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Claimant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Teri J. Diaz,
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action &
Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Counter
Claimant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

General Insurance Company of America, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana
M. Francisco, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
Thompson, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Teri J. Diaz,
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action &
Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

General Insurance Company of America, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana
M. Francisco, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
Thompson, Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Cross Claimant,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees.

General Insurance Company of America, Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana M. Francisco,
Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Thompson, Foley and
Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

National Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Allison R. Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice
& Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Whiteford
Taylor and Preston.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine
Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brandon D. Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action &
Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Teri J. Diaz,
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C. Cohn,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick
Shelley, Gordon & Rees.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Steven E. Leder, Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S.
Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Mayer,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice & Julie Furst Maloney, Leder
& Hale, PC.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Teri J. Diaz, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William
Brad Nes, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Whiteford
Taylor and Preston & Gardner M. Duvall, Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Jeffrey S. Raskin, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Teri J. Diaz,
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLp, pro hac vice & William Brad Nes, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Mezzanotte, Jr., Whiteford
Taylor and Preston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Court Dismisses "Fuhrman"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered that the action styled
CLAIRE FUHRMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:11-cv-05712-CRB (N.D. Calif.), is dismissed
without prejudice; provided, however that if any party hereto will
certify to the court, within 90 days, with proof of service
thereof, that the agreed consideration for the settlement in the
case has not been delivered over, the order will stand vacated and
the cause will forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for
trial.  If no certification is filed, after passage of 90 days,
the dismissal will be with prejudice.  A full-text copy of the
Order of Dismissal dated March 6, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/Gx3qU8 from Leagle.com.

Claire Fuhrman, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Alan R. Brayton, Esq.
     BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
     222 Rush Landing Road
     Novato, CA 94945
     Tel: 415-895-2669
     Fax: 415-898-1247

Claire Fuhrman, Plaintiff, represented by:

     David R. Donadio, Esq.
     BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
     222 Rush Landing Road
     Novato, CA 94945
     Tel: 415-895-2669
     Fax: 415-898-1247

Richard Fuhrman, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Linda L. Garner, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Laurie Lee Skahill, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lousiana Law Applies to Survivorship Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
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.  The majority of Mr. Bell's exposure
occurred while he was serving at sea on four ships, and it is
settled that general maritime law governs liability for those
exposures.  But Mr. Bell also claims that he was exposed to
asbestos during a six month period in which he was training at the
land-based Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho.  Through earlier
summary judgment briefing, it became apparent that the parties
disagreed as to whether Idaho law or Louisiana law applied to the
Idaho exposures.

In an Amended Order And Reasons dated March 13, 2017, a full-text
copy of which is available at https://is.gd/W4FI6o from
Leagle.com, Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ordered that, with
respect to the alleged Idaho exposures, Louisiana law will apply
to both the survivorship claim and the wrongful death claim.

Judge Africk issued the original order on March 6, 2017, a full-
text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/4o4Tse from
Leagle.com.

According to Judge Africk, because John Bell is a domiciliary of
Louisiana and John Bell's injury is deemed to have occurred in
Louisiana, La. Civ. Code art. 3545 dictates that Louisiana
punitive damages law -- and indeed Louisiana law in general --
must apply to the wrongful death claim.

Article 3545 provides: Delictual and quasi-delictual liability for
injury caused by a product, as well as damages, whether
compensatory, special, or punitive, are governed by the law of
this state: (1) when the injury was sustained in this state by a
person domiciled or residing in this state; or (2) when the
product was manufactured, produced, or acquired in this state and
caused the injury either in this state or in another state to a
person domiciled in this state.

In the same case, Judge Africk ordered that the second round of
motions for summary judgment filed by defendants General Electric
Company, Crane Company, Buffalo, Aurora Pump Company, Atwood &
Morill Co., Inc., CBS Corporation, IMO Industries, Inc., and
Warren Pumps, LLC, are denied; and ordered that the motions filed
by York International Corporation and Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation are granted and that all of plaintiffs' claims against
York International Corporation and Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation are dismissed with prejudice.  A full-text copy of
Judge Africk's Order and Reasons dated March 6, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/vld06Q from Leagle.com.

Judge Africk also granted in part and denied in part a motion for
partial summary judgment filed by all of the defendants except
Crane Company.  Among other things, Judge Africk agreed with
defendants that nonpecuniary damages may not be recovered in a
survival action under general maritime law, but held that because
damages for the decedent's predeath pain and suffering are
considered pecuniary damages in the maritime context, these
damages may be recoverable with regard to the survival claim.  The
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to this issue is
therefore denied.  A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Order and
Reasons dated March 6, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/Fgcl1c
from Leagle.com.

Moreover, Judge Africk granted the Daubert motions filed by the
plaintiffs in part and denied the motions in part for essentially
the same reasons set forth in the Court's previous order limiting
the expert opinions of plaintiffs' experts.  Specifically, Judge
Africk did not permit the specific causation opinions by Dr.
Michael Graham and Dr. Mark Taragin.  A full-text copy of Judge
Africk's Order and Reasons dated March 6, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/1jyJ9l from Leagle.com.

Judge Africk, in an Order and Reasons dated March 6, 2017, a full-
text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/llXh0y from
Leagle.com, denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of
this Court's order excluding the specific causation opinions of
plaintiffs' medical experts.

The case is WILLIAM C. BELL ET AL., v. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORP.
ET AL. SECTION I, Civil Action No. 15-6394 (E.D. La.).

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.

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.

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, Bobbie Bailey,
Leader and Berkon LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline Curtiss Marino,
Leader & Berkon LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Pugh &
Accardo, Attorneys at Law, Lori Allen Waters, Irpino, Avin &
Hawkins, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., McGready Lewis
Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Thomas A.
Porteous, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Pugh & Accardo, Attorneys at Law, Judith Ann Perritano,
Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, pro hac vice, Lori Allen Waters,
Irpino, Avin & Hawkins, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas A. Porteous, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Dogan &
Wilkinson, PLLC, Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC,
Hanson Douglas Horn, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, James B. Insco, K&L
Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin M. Melchi, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC,
Michael J.R. Schalk, K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J.
Sechler, K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Robert W. Wilkinson, Dogan
& Wilkinson, PLLC, pro hac vice.

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, David M. Katzenstein, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Jason P. Franco,
Cardone Law Firm & 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, Cardone Law Firm
& William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Cleanup Underway in Old Mill
----------------------------------------------------------
In February, homes located around a former asbestos plant in
Charlotte, North Carolina were recently tested by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for asbestos exposure.
Natives from the area disclosed that asbestos was once routinely
spread on driveways and yards of the neighborhood homes near the
plant, which led to the testing. Approximately 23 of the 75
properties tested reportedly contained high enough levels of
asbestos to warrant removal.

The term asbestos refers to six regulated, naturally-occurring
fibrous silicate minerals: Chrysotile, Amosite, Crocidolite,
Anthophyllite, Tremolite and Actinolite. Asbestos was once very
common in products ranging from construction materials, floor
tiles, insulation and more. Its durability and flame-retardant
properties made it popular up until the 1970s, after which its use
has steadily declined due to its adverse health effects including
asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.

"When disturbed, asbestos has the potential to release fibers into
the air," said Joseph Frasca, Senior Vice President of Marketing
at EMSL Analytical, Inc. "These fibers are so small that they are
usually invisible to the naked eye and can remain airborne for
extended periods of time. As a result, it's important to test for
asbestos and possible asbestos-containing materials that were used
prior to the ban. EMSL provides asbestos analysis of air, water,
bulk, soil and dust samples. The laboratory also supplies easy-to-
use asbestos test kits as well as sampling and monitoring
equipment."

As the nation's leading asbestos testing laboratory, EMSL's
network of laboratories provide quality analytical services since
1981. EMSL offers a wide range of indoor air quality and materials
testing services for asbestos, lead, PCBs and other potentially
dangerous materials. To learn more about indoor air quality,
environmental and occupational services and testing equipment,
please visit www.EMSL.com, email  info@EMSL.com  or call (800)
220-3675.

                 About EMSL Analytical, Inc.

EMSL Analytical, Inc. is one of the leading testing laboratories
with over 40 locations throughout the United States and Canada.
EMSL is a nationally recognized and locally focused provider
specializing in fast laboratory results for mold, bacteria,
Legionella, USP 797, pathogens, asbestos, lead, soot, char & ash
from fires, VOC's, odors, radon, formaldehyde, indoor air quality,
microbiology, environmental, industrial hygiene, radiological,
food, beverage & consumer products and material testing services
for the identification of unknown substances. EMSL services both
professionals and the general public. EMSL maintains an extensive
list of accreditations from leading organizations as well as state
and federal regulating bodies including, but not limited to A2LA,
AIHA LAP, LLC. (AIHA EMLAP, AIHA IHLAP, AIHA ELLAP), NVLAP, CDC
ELITE, CPSC, CA ELAP, NY ELAP, TX DOH, NJDEP and multiple other
state accrediting agencies. Please visit our website at
www.EMSL.com for a complete listing of accreditations.  In
addition, EMSL carries a wide range of Sampling Equipment and
Investigative Products for environmental professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Health-Care Bill Preserves Libby Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
David McCumber, writing for Montana Standard, reported that Sen.
Steve Daines' office said the bill released by Congressional
Republicans repealing much of the Affordable Care Act preserves
special provisions written into Obamacare to protect victims of
asbestos-related disease in Libby.

Daines, R-Montana, "was engaged in conversations" about the Libby
benefits with key Republicans in Congress, according to his staff.
His office released a letter he wrote to Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan asking them to
preserve the Libby patients' status.

Lee Newspapers reported that in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act
was being constructed, then-Sen. Max Baucus of Montana used his
position as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to write in
special provisions for more than 2,000 people in Libby who are
suffering from asbestos-related disease.

Those provisions include ongoing health screening for citizens in
the town, which was contaminated by a vermiculite mine with
asbestos-tainted ore that operated for more than half a century.
In addition, Obamacare gave Medicare benefits to Libby asbestos
victims, regardless of age and created a pilot program that offers
wide-ranging patient care not covered by Medicare.

Daines and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, had been contacted by Libby
residents worried that the provisions Baucus wrote into the Act
would die if it was repealed. Both expressed support for the
victims in Libby. Tester said a full repeal of Obamacare would end
the Libby provisions, but said a partial repeal might not.

The legislation revealed by Republicans in Congress is a partial
repeal, preserving key pieces of Obamacare including allowing
people to be covered on their parents' plans until age 26 and
preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover people with
preexisting medical conditions.

It is far from law and has already come under fire from
Republicans concerned that it does not go far enough and from more
moderate Republicans who said it may not do enough to protect
current Medicaid patients' coverage.

Because the bill does not specifically mention the Libby
provisions, Daines' office said that means those provisions are
preserved.

In the letter to the Republican leaders, Daines wrote, "I wanted
to bring your attention to provisions impacting workers and
residents of Libby, Montana that are unrelated to the heart of
Obamacare but yet were included in that law. . . .  I ask that you
retain these provisions."

A Tester spokesperson said that his legislative team was still
analyzing the bill.

"Following six years of asking to see a replacement plan, Jon is
going to take his time in reviewing this important bill -- a bill
released moments ago crafted in backrooms with armed guards
keeping members of both parties out of the process,'' said Tester
aide Luke Jackson.

"After traveling across Montana and meeting face-to-face with
hundreds of Montanans this year about the future of their health
care, Jon hopes any replacement plan includes the same access to
health care for Libby residents and all Montanans that the
Affordable Care Act has ensured from the beginning,'' Jackson
said.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM Sues Asbestos Trusts for Worker Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reported that General Motors
LLC sued asbestos trusts in Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania
bankruptcy courts, seeking recovery of trust money paid to the
estate of an employee who also received payments from the
automaker to settle asbestos exposure claims.

GM's challenges took aim at a bankruptcy law "channeling
injunction" that bars claims against designated trusts in order to
offset nontrust payments for asbestos-related damage settlements
by other parties. It was the latest move in a long-running battle
over access to the records of assorted trusts and control over
trust outlays involving thousands of asbestos injury claimants and
compensation payments.

The suits filed by GM named the widow of a deceased Ohio
autoworker and more than a dozen asbestos trusts and businesses --
along with as-yet unknown "John Doe" trusts -- seeking recovery of
more than $170,000 in accumulated weekly workers' compensation
benefits paid by GM since late 2010.

According to the bankruptcy complaint and a civil suit filed in
Henry County, Ohio, in August 2016, the family of GM employee
Bobby Bolen and wife Anna Bolen received settlements from various
asbestos trusts established in connection with companies linked to
GM's asbestos-containing materials, in addition to workers'
compensation. Incomplete records in Henry County cited payments of
$2,308, $1,962 and $3,877 to Anna Bolen, GM said, triggering an
obligation under Ohio law to notify the former employer.

"The trust did not attempt to determine whether any third party,
including General Motors, had a potential right at issue in the
settlement of the claim," GM said in its bankruptcy court
complaint.

As a result, the company said in its filing, "Bolen's failure to
notify General Motors of the settlement renders Bolen and the
trust jointly and severally liable to General Motors for the full
amount of its subrogation interest."

Bobby Bolen died in May 2008 after working for more than 30 years
at a GM plant in Defiance, Ohio. Anna Bolen received a workers'
compensation settlement in 2010.

Although court records for a case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania were unavailable,
attorneys for trusts in Delaware and New York all directed GM to
withdraw the Henry County complaint, citing the channeling
injunction and warning that trusts would mount a defense
otherwise.

The injunction bars "any actions against the trust for the purpose
of directly or indirectly collecting, recovering, or receiving
payments or recovery with respect to any asbestos-related claims,
including, but not limited to, claims for subrogation," one letter
sent to GM on behalf of ACandS Asbestos Settlement Trust by
Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL said.

Trusts named in the adversary cases initiated involved the
bankruptcies of ACandS Inc, Owens Corning, USG Corp. and Johns
Manville Corp. A fifth case, involving H.K. Porter Company Inc.,
had not appeared on the Western Pennsylvania docket, but was
listed among the cases filed in the footnotes of the other cases..

Some trusts named in the GM suit also are battling Honeywell Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for Delaware over access to court
records involving thousands of asbestos injury claimants.

Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross granted limited-use access
to the information late last year, but the company challenged the
restrictions and the trusts cross-appealed with objections to the
decision.

Honeywell argued in its appeal that Judge Gross imposed too tight
a timetable and too many restrictions on access to the records.

The trusts, meanwhile challenged the release of sensitive and
personally identifying information from trust records. They also
questioned whether Judge Gross had determined whether Honeywell
and Ford Motor Co., which also sought the records, had a proper
purpose for the information sought.

A series of courts and judges have weighed in on the asbestos
records issue in recent years, with U.S. District Chief Judge
Leonard P. Stark in Delaware reversing in 2013 an earlier
bankruptcy judge's prohibition on release of worker asbestos claim
records to an insolvent company with potential asbestos
liabilities. That firm wanted the data to estimate its exposure to
asbestos claims.

A North Carolina bankruptcy court reduced the same company's
liability estimate from $1 billion or more to $125 million in a
different asbestos action, after the firm gained partial access to
the same records.

The North Carolina case was one of the examples cited by attorneys
for Honeywell and Ford, who argued that the "Rule 2019"
bankruptcy-claims records restrictions hamstring efforts to
examine and compare tort claim proceedings and awards across
multiple jurisdictions.

General Motors LLC is represented by Ronald S. Gellert and Evan
Rassman of Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC and Dana R. Quick
of Bugbee & Conkle LLP.

The Delaware cases are: In re ACandS Inc., case number 1:02-bk-
12687; In re Owens Corning, case number 1:00-bk-03837; and In re
USG Corp., case number 1: 01-bk-02094. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York case is In re Johns Manville
Corp., case number 82-B-11656(SBNY). The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania case is In re H.K. Porter
Co., case number 91-20468.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trump Will Likely Support Asbestos FACT Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for asbestos.com, reported that a House
Judiciary Committee approved the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017,
one of numerous iterations of the legislation since 2004, which
asbestos foes claim will hurt those seeking much-deserved
compensation.

Repeatedly stalled in the legislature in previous years with a
promised veto from President Barack Obama, supporters are hopeful
President Donald Trump will support the bill as part of a reform
package.

Republican sponsor U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas introduced
the bill in February.

Opponents Fear Asbestos Victims' Privacy Is at Stake

Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, vehemently opposes the bill and its previous version
known as the FACT Act.

"The FACT Act is designed to make it even more difficult for
asbestos victims, including our ADAO community, to receive our
'day in court' and the compensation we deserve," Reinstein wrote
on the organization's website.

At issue is claimants' privacy. Under the bill, the asbestos
trusts would disclose the claimants' private information in order
for them to receive compensation. Formerly confidential data, such
as their name, Social Security number, exposure history, as well
as reason for compensation, would become public information.

Additionally, asbestos corporations could create an endless loop
of information demands that would delay processing the trust claim
and deplete trust assets by legally demanding information from any
trust at any time about any person.

The bill functions retroactively, meaning it requires that trusts
report and reprocess individual claims information for every trust
claim filed since the trusts' inception. This poses a clerical
nightmare. For example, the Johns Manville trust has processed
almost a million claims since it was created in 1988.

All the issues decrease the chances of asbestos victims receiving
compensation. And time is of the essence for these claimants
because their life expectancy is usually less than two years after
diagnosis.

Proponents Claim the System Needs Reform

Farenthold claims the bill is designed to help asbestos victims.

"The FACT Act requires bankruptcy trusts to be transparent like
other courts. This will ensure deserving victims receive the
maximum relief for their illness and injuries, while preserving
privacy protections, and weeding out bad actors who would take
advantage of the system," he said.

According to ADAO, asbestos defendants want "to make asbestos
trust claims process so onerous and so invasive for victims that
the payments will be delayed, lowered, or victims will be deterred
from filing claims entirely."

If passed, the bill requires quarterly reports on claims made to
the trusts, as well as requiring trusts to release information
sought by defendants in asbestos lawsuits. The goal, according to
supporters, is to prevent "double dipping" by claimants who might
seek compensation from more than one trust.

Support Expected from Trump

Elizabeth Peace, a spokesperson from Farenthold's office, says
Trump has no reason to not support the bill, except if it's
presented on its own.

"We expect it to be rolled into a larger 'reform' package and
passed that way," she said.

Similar legislation passed the U.S. House last year, but died in
the U.S. Senate. Since approved by a judiciary committee, the
current legislation awaits a House vote, and if passed, moves to
the Senate.

Asbestos trusts hold more than $37 billion established by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. Companies that faced claims filed for bankruptcy
reorganization to establish trusts that pay for current and future
asbestos claims.

Under current law, trust fund litigation remains confidential and
not admissible in court cases.

Class Action Laws Also Up for Revision

In previous years, the FACT Act contained additional language
regarding class action litigation.

This year's version separated the two issues with an additional
bill called the Fairness in Class Action Litigation of 2017
sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. It was introduced in
the House as a piggyback to the FACT Act.

The bill includes a provision requiring the class-action
litigation include members with the same type and scope of injury.
Those with lesser injury may pursue compensation in their own
class-action suit. Goodlatte seeks to weed out unmeritorious
claims with the legislation.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Sues Firm Over Asbestos Work
------------------------------------------------
Amaris Castillo, writing for Lowell Sun, reported that students,
faculty, and staff at Greater Lowell Technical High School risked
exposure to asbestos due to the shoddy demolition and renovation
work of Lawrence-based RM Technologies, Inc., according to a
lawsuit filed by Attorney General Maura Healey.

The complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court alleges that workers
of RM Technologies in 2014 failed to contain work areas while
performing asbestos work, allowed pieces of asbestos-containing
waste material to remain dry and uncontained in many places
throughout the school, failed to clean up visible debris after
performing asbestos work, among other violations.

A call and emails seeking comment from Rafael Guzman, president
and owner of RM Technologies, Inc., were not returned Monday.

"Asbestos can be found in many homes, in schools, and in
workplaces, and if it is not handled properly it poses a serious
health risk," Healey said in a written statement. "Too often,
children, families, and workers are exposed to airborne asbestos
fibers due to shoddy or unlicensed work, and many aren't aware of
the serious danger it poses."

Pursuing this case is part of a new initiative announced by
Healey's office that in part ramps up enforcement of unsafe and
illegal asbestos work by landlords, property owners and
contractors. According to AG spokeswoman Chloe Gotsis, this case
came to the AG's office in early 2015 through a report from an
alleged victim.

There are other cases the AG's office has handled over the past
year involving asbestos, such as one out of Worcester where four
affiliated Worcester-area companies were ordered in 2016 to pay up
to $129,000 to settle allegations that their workers illegally
removed, stored, and handled asbestos-containing material during
two demolition projects.

The "Healthy Buildings, Healthy Air" initiative has a multi-
faceted approach that includes partnering state agencies and
school districts to ensure safe asbestos practices in schools,
according to a release. It also focuses on educating those with a
greater risk of asbestos exposure, which includes children, the
elderly and low-income families.

Health concerns last year over GL Tech's $65 million construction
project led to the resignation of at least one staff member and a
number of workers' compensation claims.

"We have not been contacted by the attorney's office stating that
they have evidence to show that anything was done wrong," School
Committee Chairman Ray Boutin said, adding that school officials
heard about the lawsuit. "We had the Department of Public Health
come in and the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards were
here numerous times."

Boutin said RM Technologies was hired for the asbestos-abatement
work by Consigli Construction Co., Inc, the latter of which
handled the school's renovation.

"I was very surprised by it (lawsuit), only because the Mass.
Department of Public Health and the Mass. Department of Labor
Standards have responded to complaints during the project and they
sent all kinds of people out there to check and make sure that
everything was being done properly," said Superintendent-Director
Roger Bourgeois, adding that multiple tests were conducted. "Every
indication that we've ever gotten from them is that things were
being done properly."

In a March 3 letter obtained by The Sun that addressed to
students, staff and families, Bourgeois said the major
construction/renovation project at the school included the removal
of some wall panels that contained asbestos fibers embedded within
the solid panels.

"Please be assured that providing a safe and healthy school
environment has been and always will be our number one priority,"
Bourgeois' letter read.

After health concerns rose last year over the high school's
construction project, Consigli Safety Director Dan Della-Giustina
said the subcontractor "strictly followed" an abatement plan
submitted to the state's Department of Environmental Protection.

"On several occasions through the course of the project, officials
from DEP and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and
Workforce Development inspected the site and did not issue any
citations," Della-Giustina said at the time. "Consigli completed
this project with the same degree of safety and quality for which
we are known throughout the industry."

Boutin said he knows there was a complaint by one of the school's
staff members which he said was followed by increased testing.

"When something was brought to our attention," he said, "we always
made it a priority that our staff and our students would be safe."

A message seeking comment from Greater Lowell Teachers
Organization President Cheryl Ann Bomal and Vice President John
Taylor was not returned Monday.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kamamalu Bldg. Named in Hawaii Judge's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cruz, writing for KITV.com, reported that former Hawaii
Supreme Court Justice Mario Ramil worked at the Kamamalu Building
between 1984 and 1987.  He served as the State Insurance
Commissioner. His office was in the basement.

Ramil died in January of this year after battling lung cancer.  He
sued in October, naming more than a dozen manufacturers and
businesses.  It included the Bank of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Trust
company which sold the building to the state in a what the lawsuit
claims was in "a defective and dangerous condition."

The suit cites Ramil's exposure to acoustical ceiling plaster,
vinyl asbestos floor tile and insulation.  While the state wasn't
directly named in the suit, the State Attorney General's office is
watching how the suit progresses.  It's not clear how the suit may
affect others who may have worked in the downtown offices.

"I personally worked in that building in the late1970's and early
80's so I am aware of what the building looked like and I am aware
that were asbestos issues," said Francine Wai who head the
Disabilities Communications Board.

Several friends and associates of Ramil only learned of the
lawsuit at his memorial service held at Hosoi Mortuary.  But, if
the state building was a sick building, how much did it contribute
to his death?

Ramil had also admitted to being a smoker for 40 years.  He also
worked in the Navy where he also may have been exposed to other
asbestos products.

The controversial Kamamalu building has been vacant for 14 years.
The initial renovation was to have been completed for $12 million.
But, with the asbestos removal and delays, the price tag has more
than doubled.

Wai wasn't aware of the Ramil suit, but is looking forward to
moving back into Kamamalu without the threat of asbestos. Her
program will be the first to return on the building's first floor
with completely accessible offices.

"There are places in our office we understand in the back for
instance where they have had to furrow out the walls because of
the concerns of asbestos, and how to remove it and there were
delays," said Wai.

Wai knows all too well about those delays. Her program has moved
four other times, and the return to Kamamalu has been on again,
and off again more times than she can remember.

"We have known we were going to move three years ago, but the
building  has been delayed, Now that we have a firm date or at
least reasonably firm date, we are looking forward to make the
transition," Wai said.

Construction crews should clear out of here in a couple of weeks.
The first state workers will be moving in furniture and equipment
sometime in April, but we are told the bulk of the building won't
be occupied until late June or July.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Poor Asbestos Assessment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Brewer, writing for SHP Online, reported that a
Bedfordshire based contractor has been fined after failing to
carry out suitable assessment of asbestos removal work.

Luton Magistrates Court heard how Anthony West was contracted to
complete demolition work at a building in Biggleswade. Mr West
then had a pre-demolition asbestos survey carried out for the
building.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had the demolition work
reported to 16 April 2015 by a member of the public which prompted
an investigation into the work.

The investigation found that Mr West did not adequately check the
pre-demolition asbestos survey before carrying out the work, and
did not follow advice to use a licensed asbestos removal
contractor.

Mr West, from Bedford pleaded guilty to breaching sections 5,7,8
and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012  and has been
fined GBP2970 and ordered to pay costs of GBP5419.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Alison Outhwaite said:
"The safety failings in this case could have led to severe illness
in later years.

"West not only put himself at risk to exposure but potentially to
fellow workers and members of the public walking past.

"Duty holders have the responsibility to ensure that adequate
assessments take place to avoid the risk of asbestos exposure.
This includes checking the accuracy and clarity of any information
provided by others."[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whistleblower's Suit vs. Sonama SU Goes to Jury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Callahan, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that
jurors in a contentious whistleblower trial centered on handling
of asbestos-containing materials at several older buildings at
Sonoma State University will begin sorting through two months of
evidence and testimony in an effort to resolve the complex case.

At issue is whether plaintiff Thomas R. Sargent, 48, was
deliberately driven out of a 24-year career as the campus
environmental health and safety specialist because he complained
about testing and remedial efforts that he claims inadequately
addressed the risk of exposure to a known carcinogen.

During closing arguments, his attorney, Dustin Collier, urged
jurors to look past what he said were distortions and personal
attacks by university representatives and find in favor of a man
who he said put the health and safety of the campus community
ahead of personal well-being and financial security, despite his
employer's efforts to shut him down.

"He did the right thing," Collier said, "and now they're
persecuting him."

An attorney for SSU, Daralyn Durie, countered by highlighting
evidence she said showed first and foremost that Sargent's claims
about unsafe conditions were distorted -- inconsistent both with
expert testimony and with records of monitoring and test results
that show little risk to campus personnel and students.

She said Sargent's own statements reflect early caution against
over-reaction to potential asbestos hazards and that the alarm he
sounded toward the end of his tenure and afterward reflected an
increasingly tense and bitter relationship with his supervisor,
who he hoped would be fired.

She said Sargent was not the victim of retaliation. Rather, a
rising number of work-place reprimands and suspensions in the
months before his 2015 resignation resulted from his own
deteriorating conduct and accountability as an employee, despite
specific directives.

The trial in Sonoma County Superior Court caps a prolonged dispute
between Sargent and his supervisor, Craig Dawson, director of
environmental health and safety, whose 2008 promotion appeared to
be the inception of problems between the two men, Durie said.

She described Sargent as mounting "a campaign to get his boss
fired," and referenced language used in his emails to Dawson that
she said reveal his resentment and, even, malice.

Dawson is among the defendants in the suit, along with California
State University trustees.

The case centers on the university's treatment and maintenance of
Stevenson Hall, a half-century-old building at the center of
campus in which more than 230 staffers work or have offices.

Like several other older buildings on campus and elsewhere around
the country, the structure contains materials incorporating
asbestos, which was commonly used until the 1970s because of its
value for insulation, sound reduction and fire retardant
qualities. But it has microscopic fibrous crystals that can prove
deadly after prolonged inhalation.

Sargent, a certified asbestos consultant, and his lawyer assert
that the university actively ignored his warnings about
deteriorating floor tiles that contained asbestos, as well as dust
in the air ducts and air conditioning system, and even withheld
information about safety risks from campus faculty. They say
campus employees routinely used the improper tools and techniques
to clean and buff floors and other surfaces, potentially exposing
themselves and others to harmful materials.

College administrators, in contrast, say they have done all that
is necessary to contain the toxins.

But Collier said his client "was broken" by the experience,
suffering poor emotional and physical health as a result of the
stress and harassment he experienced on the job and is seeking
approximately $15 million in general and punitive damages related
to lost wages and employment potential, as well as emotional
distress.

"He risked everything he had and lost," Collier said. "Again, some
might say that's foolish, but it's also incredibly
courageous."[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects "Possible" Exposure Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Goldberg, Esq. -- sgoldberg@selmanlaw.com -- at Selman
Breitman LLP, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor,
reported that defendants in California asbestos injury lawsuits
cannot be held liable where plaintiffs can only prove a
'possibility' of exposure to defendants' asbestos-containing
products.  The California Court of Appeal in Billy S. Johnson v.
ArvinMeritor, et al., No. A131975 (Cal. Ct. App. February 2, 2017)
("Johnson") affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of defendants, ruling that despite an expert declaration,
sworn discovery responses, and numerous internal corporate
documents, plaintiff's evidence fell short of the required showing
of a 'likely' or 'probable' exposure to defendants' products.

In Johnson, plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos from
defendants' products when his father replaced brakes on trucks at
Bekins Van Lines, when he visited his father at work and when his
father wore work clothes home.  Plaintiff claimed he developed
asbestosis and had an increased risk of contracting serious
disease, including mesothelioma.  Defendants ArvinMeritor, Inc.,
Maremont Corp. and Carlisle Motion Control Industries, Inc. each
brought summary judgment motions claiming plaintiff did not have,
and could not obtain, evidence that he or his father were exposed
to asbestos from their products.

Plaintiff produced documents showing Bekins had six different Ford
and International moving trucks, and during the years his father
worked at Bekins, Rockwell supplied asbestos-containing parts to
International, that Carlisle was one of three or four suppliers of
asbestos-containing brake linings to Rockwell, and ArvinMeritor
manufactured and sold asbestos-containing brake linings to
International.  Plaintiff testified his father used International
brand replacement parts when working on Bekins trucks.  Plaintiff
also had evidence that Rockwell brake assemblies were used as
factory original equipment in all four International trucks, and
produced an expert declaration from a mechanical engineer stating
that Carlisle brake linings were original equipment in three of
the trucks and that Carlisle was the only source of International
brand replacement brake linings for those three trucks.

Construing all the evidence in a light most favorable to
plaintiff, the court nevertheless affirmed summary judgment in
defendants' favor.  The court found plaintiff produced no evidence
to support an inference that the replacement brake linings his
father actually handled were probably supplied by one of the
defendants; that one of the defendants was the primary or majority
supplier of linings for International brand replacement brake
parts; that defendants were likely to be the suppliers of brake
linings for replacement parts for the models of International
trucks owned by Bekins; that sellers of International brand
replacement parts to Bekins's main warehouse in Stockton were more
likely to carry replacement parts containing defendants' products
than replacement parts containing other suppliers' products.
Absent this or similar evidence supporting an inference of
probability that the replacement brake linings came from one of
the defendants, the court found Johnson's evidence simply
establishes the possibility his Father was exposed to asbestos
from a defendant's product.  A 'possibility' of exposure is
insufficient to withstand summary judgment in California, and
plaintiff must produce evidence showing a probability or
likelihood of exposure, the court found.

The court's holding also addressed a previously unanswered
question in asbestos-product cases:  whether a manufacturer can be
held liable for third-party replacement parts where the
manufacturer specified the use of asbestos-containing replacement
parts.  In O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, the
California Supreme Court previously held a manufacturer cannot be
liable for third-party replacement parts used on its products that
it did not place into the stream of commerce, but left open
possible liability where a manufacturer specified or required use
of asbestos-containing products, or a product required an asbestos
component to operate.  The court in Johnson, interpreting O'Neil,
affirmed summary judgment, even where plaintiff produced evidence
that ArvinMeritor specified the inclusion of asbestos-containing
brake linings into its products.  The holding in Johnson will be
critical in defending against future claims of liability where
plaintiffs have evidence manufacturers specified the use of
asbestos-containing components into its products.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Pensioner Dies from Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire pensioner died from asbestos
exposure after washing her husband's work clothes, an inquest
heard.

Retired shop assistant Kathleen Jarvis from Chandler's Ford died
of the same disease as her late husband, Winchester Coroner's
Court heard.

Mrs Jarvis, widow of Frederick Jarvis, died at Challoner House
Care Home on Winchester Road on December 8 last year.

The 93-year-old had been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma -
cancer in the lining of the lung.

In a statement read to the court written prior to her death, Mrs
Jarvis said her husband worked at Southampton docks from 1949 to
around 1988 and she used to wash his clothes in the bathroom sink.

"Fred told me that the asbestos was wrapped in flimsy material,"
she said.

"Fred told me that so much asbestos would be flying around that it
would look like it was snowing.

"He would come home from work and be covered in asbestos dust from
head to foot."

Central Hampshire coroner Grahame Short recorded a conclusion of
death by industrial disease.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heaton Mum Gets Asbestos-related Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hutchinson, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that tragedy
struck when Ann Bell was diagnosed with an asbestos related
cancer.

But now she is turning detective to find out where she came into
contact with the deadly substance to pin down the source.

The mum-of-one was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January this
year but her symptoms first started showing in summer 2016.

Mesothelioma is a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs caused
by asbestos exposure often decades before symptoms show.

And Ann, whose maiden name was Hetherington, is searching her past
in a bid to find answers.

The 67-year-old, of Heaton, Newcastle, has instructed expert
lawyers to investigate where she was exposed to the harmful dust
and fibres and whether more could have been done to protect her

Due to Ann's employment not involving direct contact with
asbestos, her legal team at Irwin Mitchell are investigating how
exactly she came into contact with the substance and are casting a
wide net back to her childhood in their appeal for witnesses.

She attended East Walker Infant and Junior School, on Welbeck Road
in Walker, between 1954 and 1960, and Middle Street School in
Walker, later renamed Walker Technical High from 1960 to 66.

It also includes colleagues from former employers. Donkin & Co in
1966, where she was employed as a costing clerk

She is also appealing to her former colleagues at the Joint
Pricing Committee for England, later known as The Prescription
Pricing Authority. Ann joined in 1966 and was originally based at
Newcastle Number 2 Bureau, Newgate Street, before the office
relocated a few years later to Bridge House, Pilgrim Street, still
in Newcastle City Centre.

Her legal team are also keen to talk to any of her husband Ian's
former colleagues.

Ann and Ian, 65, met in 1973 and married in 1975, when Ian was
working in Gateshead for Osram, a light bulb manufacturer, as an
electrical technician. Ian worked for Osram, based at Team Valley
Trading Estate, between 1973 and 1984.

The couple have a daughter, 34-year-old Christine.

Ann said: "I am still coming to terms with my diagnosis as it was
completely out of the blue. I had always been fit and well and
kept myself active.

"The breathlessness crept up on me and as I underwent more tests I
began to realise the severity of the illness I was suffering from.
I was then told that I have a terminal, asbestos related, cancer.

North East campaigners welcome multimillion asbestos related
cancer research centre

"It has been very distressing for me and all of my family to
receive this diagnosis. I do not know what is ahead for me and it
is difficult to make any plans. I just hope that any of my or
Ian's former colleagues, or my former school friends come forward
with any information, no matter how small, so that I might be able
to achieve justice."

A final line of investigation for Ann's legal team is possible
asbestos exposure in where she grew up, on Wharfedale Place,
Walker, and Borrowdale Avenue, Walkergate.

Emma Tordoff, a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, said: "The fact that
we are as yet unsure of where Ann came into contact with asbestos
makes this case even more difficult, as without knowing this we
are unable to press ahead and ensure we secure justice for Ann.

"We urge anyone who may hold information about asbestos being
present at any of the schools Ann attended, the houses in which
she lived as a child, or working conditions at workplaces either
herself or her husband Ian worked at, then please do get in
touch."

Anyone with information please contact Michael McGowan on 0191 279
0104 or email.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lagoon Beach Closed After Asbestos Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Jarvis, writing for The Examiner, reported that
significant sand movement at George Town's Lagoon Beach has
uncovered asbestos material at the popular Northern swimming
beach.

Parks and Wildlife Service found the material and closed the beach
indefinitely to remove it.

The material is believed to have been there for at least 30 years
and is the result of the demolition of some beach huts that were
formerly on the beach.

It is likely to have been there for some time covered by the sand
but Parks and Wildlife regional operations manager for the North
Stan Matuszek said the movement of the sand had uncovered it.

"Every year there is a bit of sand movement [at the beach] but
this year we've seen a lot more of it has moved, we are probably
talking about a foot [20cm] of sand that has been removed," he
said.

Along the beach at She-Oak point, barricades and emergency tape
have been erected near the George Town bowls club, with signs
reading "danger, asbestos" however Mr Matuszek said he could not
say if the finds were related.

An asbestos removal specialist was engaged to begin sifting
through the sand to remove the pieces of asbestos removal on
Friday.

Mr Matuszek said he could not say when the beach would be reopened
but estimated that it shouldn't be closed for too long. The
reopening will be determined by the Department of Health and Human
Services.

The closure is bad timing for George Town residents and tourist in
the area for the March long weekend.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Says Asbestos Led to Hawaii Judge's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHON2.com reported that a lawsuit filed by late State Supreme
Court associate justice Mario Ramil is moving forward.

Ramil filed the suit last October against numerous companies,
claiming he was exposed to asbestos while he worked at the state-
owned Princess Victoria Kamamalu building from 1984 to 1987.

The lawsuit claims the exposure caused him to develop lung cancer
and other asbestos-related diseases.

Ramil died in January 2017.

KHON2 reached out to the state for comment, but we have not yet
heard back.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Issues Fines for Unlicensed Abatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CD Recycler reported that the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) has issued a $28,800 civil penalty to Michael
Fuller, doing business as Fuller's Remodeling and Repair, for
conducting unlicensed asbestos abatement; for failing to properly
wet and securely enclose asbestos-containing material; and for
failing to dispose of asbestos-containing material at a DEQ-
approved site. Violations allegedly occurred with materials
removed from 1008 SW Davenport St., Portland, Oregon.

DEQ considered subsequent efforts to minimize the impacts of these
violations when calculating the amount of the civil penalty.

The violations had the potential of asbestos fibers being released
into the air with possible exposure to workers and the public.
Asbestos fibers are known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis. There is no known safe level of exposure. To protect
the public from these hazards, DEQ requires that only licensed
asbestos abatement contractors handle asbestos-containing
materials and that materials be adequately enclosed to prevent the
release of asbestos fibers. The failure to follow these
requirements presented a significant risk to the public.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry, Supervisors Indicted in Exposure Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Grede Foundry and three
supervisors have been indicted for allegedly obstructing an
investigation into asbestos exposure to workers at the company's
now-shuttered facility in Berlin.

The seven-count indictment alleges conspiracy, obstruction and
false statements. The case involves a January 2012 incident in
which foundry workers allegedly were given inadequate safety
equipment and not informed they were dealing with asbestos while
working on equipment, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

The supervisors lied to inspectors who visited the plant following
a complaint from workers, and safety officials with the company
tried to cover up the exposure, according to the indictment.

The indictment names corporate safety and environmental director
Peter Mark, safety coordinator Christy McNamee and operations
manager Steven O'Connell. The company was also named as a
defendant.

Mark's attorney, Dean Strang, said the indictment has incorrect
information, but that he couldn't be specific because of ethics
rules. Strang said there would be a "strong, thoughtful and
thorough defense."

If convicted, the supervisors could face prison time and hundreds
of thousands of dollars in fines. The corporation could face
millions of dollars in criminal penalties.

"At Grede, the health and safety of our employees are always our
top priority, and we strive to always follow all state and federal
laws and regulations," a firm representing the company said in a
statement. "This matter arises from events that occurred five
years ago at Grede's Berlin, Wisconsin, facility that is now
closed. Grede has worked hard to enhance its environmental and
safety compliance program over the past several years."

The firm didn't comment on the indictment, citing the ongoing
legal case.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Drug Offers Hope to Mesothelioma Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucie van den Berg, writing for Herald Sun, reported that a new
drug developed in Melbourne can shrink tumours in the laboratory.

Plans are now under way for human trials to treat mesothelioma,
the cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

Australia has one of the world's highest rates of this lethal
cancer, for which five-year survival rates are at less than 10 per
cent.

Olivia Newton John Cancer Research Institute senior clinical
research fellow Associate Professor Tom John said the drug was an
antibody drug conjugate which binds to a target on the surface of
the cancer cell and releases little packets of chemotherapy.

Unlike traditional treatments that kill both good and bad cells,
this treatment is designed to kill only the bad.

"In mice models the tumours shrank and if we stopped the treatment
they grew back," Prof John said.

"Many researchers can cure cancer in a mouse, so we can't over-
interpret the results. Although it's very exciting, because
mesothelioma typically doesn't respond to anything."

The team, which includes Professor Andrew Scott, Associate Prof
Hui Gan, and Dr Puey Ling Chia, aims to begin human trials this
year.

Unlike many treatments being developed, the drug has already been
shown to be safe in humans with brain cancer.

The discovery that mesothelioma expressed the same molecule
addressed by the brain cancer drug was a result of hard work,
lateral thinking and some serendipity.

After cataloguing mesothelioma tissue samples, creating a database
and growing human cancers in mice, Prof John decided to see if the
tumours expressed the same molecule his colleagues in the adjacent
lab were working on.

"Lo and behold, they did," he said. "It's a highly-expressed
target."

Trial results remain confidential until published, but the team is
cautiously optimistic about the drug's potential.
Prof John, an oncologist at The Austin Hospital, said most
mesothelioma patients had a prognosis of less than 12 months, so
there was an urgent need to find better treatments.

The Cancer Council Victoria has awarded two research grants
totalling $700,000, one to the team from ONJRI, and another to
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.

The money was generously donated by the late Lyall Watts, who died
from mesothelioma, and his family.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stirling Council Fined for Ignoring Warnings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Construction Now reported that Old-ViewforthStirling
Council has been fined GBP10,500 for ignoring warnings for nine
years about asbestos in the basement of its Old Viewforth
headquarters.

The local authority sent office staff to sweep, dust and move
furniture about in a boiler room where pipes were lagged with the
potentially deadly material.

A court heard consultants had warned the council three times about
the danger in the building.

The council said it is offering support to all "potentially
affected" staff.

Stirling Sheriff Court was told the workers were not provided with
protective clothing or masks and there was a risk they could
develop asbestos-related illnesses in later life.

Prosecutor Selena Brown said the boiler room was inspected in 2003
by experts from the Institute of Occupational Medicine, who warned
asbestos was present in several areas of the 1935 building.

They recommended the asbestos should be removed as soon as
possible and the affected areas cleaned and decontaminated.
However, no action was taken, and no warnings were issued to
employees. Further surveys in 2010 and 2011 found the asbestos was
still in place, with one identifying lagging on a pipe as "high-
priority risk", with an associated high potential from flying
fibres.

Mrs Brown said three council employees were sent unprotected into
the boiler room in February 2012 to give it a "deep clean". She
said they were given no warnings about the presence of asbestos,
no masks or proper protective clothing.

Another expert survey in 2012 warned about asbestos in the boiler
room. The council restricted access to the boiler room and
reported itself to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which
launched an investigation.

Risk assessors said that "dry brushing" could have caused asbestos
fibre levels to peak at levels in excess of workplace limits. Mrs
Brown said none of the employees had displayed ill-effects, and
the asbestos had now been removed.

Stirling Council admitted breaching the Health and Safety at Work
Act between February 13 2003 and May 31 2012.

The council said the health and wellbeing of employees was its
"top priority" and it had carried out training in asbestos
awareness.

A council spokeswoman said: "Following the discovery of potential
asbestos exposure and the service of Improvement Notices in 2012,
the council responded quickly and professionally, cooperating
fully with the HSE investigation and putting in place measures to
mitigate the risk to employees.

"The council has offered support to all staff potentially affected
by this matter."[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Leading Cause of Worker Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Wallace, writing for Kamloops This Week, reported that
WorkSafe BC is urging local homebuilders to take precaution when
renovating and demolishing old homes, due to the "hidden killer"
responsible for the most deaths of workers in the province. Though
asbestos was banned in the 1970s, older homes may still contain it
and, if disturbed and released into the air, exposure can lead to
lung disease and cancer up to 45 years later.

"We're seeing people pay for past use," said Geoff Thomson,
occupational hygiene officer for Worksafe BC.

Thomson spoke to the Canadian Home Builders Association Central
Interior (CHBA) on March 8, during its regular monthly meeting.
The organization responsible for overseeing workplace safety in
the province has been cracking down on residential demolition and
renovation worksites in recent years to reduce occupational
disease and death caused by exposure to asbestos.

The fibrous material became popular during the Industrial
Revolution, commonly used as insulation in homes for its
resistance to heat and chemicals. Years later, it was deemed
harmful, leading to asbestosis (developing 10 to 20 years after
exposure), lung cancer (15 to 25 years) and mesothelioma (30 to 45
years).

The federal government has vowed to fully ban asbestos by 2018.

In the Lower Mainland, WorkSafe BC has dedicated teams tasked with
visiting worksites to prevent asbestos exposure due, in part, to
the hot Vancouver housing market that has resulted in the
demolition of many older homes.

"It's such a big issue down there," Thomson said.

The fine material, up to 22,400 times thinner than human hair, is
difficult to recognize, but can be found in old vinyl flooring,
insulation and white duct tape. Thomson advised residential
buildings built before 1990 may contain asbestos. Scraping
"popcorn" ceilings is considered high risk.

"Flooring, that's the most common place you'll find it," he said.

Cost of lives

Despite awareness, Thomson said asbestos-related deaths are due to
deficiencies in identification, removal and disposal. He advised
homebuilders to test for asbestos before beginning work. One CHBA
member said asbestos studies can cost from $3,000 to $4,000 and
noted it can add up to $15,000 onto a demolition.

"It's not cheap," Thomson admitted.

Demolishing a home with asbestos can lead to higher costs, he
noted.

"You end up with a contaminated site."

The City of Kamloops landfill accepts hazardous materials, but
only professionals experienced with asbestos can remove it.
Homeowners should not touch or move it. To learn more, go online
to worksafebc.com and search "asbestos."

Off to see the wizard -- with lung disease

Asbestos was once so commonplace it was used in tablecloths. Other
uses included cigarette filters and fake snow. The fluffy white
"hidden killer" can be seen in the Wizard of Oz film, circa 1939.

Common materials containing asbestos

   * Vinyl tiles and linoleum sheet flooring;
   * Roof felt and shingles;
   * Loose, blown-in insulation, such as vermiculite;
   * Stucco;
   * Gypsum board filling compound, and patching and joint
compound for walls and ceilings;
   * Incandescent light fixture backing;
   * Deck undersheeting.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Cos. Set to Appeal $75MM Asbestos Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Halleman, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden has set appeal brief
deadlines for lawyers in Texas who lost in a case that ended in a
$75 million asbestos exposure verdict for a Long Island couple
after a nearly two-month long trial.

Dana Cos. LLC, a Texas manufacturer of Victor engine gaskets, is
one of four companies filing an appeal in the case.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Marlena and Edward Robaey of Long
Island. Edward Robaey was a car enthusiast and drag racer. He had
worked on his race cars doing engine gasket work beginning in the
early 1970s. His wife, Marlena, would assist him, often sweeping
up the garage floor and washing Edward's clothing after he worked
on cars in their garage.

In the complaint, the Robaeys stated, "they could see visible dust
emanating from the worn gaskets being removed from the engines
during the scraping process."

The Robaey's testified that they had no clue that asbestos was
hazardous or a carcinogen during this time; that they never saw
warnings on the engine gaskets or the packaging about the hazards
of asbestos; and that if they had known that asbestos caused
cancer that they wouldn't have worked with or used such ultra
hazardous products.

Marlena Robaey was diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the
abdomen and lungs, in November 2012. She is now in hospice care.

The main share of the damage was apportioned to Dana at 40 percent
of the settlement amount. The jury unanimously agree that Dana
"acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others."

James Powers of Powers Law Firm in Houston represents Dana. He had
no comment on the settlement or appeals process.

"The whole point of the trial was that Dana had not properly
warned plaintiffs, so beyond that I have nothing to say," Powers
told The Record.

Other defendants include Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust, Crane Co. and Cleaver Brooks Co. Inc.

"Dana sold products with asbestos for decades and never warned
anyone about it," Danny Kraft, associate attorney with Weitz and
Luxenberg and the Robaey's counsel, told The Record. "At the end
of the day, Dana sold a product that contained a carcinogen that
caused cancer. If the Robaeys had been told these gaskets were
going to kill them, they would not have used them. Dana's
corporate liability is terrible."

Kraft stated in the settlement, "They failed to test their
products to determine if the asbestos engine gaskets were
hazardous; that they warned their own plant personnel about the
dangers of breathing asbestos; that they placed warnings on bulk
shipments of gaskets used in their plants and sold to large OEM
companies like GM, Ford, CAT, Mack, etc. but failed to warn
mechanics like Ed Robaey about the hazards of asbestos despite
knowing that breathing asbestos dust could cause cancer."

The jury awarded $50 million for pain and suffering to Marlena
Robaey and $25 million for the loss of consortium to Edward
Robaey.

"I feel very comfortable in the jury's verdict and in saying that
we will win the appeals," Kraft said. "A corporate representative
for Dana even testified that asbestos warning labels were taken
off gaskets before being sold. We proved our case about Dana."[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africa Won't Support Asbestos Trade Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Tewaternaude and Leslie London, writing for All Africa,
reported that asbestos is a toxic killer. The latest estimate is
194,000 occupational deaths globally in a year. South Africa
banned asbestos in 2008. One would think, then, that the country
would support a proposal by 12 African states to prevent a handful
of countries from continuing to block the listing of chrysotile
asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention. But instead, South Africa
is refusing to support the initiative.

The Rotterdam Convention (on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade)
is a multinational treaty that compels states to obtain informed
consent from countries to which they wish to export a toxic
substance. A major flaw, however, is that chrysotile asbestos is
being blocked from appearing on the Prior Informed Consent list.

Some substances regulated under the Convention are notorious
pollutants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, DDT,
and asbestos. However, chrysotile asbestos, which represents 95%
of all the asbestos sold over the past century and today is the
only form of asbestos being exported, has been left off the list.

Article 22 of the Rotterdam Convention requires that a decision to
add a hazardous substance in Annex III must be made by consensus
at the Conference of the Parties (COP). This effectively grants
any one country the ability to keep a killer substance, in this
instance chrysotile asbestos, from being listed.

At the first two COP meetings, asbestos interests succeeded in
keeping the issue off the agenda. The Chemical Review Committee
has recommended since 2005 that chrysotile be listed. At every COP
meeting since 2006, however, a handful of countries have prevented
its listing by refusing consensus. No other chemical has been
subjected to this continued blocking since the Convention came
into existence.

This has meant that this hardy and biopersistent toxin has escaped
international regulation, despite the mounting death toll. The
diseases it causes will continue to occur for the rest of this
century at least.

The eighth meeting of the Rotterdam Convention is coming up in
Geneva in April-May 2017. And a group of African countries have
proposed that decisions to list hazardous substances be taken by a
majority vote when consensus proves impossible.

The countries leading the proposal are Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana,
Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Swaziland,
Tanzania and Zambia.

Zimbabwe, a major producer of chrysotile asbestos, has opposed the
amendment. South Africa joins Zimbabwe, Russia, Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan in opposition to the amendment, even though South
Africa has banned trade in all forms of asbestos, well aware of
the lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancers, mesothelioma, and
asbestosis it causes in workers and other people exposed to it.

But South Africa's foreign policy is apparently not governed by
any substantive health or environmental considerations.

The Rotterdam Convention is intended to end the unsafe trade in
hazardous products by elevating levels of transparency in the
trade of listed products. Yet, South Africa is helping to keep
this trade going.

Jim teWaterNaude is an expert in asbestos diseases and affiliated
to the UCT School of Public Health and Family Medicine.

Leslie London is Chair of Public Health Medicine in the School of
Public Health and Family Medicine.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Payment Bill Sent to Iowa Governor
------------------------------------------------------------
James Q. Lynch, writing for The Courier, reported that a bill
supporters said would prioritize the cases of people who have the
"terrible misfortune" of suffering from an asbestos-related
illness was described by critics as merely adding roadblocks to
winning compensation from trust funds established to pay those
claims.

Senate File 376, which was approved earlier by the Senate 27-22,
cleared the House 56-39 without a single Democratic supporter in
either chamber. It goes to the governor.

The bill, which floor manager Rep. Andy McKean, R-Anamosa, said is
like laws in eight states and includes components of laws in 26
states, would require plaintiffs to meet a 90-day deadline for
disclosing certain information. It also includes provisions about
identifying additional or alternative asbestos bankruptcy trusts
that were established to pay claims arising from asbestos
exposure.

Asbestos, which has been found to be a carcinogen and is banned in
more than 50 countries, was used for decades in products such as
insulation, brake linings, floor tiling and roofing materials.
After it was determined asbestos exposure was a cause of
mesothelioma cancer, bankruptcy trust funds were established to
cover personal injury claims filed by people who had been exposed
to the material. At least 2,000 Iowans have died from asbestos
exposure since 1999, according to a Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention database.

Between 1999 and 2013, the CDC said there were 237 asbestos-
related deaths in Linn County, 130 in Scott, 80 in Woodbury, 69 in
Clinton, 65 in Cerro Gordo, 61 in Black Hawk, 42 in Johnson and 27
in Muscatine.

Mesothelioma is always fatal, McKean said, usually within 18 to 24
months after diagnosis. He said that under the measure, the most
severe cases would be given priority over claims from people who
have been exposed to asbestos but show no symptoms.

"One thing we should be concerned about is that there are many,
many meritless claims of folks who have just been exposed, but
have no symptoms whatsoever, and these claims are clogging up the
system and settled for nuisance value depleting resources that
could be available for people who have mesothelioma or symptoms of
asbestosis or silicosis," he said.

Rep. Jerry Kearns, D-Keokuk, didn't see it that way.

"If you, in fact, put those folks at the front of line, but give
them an impossible task for information, things they can't ever
find, then it seems to me it's a delay," Kearns said. "They can
still make claims, but they'll be dead before the claims are put
before the judge."

Kearns and Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, argued the change
would hurt veterans who have suffered asbestos-related cancer.
Voting for SF 376 would be like "slapping them in the face," he
said.

Wessel-Kroeschell read a long list of veterans groups that opposed
similar legislation in other states. However, no veterans groups
registered for or against SF 376 in Iowa. It was backed by several
business and insurance groups, but trial lawyers opposed it.

Other action
The House also unanimously approved a handful of "non-cons" or
what it considers non-controversial bills.

Among them was House File 445, a bill to exempt certain Iowa
Utilities Board information from the public in order to be able to
share that information with outside agencies.

The bill is an "essential piece regarding our national security,"
said Rep. Scott Ourth, D-Ackworth, who served on a subcommittee on
the bill.

Earlier this session, utilities board Chairwoman Gerri Huser said
that under current law, information about cybersecurity at utility
companies is not shielded from the public. That limits board
members and staff from complete access to cybersecurity
information, such as how utilities protect against cyberattacks.

The House also voted 94-0 to keep confidential some information
about gaming facilities. Gov. Terry Branstad earlier expressed
concerns that the bill shielded too much from the public.

"You know, gambling has become a significant industry in our
state. I think the public has a right to know the details about
their financial circumstances," he said.

Rep. Jake Highfill, R-Johnston, said a compromise had been reached
with the help of media organizations that would result in casinos'
certified audit, including opinion letters, balance sheets, cash
flow and financial statements, remaining public.

The House also voted to allow all-terrain vehicles on a designated
trail to cross a highway and to require the Department of Natural
Resource to adopt rules allowing straight wall cartridge rifles
for deer hunting.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Hails S.Dakota for Fighting Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, made the following statement on South Dakota's enactment
of S.B. 138:

"With its new asbestos bankruptcy reform law, South Dakota joins a
growing national chorus of states and the federal government in
working to stop fraud in the asbestos compensation system.
Manipulating and concealing claims evidence in trust filings is
fraud, yet this behavior is rampant in state courts throughout the
country. South Dakota's law stops this by preventing plaintiffs'
lawyers from making inconsistent claims in lawsuits and before
asbestos trust funds.

"The U.S. House of Representatives also passed legislation
reforming the nation's asbestos bankruptcy trust system by
requiring similar transparency to root out this type of fraud and
abuse.

"South Dakota will join eight other states and the federal
government in combatting plaintiffs' lawyers' systematic abuse of
the $30 billion asbestos trust system, and we applaud this
action."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the global,
national, state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.[GN]

Contacts
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
Victoria Kinnealey, 202-463-5506


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Urges Family of Pensioner to Make Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rudi Abdallah, writing for Yellow Advertiser, reported that the
family of a pensioner who died from asbestos exposure should make
a claim to the asbestos claims board, a coroner has stated.

Barking born Albert Keyworth, 78, of Summerville Road, Chadwell
Heath, died on September 28, 2016, from respiratory failure and
pulmonary fibrosis after coming into contact with fibres at work
and in the environment.

Dr Shirley Radcliffe, the assistant coroner who heard Albert's
case, ruled that he came into contact with the substance, but
could not ascertain which encounter caused his death.
She urged the family to make a claim because of Albert's work
history.

She recorded an open verdict.

The Yellow Advertiser had asked the Coroner's Office for details
of the asbestos leak into the environment. The Coroner provided a
recording of the inquest.

The audio disc revealed Mr Keyworth, born in Barking in 1937,
worked for Manor Joinery, Barking, as an apprentice carpenter
before national service.

David Keyworth, Albert's son, said he believed the company, which
blends asbestos with wood chip to make a variety of doors, had
asbestos on site. But the late technical supervisor's mother
worked for Cape Asbestos, which may have also resulted in Albert
coming into contact with fibres environmentally as a younger
person.

David recalled Albert as a 'lovely man, very fit and sporty', who
'played football to a very high standard'.

He added that Albert was 'an authentic human being and it's a
shame there are not more like him', and 'was proud to be his
son'.[GN]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Seeks Summary Judgment in Atty's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that a construction company and a contractor filed
motions for summary judgment in an asbestos attorney's lawsuit
alleging mold and water infiltrated his $775,000 Troy home.

The suit was filed by Simmons attorney Christopher Guinn and his
wife.

Defendant Customary Construction filed a motion for summary
judgment on March 10 through attorney Michael Hobin of Reed
Armstrong Mudge & Morrissey in Edwardsville.

The defendant argues that the plaintiffs waived all warranties,
barring damages sought for breaches of implied warranties in
counts II and III.

Defendant Kevin Kahrig filed his motion for summary judgment on
March 3 through attorney Peter Maag of Maag Law Firm LLc in Wood
River.

He argues that damages sought for negligence in count I are not
recoverable as purely economic losses and damages sought for
breach of implied warranties in counts II and III are barred
because the plaintiff waived all warranties.

He also argues that damages sought for fraud in counts IV and V
are not recoverable "as plaintiffs could not point to false
statements made in the sales transactions, or adequately explain a
duty to disclose any alleged defects in an 'as is' sales
transaction."

"At best, Plaintiffs try to argue that somehow Defendant Kevin
Kahrig somehow had a duty to deviate from the doctrine of caveat
emptor, based merely on Kevin Kahrig's status as a contractor,"
the motion states.

Kahrig adds that the plaintiffs do not recall specifically reading
the sales contract in its entirety, "cannot list a single false
statement made by Kahrig in a fraud case, wish to pursue warranty
claims that were disclaimed and searched for claimed defects after
provided for by the contract."

He also argues that the contract requires this mater be resolved
in mediation.

That same day, Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth granted
partial summary judgment for count I in favor of Customary
Construction, which is based on negligence only.

However, he wrote that this order does not apply to Kahrig.

Customary Construction sought partial summary judgment on Oct. 6,
arguing that summary judgment is appropriate for count I, which
alleges the defendant owed the plaintiffs a duty to exercise
reasonable care in the design and construction of the home.

"There is no dispute of fact that Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint
seeks purely economic damages under a negligence theory against
Customary Construction, LLC, which is not proper," the motion
stated.

"Plaintiffs alleged damages in this case are purely economic
losses that are not recoverable in tort," it continued.
"Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged diminution of value of their
home and costs to repair or replace the walls and deck. Plaintiffs
have not alleged any harm above and beyond disappointed
expectations."

Customary Construction also sought dismissal, which Ruth denied on
March 3.

The defendant argued that the plaintiffs have failed to answer the
interrogatories and request for production, which were filed on
July 6.

On Sept. 30, the court entered an order compelling them to answer
the discovery requests.

The Guinns filed the lawsuit against Customary Construction and
builder Keven Kahrig in April through attorney Jason Johnson of
HeplerBroom in Edwardsville. They claim their home at 474 Tyler
Dr. in Troy is uninhabitable due to mold. The Guinns purchased the
home from Kahrig in September 2014 for $775,000.

The Guinns allege a Feb. 22 inspection report listed numerous
defects in construction, including improperly constructed exterior
walls and deck, which they say caused the water infiltration.

The plaintiffs claim they have been forced to live in a separate
location and will continue to do so until the defects are
fixed.[GN]

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-443


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Liability Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers with asbestos liabilities should pay attention to
the March 7, 2017, ruling in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company by the Connecticut Appellate Court.
While the court issued policyholder-friendly rulings on the issues
of trigger of liability, allocation of liabilities, and the
application of the pollution exclusion, the court ruled against
policyholders on the application of the occupational disease
exclusion.

The occupational disease holding is unprecedented and
policyholders can expect to see insurers make a nationwide effort
to extend this ruling.

The R.T. Vanderbilt Decision

The suit arose from thousands of claims against R.T. Vanderbilt
Company claiming bodily injury caused by exposure to industrial
talc, alleged to have contained asbestos. Vanderbilt filed suit
against its insurers (Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company)
seeking a declaration of its insurers' obligations to provide
defense and indemnity coverage for the underlying liabilities and
for breach of contract damages.

The trial court held: (i) a continuous trigger applied; (i)
Vanderbilt was not responsible for indemnity costs after 1985 when
coverage was unavailable (but would be responsible for defense
costs for 14 years of that same period); (iii) the pollution
exclusion does not bar coverage for claims of asbestos exposure;
and (iv) the occupational disease exclusions in certain umbrella
and excess policies apply only to claims arising from injuries to
an insured's employees. Vanderbilt and the insurers filed
interlocutory cross-appeals. On appeal, the appellate court
reversed in part and affirmed in part.

First, the court joined the majority of jurisdictions in holding
that the "efficient administration of justice" requires that the
continuous trigger theory -- whereby every insurance policy in
effect from the date of first exposure through manifestation of
asbestos-related disease is on the risk for defense and indemnity
costs -- apply as a matter of law to asbestos-related claims.

Second, the court reaffirmed that liabilities are required for
long-tail insurance claims to be prorated based on the insurers'
respective time on the risk. The policyholder will only assume
responsibility for liabilities incurred during periods when the
policyholder elects to be uninsured. As a matter of first
impression in Connecticut, the court held that liabilities should
not be allocated to the policyholder for those periods in which
coverage was unavailable.

Third, on an issue of first impression in Connecticut, the
appellate court held that the standard qualified pollution
exclusion does not "apply to situations in which a commercial or
industrial product is discovered to pose health threats to
individuals who manufacture, apply, or are otherwise exposed to it
in the ordinary course of business."

Finally, on an issue it described as "a question of first
impression not only in Connecticut but also nationally," the court
held that the "occupational disease exclusion" barred coverage not
only for liabilities arising from occupational disease contracted
by the insured's employees but also for liabilities arising from
occupational disease contracted by third-party employees. The
court recognized, but refused to limit, the exclusion's
application to workers' compensation statutes.

Preparing to Respond

While the R.T. Vanderbilt decision is a win for policyholders on
allocation and the interpretation of the pollution exclusion, its
interpretation of the occupational disease exclusion has the
potential to severely curtail the availability of insurance to
provide coverage for asbestos liabilities. Insureds whose policies
contain occupational disease exclusions can expect their insurers
to attempt similar arguments in other jurisdictions. Accordingly,
unless this holding is reversed by the Supreme Court of
Connecticut, policyholders should be prepared to respond
aggressively to insurers on the application of the occupational
disease exclusion by arguing:

   * The decision is an intermediate appellate court decision with
no precedential authority outside of Connecticut;

   * The decision fails to cite any authority in support of its
interpretation of the occupational disease exclusion;

   * The decision is entirely inconsistent with the most natural
reading of the exclusion and the expectations of policyholders,
who would reasonably understand the occupational disease exclusion
as applying to claims for occupational disease compensable under
workers' compensation statutes;

   * Divorcing the phrase "occupational disease" from workers'
compensation statutes renders the term ambiguous; and

   * The decision is inconsistent with the purpose of the
exclusion -- namely, to ensure that the policy covers liabilities
to the general public while preserving each state's respective
workers' compensation scheme as the exclusive remedy for
responding to injuries to an employee.

The Connecticut Appellate Court's decision gives policyholders
much to celebrate. Those insureds whose policies include
occupational disease exclusions should, however, be prepared to
parry insurers' likely reliance on this erroneous holding.

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm
representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email
messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be
found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.

Michael H. Ginsberg, Esq.
Pittsburgh
+1.412.394.7919
mhginsberg@jonesday.com

Jennifer Flannery, Esq.
Atlanta
+1.404.581.8008
jbflannery@jonesday.com

Dominic I. Rupprecht, Esq.
Pittsburgh
+1.412.394.7957
dirupprecht@jonesday.com

The appeals case is R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., v. HARTFORD
ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY ET AL., (AC 36749), (AC 37140), (AC
37141), (AC 37142), (AC 37143), (AC 37144), (AC 37145), (AC
37146), (AC 37147), (AC 37148), (AC 37149), (AC 37150), (AC
37151)(Conn. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 7, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/VlFNcP from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth J. Stewart, Esq. -- estewart@murthalaw.com -- and Jacob
M. Mihm, pro hac vice, with whom were Rachel Snow Kindseth, Esq. -
- rkindseth@murthalaw.com -- and, on the brief, Francis J. Brady,
Marilyn B. Fagelson, Stephen Hoke, pro hac vice, and David H.
Anderson, pro hac vice, for the appellant-cross appellee
(substitute plaintiff).

Wayne S. Karbal, Esq. -- wkarbal@karballaw.com -- pro hac vice,
with whom were Jeffrey J. Tinley, Amita Patel Rossetti and, on the
brief, Alan M. Posner, pro hac vice, for the appellees-cross
appellants (named defendant et al.).

Michael J. Smith, Esq. -- msmith@sbrslaw.com -- pro hac vice, and
Bryan W. Petrilla, Esq. -- creed@sbrslaw.com -- pro hac vice, with
whom was John F. Conway, for the appellees-cross appellants
(defendant Mt. McKinley Insurance Company et al.).

Lorraine M. Armenti, Esq. -- larmenti@coughlinduffy.com -- pro hac
vice, with whom were Frank H. Santoro, Esq. --
fsantoro@danaherlagnese.com -- Shayne W. Spencer, Esq. --
sspencer@coughlinduffy.com -- pro hac vice, and, on the brief,
Kathleen J. Devlin, Esq. -- kathleen.devlin@klrw.law -- pro hac
vice, and R. Cornelius Danaher, Jr., Esq. --
ndanaher@danaherlagnese.com -- for the appellees-cross appellants
(defendant Continental Casualty Company et al.).

Michael L. Duffy, Esq. -- mduffy@clausen.com -- pro hac vice, with
whom, on the brief, were Michael G. Albano and Amy R. Paulus, Esq.
-- apaulus@clausen.com -- pro hac vice, for the appellee-cross
appellant (defendant Old Republic Insurance Company).

Lawrence A. Serlin, pro hac vice, with whom was Laura Pascale
Zaino, Esq. -- zaino@halloransage.com -- for the appellees-cross
appellants (defendant Pacific Employers Insurance Company et al.).

Robert M. Flannery, Esq. -- robert.flannery@mendes.com -- pro hac
vice, with whom were William A. Meehan and, on the brief,
Alexander J. Mueller, Esq. -- alexander.mueller@mendes.com -- pro
hac vice, and Stephen T. Roberts, Esq. --
stephen.roberts@mendes.com -- for the appellees-cross appellants
(defendant Certain Under-writers at Lloyd's, London, et al.).

Lawrence A. Levy, pro hac vice, with whom were Louis B.
Blumenfeld, Esq. -- lblumenfeld@csd-law.com -- and, on the brief,
Richard S. Feldman, Esq. -- richard.feldman@rivkin.com -- pro hac
vice, for the appellees-cross appellants (defendant Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company et al.).

Kevin M. Haas, Esq. -- kevin.haas@clydeco.us -- pro hac vice, with
whom were Matthew G. Conway, Esq. -- mconway@conwaystoughton.com -
- and, on the brief, MaryKate J. Geary, Esq. --
mgeary@conwaystoughton.com -- and Marianne May, Esq. --
marianne.may@clydeco.us -- pro hac vice, for the appellee-cross
appellant (defendant Westport Insurance Corporation).

Lawrence D. Mason, Esq. -- lmason@smsm.com -- pro hac vice, with
whom were John A. Lee, Esq. -- jlee@smsm.com -- pro hac vice, and,
on the brief, Dwight A. Kern, Esq. -- dkern@smsm.com -- for the
appellee-cross appellant (defendant National Casualty Company).

Kathleen D. Monnes, Esq. -- kdmonnes@daypitney.com -- with whom
was Erick M. Sandler, Esq. -- emsandler@daypitney.com -- for the
appellees-cross appellants (defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company et al.).

Timothy G. Ronan, Esq. -- tronan@pullcom.com -- and Assaf Z. Ben-
Atar, Esq. -- abenatar@pullcom.com -- filed a brief for the
appellee-cross appellant (defendant Employers Mutual Casualty
Company).

John E. Rodewald, Esq. -- jrodewald@batescarey.com -- pro hac
vice, and David A. Slossberg, Esq. -- DSlossberg@hssklaw.com --
filed a brief for the appellee-cross appellant (defendant Munich
Reinsurance America, Inc.).

Todd A. Bromberg and Laura A. Foggan, Esq. -- lfoggan@crowell.com
-- filed a brief for the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation
Association as amicus curiae.

Edward J. Stein, Esq. -- estein@andersonkill.com -- John M.
Leonard, Esq. -- jleonard@andersonkill.com -- pro hac vice, Amy
Bach, Esq. -- pro hac vice, and Heather R. Spaide filed a brief
for United Policyholders as amicus curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Work on Hold After Asbestos Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Jones, writing for North Somerset Times, reported that the
Clevedon hospital's inpatients unit is unlikely to reopen until
the autumn after asbestos was discovered.

The facility, which is being renamed North Somerset Community
Hospital, has been closed since last March for refurbishment
following a critical report by the Care Quality Commission.

The project will see the ward redecorated and its flooring
replaced while issues with dampness and a leaking roof will also
be fixed.

An early completion date of February 2017 had been set but this
has been pushed back as the discovery of asbestos forced
development work to be put on hold.

Asbestos had been removed from the site in early January, but a
subsequent inspection led to further removal work beginning on
February 27.

Julian Alexander, senior construction manager at NHS Property
Services, said: "Asbestos is commonly found in old and listed
buildings, having been used commercially in construction since the
1870s.

"Therefore we're always prepared when commencing construction work
on older sites.

"However, we were unable to understand the severity of asbestos in
the old hospital building on the Clevedon site until we were part
way through the redevelopment programme.

"We have instructed specialist contractors to remove all the
asbestos we have found from the inpatient unit, to ensure the
building is safe for everyone.

"Once this is complete, redevelopment work will continue as
planned."

Judith Brown, chief executive at North Somerset Community
Partnership, added: "Once the work is complete the inpatient unit
will be a great asset for our community in North Somerset.

"We are committed to ensuring this unit is once again a key part
of the healthcare system -- complementing the community healthcare
we provide.

"It is imperative the works at the hospital are carried out in
full to ensure that, at the end of the project, we have an
inpatient unit which enables us to deliver the quality of care
that our community deserves."

The hospital will have six fewer beds when it reopens to comply
with Government health and safety legislation.

Only the inpatients unit is closed during the refurbishment -- all
other services are running as normal.[GN]



                            *********

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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *