CAR_Public/170324.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, March 24, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 60



                            Headlines

9460 RESTAURANT: Faces "Quintana" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
ALARM.COM INC: Abante Rooter Seeks Certification of Three Classes
ALLIANCE ENERGY: "Dearmond" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Faces "Simmons" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Law
AMERICAN EMPLOYER: "Rulo-Speed" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in "Davidson"
ASH SOUNDS: Faces Suit Over Falls Festival Crush
AUSTRALIA: Judge Clears Oakeys Residents' Suit vs. Defense Dept.
AVIS BUDGET: Mendez's Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Unresolved Motions

BLISTEX INC: Faces Suit Over Lipstick Containers
CARGO FORCE: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CC LAST: Faces "Pimentel" Suit Alleging FLSA, Md. Law Violations
CEB INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
CEMTREX INC: Tries to Clear Confusion Over Press Releases

CHIPOTLE: NY Court Allows Shareholders to Amend Suit
CITIZENS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CREDICO (USA): Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suit
EXTRA SPACE: Wins OK of "Gomes" Suit Deal; June 20 Hearing Set

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Beaty" Suit Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
FORD MOTOR: Class-Action Lawsuit Alleges Defective F150 Doors
FREEDOM RAIN: Program Participants Are "Employees" Under FLSA
GENERAL CABLE: Sued Over Losses in Retirement Plan
GLOBAL BIZDIMENSIONS: TCPA Suit Not Precluded by Res Judicata

GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects Settlement in Privacy Violation Suit
GUAM, USA: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in "Davis" Class Suit
HARVEY GULF: Faces "Lang" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
IMPACT HOME: Clark Moves for Certification of Collective Action
IXIA: Faces "Krishna" Shareholder Suit Over Keysight Merger

JOHN FRANCIS COYNE: NY Court Dismisses Sex Offender's Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cashen" Securities Class Action in NY
KAUFFMAN TIRE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
LENNY & LARRY'S: Allegedly Obtained Profit Through Unfair Trade
LG: Faces Suit Over GUSD and V10 BootLoop

LOS ANGELES, CA: Summary Judgment in Trash Disposal Suit Affirmed
LYFT: Judge Approves US$27 Million Settlement
MARS PETCARE: "Roberts" Suit Removed to E.D. Tenn.
MINNESOTA: Ct. Reverses Refusal to Dismiss Education Clause Suit
MODEL SERVICE: Fit Models' Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd

MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Slow Snow Storm Response
MOON HOUSE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
NEW YORK, USA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Sze" Class Suit
NORTHWEST PAIN: Faces "Monaco" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
OAKHURST DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime

OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Fleurisma" TCPA Class Suit in Florida
PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Gift Program
REMINGTON ARMS: Dismal Claims Rates Prompt Settlement Scrutiny
REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Buchanan" Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay
RH: Faces "Errichiello" Securities Class Action in Cal.

RHODE ISLAND: Court Narrows Suit Filed by Firefighters, Police
RICHARD MCCORKLE: Inmate Allowed to Pursue Overcrowding Claim
RST GLOBAL: Faces "Porter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SAN JOSE, CA: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Trump Rally Suit
SPOKEO INC: "Vinci" Lawsuit Sent from Circ. Court to N.D. Ill.

STONEGATE MORTGAGE: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Home Point
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Truck Drivers Win Partial OK of TRO Bid
TOP SURGEONS: Cal. App. Says No Reason to Arbitrate "Faitro"
TOURNAMENT PLAYERS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Food Servers' Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Price" Suit Alleging Misclassification

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration of Claims
UGI STORAGE: Pa. Ct. Vacates Orders in Meeker Storage Field Suit
UPMC: Lawyer Tries to Sabotage Contractual Relationship
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Falsely Labeled Sunscreen
VIRGINIA MEADOWS: W. Va. Court Dismisses Limited Funds Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Says Jones Day Office Raid "Unacceptable"
WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Elkin" Securities Class Suit in Fla.
XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class
YGRENE ENERGY: Faces Potential Suit Complaint Over Deception

* Class Action Defense Spending Cripples Companies' Budgets
* DOL Review Could Take Aim at Class-Action Provision
* Expansion Of Jurisprudence Under New Class Action Bill
* Gorsuch Dissents in Workers' Rights Issue Favor Employers
* Morningstar Expects Up to $150MM in Annual Suit Settlements

* New Proposals Could Dramatically Alter Class Actions


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates May File Amended Civil Rights Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand Machinist's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haw. Appeals Ct. Throws Out Fisher's Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Stevens" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms $5.8MM Judgment vs. Honeywell

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Shonkwiler" Remanded to Ohio State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation May Fund Suits Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $631.2MM Liabilities at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Still Gets Suit Dismissals at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kemper Corp. Had $16.7MM A&E-Related Exposures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Has $30.16MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 20,567 Unresolved Claims in 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $51.16MM Accrued Liability in 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $877.5MM Asbestos Liabilities in 2016

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Has $59MM Occupational Reserves in 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Continues v. Sealed Air's Canadian Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos May Exist in Kilroy Realty Properties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Corp. Has $9.71MM Litigation Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has Exposure to A&EP Claims




                            *********


9460 RESTAURANT: Faces "Quintana" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO QUINTANA, REINALDO QUINTANA, JR., and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, vs. 9460 RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a The
Backyard - Q + Brew, a Florida limited liability company, and OFFY
SHIFMAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20878-DPG
(S.D. Fla., March 8, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
willful violations of overtime pay and minimum wages under the
laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

9460 RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC operates a restaurant. Plaintiffs
were employed by the Defendants as kitchen employees. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
     North Miami, FL 33161
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ALARM.COM INC: Abante Rooter Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ABANTE ROOTER AND
PLUMBING, INC., MARK HANKINS, and PHILIP J. CHARVAT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALARM.COM
INCORPORATED, and ALARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-
06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify three proposed
classes:

   (1) Cell Phone Class (Plaintiff Abante Rooter & Plumbing,
       Inc.):

       All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or
       its agents, on Defendants' behalf, instituted one or more
       non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants'
       goods or services; (c) to a recipient's cellular telephone
       number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone
       dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e)
       at any time since October 15, 2013;

   (2) Residential Class (Plaintiff Hankins):

       All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or
       its agents, on Defendants' behalf, initiated one or more
       non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants'
       goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential
       telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or
       prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013;
       and

   (3) National Do-Not-Call Class (Plaintiff Charvat):

       All persons in the United States who: (a) received more
       than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants' behalf; (b)
       promoting Defendants' goods or services; (c) in a
       twelve-month period; (d) on their cellular telephone line
       or residential telephone line; (e) whose cellular or
       residential telephone line number(s) appear on the
       National Do-Not-Call Registry; (f) at any time since
       December 30, 2011.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel to serve as class
counsel for the proposed classes.  They further ask the Court to
direct them to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice
within a reasonable time.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 25, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion
for Class Certification is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KkdraggC

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  rdonovan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen E. Taylor, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Patchen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Cauley, Esq.
          TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP
          One Ferry Building, Suite 355
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 788-8208
          E-mail: staylor@taylorpatchen.com
                  jpatchen@taylorpatchen.com
                  ccauley@taylorpatchen.com

               - and -

          Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
          Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq.
          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          JASZCZUK P.C.
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1775
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 442-0311
          E-mail: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
                  mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com
                  kgibson@jaszczuk.com

               - and -

          Ross A. Buntrock, Esq.
          OBSIDIAN LEGAL PLLC
          1821 Vernon Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 643-9055
          E-mail: ross@olspllc.com


ALLIANCE ENERGY: "Dearmond" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
David Dearmond, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself individually and
all others similarly situated v. Alliance Energy Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02222 (E.D. La., March 16, 2017), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiff and
Class Members for all overtime hours worked pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Dearmond worked for Defendant in its Coil Tubing
Division as an hourly paid operator.

Defendant is a well service company that provides well cleanouts,
well control, well logging and other offerings to its clients in
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Neuman, Esq.
   Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
   Sosa-Morris Neuman
   5612 Chaucer Drive
   Houston, TX 77005
   Tel: (281) 885-8844
   Fax: (281) 885-8813
   Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
          BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

        - and -

   Robert B. Landry, III, Esq.
   Robert B. Landry III PLC
   5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
   Baton Rouge, LA 70808
   Tel: (225) 349-7460
   Fax: (225) 349-7466
   Email: rlandry@;andryfirm.com


ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Faces "Simmons" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHARD "ARCHIE" SIMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL; UNIVERSAL
PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendant(s),
Case No. 2:17-cv-01029-PBT (E.D. Pa., March 8, 2017), alleges that
Defendant has, since its formation resulting from a merger of two
predecessor companies, improperly failed to pay Plaintiff and
other hourly-paid security guards and hourly-paid site
supervisors, who also provided security services, employed by
Defendant, premium overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law and Pennsylvania common law.

Universal Protection Service offers an expansive range of security
solutions for properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
     Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
     KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
     1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Phone: (215) 364-5030
     Fax: (215) 364-5029
     E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
     E-mail: dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

        - and -

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: (610) 822-3700
     Fax: (610) 822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
            rgray@cwglaw.com


AMERICAN EMPLOYER: "Rulo-Speed" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
REGINA RULO-SPEED, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PS EMPLOYMENT LLC (Serve at: 10449 St.
Charles Rock Road, Suite #510, St. Ann, MO 63074) KAREN POOLE
(Serve at: 10449 St. Charles Rock Road, Suite #510, St. Ann, MO
63074) & AMERICAN EMPLOYER GROUP, VI, INC. (Serve at: CSC-LAWYERS
INCORPORATING SERVICE COMPANY, 221 Bolivar Street, Jefferson City,
MO 65101) Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00853 (E.D. Mo., March 8,
2017), seeks relief on a collective basis challenging Defendants'
calculation of overtime excluding comp time rather than paying
premium pay at the lawful regular rate, thereby denying hourly
employees of overtime pay equal to one-and-one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek during at least one workweek over the past three years.
The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Rulo-Speed was hired by Preferred Staffing and Poole through
AEG for the job position of HR Coordinator to perform staffing
coordination work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
     Jason M. Finkes, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
     2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
     St. Louis MO 63144
     Phone: (314)645-4100
     Fax: (314)736-6216
     E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
             jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derreck Perry, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00682 (D. Colo., March 16, 2017), seeks payment of
overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Anadarko misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent
contractor, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Perry worked exclusively for Anadarko as a drilling
consultant.

Anadarko is an oil and natural gas exploration and production
company operating worldwide and throughout the United States,
including Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
   Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
   Brunckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
          mparmet@brucknerburch.com


APPLE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in "Davidson"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of article III standing but
granted dismissal to remaining causes of action in the case
captioned, THOMAS DAVIDSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

On August 27, 2016, Plaintiffs Thomas Davidson, Jun Bai, and Todd
Cleary bring the putative class action against Defendant Apple,
Inc. (Apple or Defendant), and alleges violations of various state
consumer fraud statutes, common law fraud, and breach of express
and implied warranty. According to Plaintiffs, the iPhone 6 and 6
Plus "suffer from a material manufacturing defect that causes the
touchscreen to become unresponsive to users' touch inputs" (the
touchscreen defect).  Plaintiffs allege that the touchscreen
defect is caused by a defect in the iPhone's external casing.

Plaintiffs alleged causes of action under (1) California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) Unfair Competition Laws
(UCL); (3) False Advertisement Law (FAL); (4) common law fraud;
(5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) breach
of implied warranty; (8) violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act (Magnusson-Moss Act); and (9) violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act). On October 7, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint that added
several named Plaintiffs and added causes of action under the
consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, New Jersey, Florida,
Connecticut, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Washington.

On December 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the SACC, which added a Utah
Plaintiff and a cause of action under Utah's consumer fraud
statute.  According to the SACC, each named Plaintiff purchased
either an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
Nationwide Class of "All persons or entities in the United States
that purchased an Apple iPhone 6 or 6 Plus." Alternatively,
Plaintiffs seek to represent state sub-classes.

The parties agreed at the November 30, 2016 initial case
management conference to each select 5 causes of action--for a
total of 10 causes of action--to litigate for purposes of the
instant motion to dismiss.  On December 5, 2016, the parties
selected the following 10 causes of action: (1) New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA); (2) Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA); (3) Washington Consumer Protection Act
(WCPA); (4) Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (ICFDTPA); (5) Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA);
(6) Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA); (7) Common Law Fraud;
(8) Breach of Express Warranty; (9) Breach of Implied Warranty;
(10) Magnusson-Moss Act. The parties did not select any California
statutory claims.

On January 6, 2017, Defendant moves to dismiss all 10 of the
selected causes of action. Defendant asserts that (1) Plaintiffs
lack Article III standing for Plaintiffs' claims for fraud, as
well as for Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief; (2)
Plaintiffs' claims for fraud fail because Plaintiffs have failed
to plead fraud with particularity; (3) Plaintiffs' claims for
breach of express and implied warranty fail because Defendant did
not breach the Limited Warranty and because Defendant .disclaimed
implied warranties.

In her Order dated March 14, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/fxI8HO from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraud claims on the
basis of Plaintiffs' lack of Article III standing failed because
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient, "at least at this stage of
the proceedings," to meet the "less rigorous" burden of alleging
that Plaintiffs' harm is "fairly traceable" to Defendant's
conduct/

As to fraudulent claims, Judge Kohn held that Plaintiffs have
failed to plead either their fraudulent representation or their
fraudulent omission claims with particularity.  Because the Court
dismisses all of Plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims, the Court need
not reach Defendant's remaining arguments regarding Plaintiffs'
claim under the NJCFA.

Todd Cleary, et al. are represented by Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC -- David
Christopher Wright, Esq. -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- Joseph G.
Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- and -- Richard D. McCune,
Jr., Esq. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP --
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- and -- Paul
J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY
CONRY LLC

Apple, Inc. is represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq. --
agonzalez@mofo.com -- Alexandria Armida Amezcua, Esq. --
aamezcua@mofo.com -- Christopher Leonard Robinson, Esq. --
christopherrobinson@mofo.com -- Penelope Athene Preovolos, Esq. --
ppreovolos@mofo.com -- and -- Tiffany Cheung, Esq. --
tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP -- David Ramraj Singh,
Esq. -- david.singh@weil.com -- and -- Diane P. Sullivan, Esq. --
diane.sullivan@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP


ASH SOUNDS: Faces Suit Over Falls Festival Crush
------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that more than 60 people injured in a
terrifying crowd crush at last year's Falls festival are taking
the event organisers to court.

Nineteen people were taken to hospital with broken bones and other
serious injuries and dozens more were hurt during a break between
acts in the Grand Theatre at the Falls Music and Arts festival at
Lorne on 30 December.

A class action was lodged through the Warrnambool law firm Maddens
Lawyers in the Victorian supreme court on March 15. A Maddens
senior partner, Brendan Prendergast, said about 65 people were on
the statement of claim but, since news broke of the action, more
people had come forward.

Falls festival crush victim: 'You could hear bones snapping'

People paid anywhere between AUD249 and AUD468 plus booking fees
to attend the four-day camping festival. Prendergast said when
people handed over that amount of money, they expected to be in a
safe environment.

The claim alleges Ash Sounds Pty Ltd, trading as the Falls Music
and Arts festival, restricted the exit from the theatre, causing
the crush. It says timetabling caused a rush of people to leave
and an adequate risk assessment was not done.

At the time, organisers blamed the crush on a "confluence of
events" and said an investigation would be carried out.

On March 16 the festival co-producer Jessica Ducrou said
organisers were cooperating with a WorkSafe investigation.

"We have had regular contact with affected patrons since the
incident and are providing ongoing assistance," she said.
"However, given the matter is as of today the subject of legal
proceedings, we are not in a position to comment further."

Ducrou confirmed that Falls festival would "definitely be going
ahead in 2017"


AUSTRALIA: Judge Clears Oakeys Residents' Suit vs. Defense Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Gregory at ABC reports that lawyers representing
residents in Oakey say they have the final clearance to commence a
class action against the Department of Defence.

About 450 residents are demanding financial compensation for their
dwindling property prices, because of contaminated groundwater
emanating from a Defence base next to the Darling Downs town.

Some residents are steering clear of the action and say repeated
publicity about the contamination is causing the town's
reputational damage.

The class action has been in the pipeline for some time after
revelations some sections of Oakey's groundwater had been
contaminated with toxins PFOS and PFOA, which are used in
firefighting foam at the nearby Oakey Army Aviation Centre.

Bradley Hudson, one of hundreds of Oakey residents commencing a
class action against the department of defence, is a business
owner who wants compensation for his property devaluation.

"My property . . . . probably in its heyday would have been worth
something like three-quarters of a million dollars. Now not sure
what I'll get for it," Mr Hudson said.

"If we get the property one (class action) up, we get compensated
or shifted on, then that will help our health concerns too with
PFOS and PFOA by being able to move off a contaminated block."

Shine Lawyers, which is leading the litigation, said it has
secured unconditional funding support for the action from company
IMF Bentham Limited.

"We've now convinced them that there are enough people and large
enough claim for that to be the case and they said, 'OK, we're on
board'," legal principal Peter Shannon said.

Mr Shannon said 350 properties and businesses -- or about 450
people -- are taking part in the action. Oakey's population is in
excess of 4,500 people.

"Not everyone commits until they know it's happening for sure, so
[we're] very pleased with the result and we now expect more to
join," Mr Shannon said.
Government reports find no strong link between the toxins and
human health risks

The Federal Government's public reports into PFOS and PFOA have
said there is no strong link to human health risks.

But Mr Shannon said many residents, including Mr Hudson, are using
the action to help alleviate their health concerns.

"The health impacts are very relevant to that because that's the
concern and the anguish that people feel that effects values," he
said.

"We've been agitating for the monitoring of blood. Defence is
doing some ongoing monitoring which will help when health issues
are clarified."

But both Mr Shannon and other residents PM spoke to -- who did not
want to go on the record -- said the town is very divided over the
class action.

Tracey Tierney from Oakey Real Estate said she was gutted by the
class action.

"I don't think people realise what they're signing up for," she
said.

"I think there's going to be a lot of heartache by the time it
finishes and I think they're going to be waiting a long time.
"No-one wants the contamination. We all realise it is there. We
all realise that people need to move on with their lives, but it's
just been held up unfortunately by mad media."

She also does not believe property prices have dropped.

"I believe the market has stopped, things aren't selling and
that's because of what Oakey is facing through media channels and
lending institutions."

Williamtown, north of Newcastle, also lodged a class action
against defence over contaminated groundwater.

Mr Shannon said he had also been approached by residents from
other affected towns, including Tindal near Katherine, the Gold
Coast and Townsville.

The Department of Defence said it could not comment at this stage,
as it had not yet been formally notified that the class action had
commenced.


AVIS BUDGET: Mendez's Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Unresolved Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose L. Linares administratively terminated without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit captioned Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.).

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
wrongfully charged non-discounted toll charges and convenience
fees to renters of vehicles equipped with a certain electronic
toll-payment device.

The parties subsequently filed three separate motions: (i) the
Defendants' motion to exclude the opinion evidence offered by the
Plaintiff's expert Vicki Morwitz, (ii) the Plaintiff's motion to
exclude the report prepared by the Defendants' expert Larry
Chiagouris, and any opinion testimony arising therefrom, and (iii)
the Plaintiff's motion to strike certain documents submitted by
the Defendants allegedly were not produced in the litigation.

Judge Linares ruled that once the Court has resolved the Separate
Motions, the Court will direct the Plaintiff on the manner in
which to appropriately reopen the motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=juhFqt3n


BLISTEX INC: Faces Suit Over Lipstick Containers
------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a California woman has applied to
lead a class action lawsuit against the Oak Brook-based maker of
Blistex lip ointment, alleging the company smears customers by
selling their product in tubes that leave a quarter of the
ointment stick inaccessible to users, even though customers
believe they are paying for the full amount.

On March 16, plaintiff Alana Hillen filed her complaint in Chicago
federal court against Blistex Inc. She has asked the court to
expand the litigation to include potentially millions of others
who purchased Blistex's lip ointments in the past three years.

Hillen is represented in the action by attorneys Robert Pavich, of
the Pavich Law Group, of Chicago, and Charles S. Zimmerman,
Michael J. Laird and Caleb Marker, of the firm of Zimmerman Reed
LLP, with offices in Minneapolis and Manhattan Beach, Calif.

The lawsuit centers on Blistex's medicated lip ointment which, the
complaint notes, "comes in a uniquely designed tube," which the
complaint compared to a "miniature tube of toothpaste" with a
"hard, plastic dispenser" attached to the top of the tube, which
is used to spread the ointment on lips.

The lawsuit asserts the dispenser attachment "is hollow and
retains a significant volume of empty space, especially in
comparison to the volume of the tube."

This design, the lawsuit says, "prevents a significant amount of
the lip ointment from being used."

"When the tube appears empty, product remains trapped in the
dispenser," the lawsuit said.

In all, the lawsuit claims ointment consumers receive only about
4.65 grams of the product, when the tube claims to contain 6 grams
of ointment.

"Consumers are losing approximately 23 percent of the product
because of the dispenser design," the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs said this stands in contrast to Blistex's other
products in other containers, like its egg-shaped dispenser,
traditional stick or small jar packaging, which allow consumers to
use almost all of the product.

And the complaint said this alleged design flaw is unique to the
U.S., as Blistex sells its lip ointment in tubes with
"significantly smaller dispenser(s)" in other countries, including
the United Kingdom, which minimize the amount of product left in
the tube.

"The dispenser appears to be solid, even though it is hollow," the
complaint said.  "Consumers cannot see that Lip Ointment is
trapped in the dispenser because the dispenser is opaque. Nor can
consumers feel additional product in the dispenser because the
dispenser is hard and cannot be squeezed.

"Blistex provides no indication to its consumers that a
significant amount of the Lip Ointment is trapped in the plastic
dispenser."

This, the complaint said, leads consumers to "unknowingly toss
away 23 percent of the Lip Ointment believing they used the entire
tube."

The lawsuit alleges Blistex's packaging and advertising violates
Illinois consumer fraud law and common law fraud.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to order Blistex to pay
unspecified statutory damages under the Illinois law, including
punitive damages, as well as actual damages and restitution with
interest. Attorney fees are also requested.

The lawsuit indicates plaintiffs believe the amount of damages
will exceed USD5 million.


CARGO FORCE: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Florida record reports that several Dade County
residents allege their employer did not pay minimum or overtime
wages.

Carlos A. Cabanas, Herlam E. Figueroa, Abel Prieto and Moises
Roman filed a complaint on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals on March 15 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division against Cargo Force
Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they were
employed by the defendant as ramp agents. The plaintiffs hold
Cargo Force Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to pay overtime wages at a rate of time-and-one-half and
minimum wages to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual damages for
unpaid minimum wages, interest, liquidated damages, all legal fees
and any other relief as the court deems just. They are represented
by Zandro E. Palma of Zandro E. Palma P.A. in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division Case number 1:17-cv-20975-JLK


CC LAST: Faces "Pimentel" Suit Alleging FLSA, Md. Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL PIMENTEL (877 Clopper Rd. Apt. B4, Gaithersburg, MD 20878)
EDIL MORALES (877 Clopper Rd. Apt. B4, Gaithersburg, MD 20878)
Plaintiffs, v. CC LAST MILE, LLC (4151 Ashford Dunwood Rd.,
Suite 260, Atlanta, GA 30319) Serve Resident Agent The Corporation
Trust Incorporated (351 West Camden Street, Baltimore, MD 21201),
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00652-GJH (D. Md., March 8, 2017),
alleges that Defendant paid, and continues to pay, Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated individuals at a fixed daily rate and
fails to properly pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek.  The case raises claims for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant provides delivery services for Amazon.com.  Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated individuals are or were employed by
Defendant as delivery drivers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Deyka Williams Spencer, Esq.
     THE SPENCER FIRM, LLC
     2275 Research Blvd., Suite 500
     Rockville, MD 20850
     Phone: (301) 637-2866
     Fax: (866) 686-2126
     E-mail: dspencer@spencer-firm.com


CEB INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of holders of CEB Inc. ("CEB") (NYSE:CEB) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of CEB by Gartner, Inc.
and Cobra Acquisition Corp. (collectively, "Gartner") announced on
January 5, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CEB, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Gartner, is captioned
Steinberg v. CEB Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00226-LPS (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/ceb-inc-
ceb/.

On January 5, 2017, CEB entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gartner.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, CEB shareholders will receive USD54.00 in cash
and 0.2284 shares of Gartner common stock for each share of CEB
common stock in a transaction valued at approximately USD3.3
billion (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on February
6, 2017.  The Registration Statement, which recommends that CEB
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to the Company's
financial projections, the opinions and analyses of CEB's
financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of CEB common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 15, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States.


CEMTREX INC: Tries to Clear Confusion Over Press Releases
---------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc., a global diversified industrial and manufacturing
company, explained why securities class action plaintiffs' law
firms continue to publish press releases concerning the alleged
securities class action complaints filed on February 24, 2017
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The Company feels that this
explanation is necessary to clear up the confusion that has been
created by these press releases for the current shareholders and
potential investors.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act)
states: "Not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice
is published, any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class." The original
alleged securities class action complaints were filed on February
24, 2017. Therefore, any member of the purported class may move
the court to serve as lead plaintiff by April 25, 2017.

Leading up to this April 25 deadline, securities class action
plaintiffs' law firms are continuing to publish press releases in
connection with this lead plaintiff process. These are not
announcing any new securities class action complaints. To date,
there remain only three actual securities class action complaints
filed against the Company in court. As the Company announced on
March 2, 2017, the Company understands that these three alleged
class actions, as well as any further alleged class actions, will
be consolidated into a single lawsuit, under the requirements of
the Reform Act.

The Company believes the alleged securities class action
litigation is based upon the false allegations contained in an
internet blog posted by a short seller and is meritless and the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

                           About Cemtrex

Cemtrex, Inc. is a global, diversified industrial and
manufacturing company that provides a wide array of solutions to
meet today's technology challenges and is rapidly growing through
acquisitions. Cemtrex provides manufacturing services of advanced
custom engineered electronics, industrial contracting services,
monitoring instruments for industrial processes and environmental
compliance, and equipment for controlling particulates, hazardous
pollutants and Greenhouse gases used in carbon trading globally.
For more information, please visit www.cemtrex.com


CHIPOTLE: NY Court Allows Shareholders to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint in the
case captioned, SUSIE ONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN
GRILL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 141 (KPF)
(S.D.N.Y.).

In the wake of several food-borne illness outbreaks in 2015 that
were sourced to Chipotle restaurants, Lead Plaintiffs Metzler
Investment GmbH and Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater
St. Louis brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the common stock of Defendant Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., for the period between February 5, 2015, and January
5, 2016, inclusive.

Plaintiffs allege that Chipotle and certain of its executives, M.
Steven Ells, Montgomery F. Moran, and John R. Hartung violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, in public statements
issued throughout 2015.

Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(a)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 when they: (i) failed to disclose the
2014 change to in-store produce processing and preparation "and
the resulting increase in the risk that the Company could
experience food-borne illness outbreaks;" (ii) failed to disclose
that "their failure to enforce Chipotle's food safety protocols in
its restaurants had significantly increased the risk of food-borne
illness outbreaks"; (iii) "made materially false and misleading
statements about the status of the CDC's investigation into the
October E. coli outbreak at Chipotle restaurants" in the November
10, 2015 press release; and (iv) "failed to timely disclose the
existence and/or extent of the food-borne illness outbreaks to
Chipotle's investors," including in the company's October 20, 2015
financial report.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs have cross-moved to strike
Exhibits 8, 11-14, and 17-40 (the Exhibits) attached to
Defendants' motion.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/1dqViR from Leagle.com, Judge Failla found that
Plaintiffs have failed to plead adequately the elements of (i)
material misstatements or omissions and (ii) scienter, their
claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 fail.

Plaintiffs' Complaint may be long on text, but it is short on
adequatelypleaded claims, Judge Faila held.  Accordingly,
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiffs' related
motion to strike is denied.  However, Plaintiffs' request for
leave to file an amended pleading is also granted, and the
Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend and directed to file their
Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Opinion.

Metzler Investment GmbH and Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis are represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- and -- Michael Gerard Capeci, Esq. --
mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP -- William
H. Narwold, Esq. -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Christopher F.
Moriarty, Esq. -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- and -- James M.
Hughes, Esq. -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC

Susie Ong is represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- and -- Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et al. arerepresented by Andrew
Brian Clubok, Esq. -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Nathaniel
Jacob Kritzer, Esq. -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- Richard
William Nicholson, Jr., Esq. -- richard.nicholson@kirkland.com --
Robert Anthony Gretch, Esq. -- robert.gretch@kirkland.com -- and -
- Susan Elisabeth Engel, Esq. -- susan.engel@kirkland.com --
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP -- Mark B. Collier, Esq. --
mcollier@messner.com -- MESSNER REEVES LLP



CITIZENS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Citizens, Inc.
securities (CIA) from March 11, 2015 through March 8, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Citizens investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Citizens class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1077.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Citizens' brokers and pitchbooks falsely claimed that
most of the funds from its insurance policies were directly
invested in U.S. Treasury Bond; (2) funds from Citizens' insurance
policies were funneled into continuous open market purchases that
inflated Citizens' stock price; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Citizens' business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On March 8, 2017, Seeking Alpha published an article asserting
that Citizens sells insurance policies to foreign retail investors
and retirees with promises that they are backed by U.S. Treasury
bonds even though such policies actually funnel millions of
dollars into open market purchases of Citizens' shares and inflate
the value of such shares. On this news shares of Citizens fell
USD0.45 per share or over 5% over the next two trading days to
close at USD8.00 per share on March 9, 2017, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
15, 2017.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CREDICO (USA): Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------MANTE
RODRIGUEZ and VALERIE MORALES individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREDICO (USA) LLC, RED
TOWER MARKETING, INC., DIANA ROJAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01221 (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants have
misclassified Plaintiffs and all other workers in California as
independent contractors and, in doing so, have violated various
wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
California Labor Code.

Defendant Credico contracts with companies in the
telecommunications, financial services, and energy industries, as
well as charitable organizations, to provide face-to-face
marketing services through its network of workers located
throughout the country.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants promoting Credico's clients'
products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     Jill Kahn, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             jkahn@llrlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael L. Freedman, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     466 Geary St., Suite 201
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Phone: (415) 630-2651
     E-mail: mfreedman@llrlaw.com


CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district
court's grant of Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act action filed by
Plaintiffs Eloise Hitchcock and Sheryl Kae.

The Plaintiffs were employees of Cumberland University and were
participants in the Cumberland University 403(b) DC Plan.  On
November 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against Defendants alleging the following: (1) wrongful denial of
benefits on behalf of the benefits class, in violation of 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I); (2) anti-cutback violation
on behalf of the benefits class, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section
1054(g) (Count II); (3) failure to provide notice on behalf of the
notice class, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) (Count
III); and (4) breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the benefits
and notice classes, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 (Count
IV).

On December 23, 2015, Defendants answered the complaint, and on
February 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On June 9, 2016, the
district court construed Defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion
for judgment on the pleadings because it was filed after
Defendants answered the complaint. The district court then granted
the motion, dismissed the case without prejudice so that
"Plaintiffs may administratively exhaust their claims," and
entered judgment. Specifically, the district court dismissed
Counts I, II, and IV for failure to exhaust administrative claim
procedures, and dismissed Count III based on Plaintiffs' failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On June 22, 2016, Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's
dismissal of Counts II, III, and IV. Plaintiffs argue that the
district court erred in requiring exhaustion of administrative
remedies for Counts II and IV because that holding is contrary to
binding Sixth Circuit precedent and will place us in the minority
of circuits which have addressed this issue. Plaintiffs further
contend that the district court erred in dismissing Count III
because Plaintiffs lacked the proper discovery to sufficiently
argue why Defendants failed to provide notice of the amendment.

In an Opinion dated March 14, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/jvXI7E from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit held that
the district court erred in applying the administrative exhaustion
principles to Counts II and IV.  As a matter of first impression,
the Sixth Circuit held that plan participants or beneficiaries,
such as the Plaintiffs, need not exhaust administrative remedies
before proceeding to federal court when they assert statutory
violations under ERISA.  The record in this case demonstrates that
Plaintiffs asserted statutory violations of ERISA which challenged
the legality of the Plan's amendment, the Sixth Circuit added.
The Sixth Circuit further held that the district court erred in
finding that Plaintiffs failed to oppose Defendants' argument as
to Count III.

Accordingly, the action is remanded for further proceedings.

The appeals case is ELOISE HITCHCOCK; SHERYL KAE, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY 403(b) DC PLAN; CUMBERLAND
UNIVERSITY; JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees., Case No. 16-
5942 (6th Cir.).

Eloise Hitchcock and Sheryl Kae are represented by:

      Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      223 Rosa L Parks Blvd #200,
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615)254-8801

Cumberland University, et al. are represented by Daniel W. Olivas,
Esq. -- dolivas@lewisthomason.com -- LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG
& WALDROP, P.C.


EXTRA SPACE: Wins OK of "Gomes" Suit Deal; June 20 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cathy L. Waldor grants preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit styled STEVEN
GOMES, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC. and EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC., and
JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-50, Case No. 2:13-cv-00929-CLW (D.N.J.).

The Settlement Agreement provides, in part, for:

   a. Each Settlement Class Member to receive a certificate
      valued at $75.  The certificate is freely transferable for
      three years from the date of mailing and can be used for
      $75 of goods sold at Extra Space facilities in New Jersey
      or $75 towards rental of new rental units at Extra Space
      facilities in New Jersey;

   b. Extra Space to deposit $5,079,856 into a common fund
      account no later than 10 days after the final approval
      order is filed by the Court;

   c. A payment to the Plaintiff in the amount of $22,500 as an
      incentive award in recognition of his efforts on behalf of
      the Settlement Class and Subclass, and to resolve his
      individual claims to be paid out of the Common Fund,
      subject to Court approval;

   d. A payment of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs in
      an amount not to exceed $725,000 to be paid out of the
      Common Fund, subject to approval by the Court;

   e. All settlement administration costs and costs of providing
      Notice and relief to the Class to be paid out of the Common
      Fund, as specified more fully in the Settlement Agreement;

   f. The remainder of the Common Fund to be paid to Class
      Members, with each Settlement Class Member to receive a
      settlement check of approximately $25, depending upon the
      balance of the Common Fund and on how many members of the
      Settlement Class choose to remain in the settlement; and

   g. After the expiration of all settlement checks, the total
      amount of any non-negotiated settlement checks and any
      remaining balance in the Common Fund is to be paid as a cy
      pres award in the amount of 2/3 to Legal Services of New
      Jersey (LSNJ) in Edison, New Jersey, for use in its
      consumer related activities.

The Settlement Class and Subclass certified for purposes of
settlement are defined as:

     Settlement Class:

     The 154,726 individuals identified by Defendants via
     confirmatory discovery who, at any time on or after
     January 11, 2007 through November 18, 2014 entered into a
     Rental Agreement with Extra Space for storage space at a New
     Jersey location, using a form of Rental Agreement the same
     as or similar to the Rental Agreement that Extra Space used
     in its transaction with Plaintiff.

     Settlement Subclass:

     The 8,833 individuals identified by Defendants via
     confirmatory discovery who are members of the Settlement
     Class and whose property was sold by Defendants.

Steven Gomes, Jr., is appointed to serve as Class Representative
and A.B. Data, Ltd. is appointed to serve as the Settlement
Administrator.  The Court also appoints the Wolf Law firm, LLC,
and its attorneys including Andrew R. Wolf, Esq., Bharati Sharma
Patel, Esq., Henry P. Wolfe, Esq., and Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq.,
as Class Counsel.

The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing on June 20, 2017, at
10:30 a.m., to consider granting final approval to the Settlement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1j43KOwT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net
                  bpatel@wolflawfirm.net
                  hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net
                  moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Beaty" Suit Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Beaty and Jessica Beaty, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05201 (W.D. Wash., March 16, 2017),
seeks damages for defective panoramic sunroof.

Defendant failed to warn the drivers of the danger and continues
to sell and lease the vehicles with defective panoramic sunroofs
without disclosing the Defect to consumers, says the complaint.

The Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
   Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
   Brittany A. Madderra, Esq.
   Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
   936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
   Seattle, WA 98103-8869
   Tel: (206) 816-6603
   Fax: (206) 319-5450
   Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
          asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
          bmadderra@terrellmarshall.com

        - and -

   Paul J. Hanly, Jr. Esq.
   Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
   Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
   112 Madison Avenue
   New York, NY 10016-7416
   Tel: (212) 784-6400
   Fax: (212) 213-5949
   Email: phanly@simmonsfirm.com
          mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

        - and -

   Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
   Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
   Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
   Lisa A. White, Esq.
   Greg Coleman Law PC
   First Tennessee Plaza
   800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
   Knoxville, TN 37929
   Tel: (865) 247-0080
   Fax: (865) 522-0049
   Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
          mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
          adam@gregcolemanlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Class-Action Lawsuit Alleges Defective F150 Doors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Carter at NBC reports that they're marketed as being "Built
Ford Tough," and having "Rock-solid Durability" and sales show
many people sign on. Ford sold almost 58,000 of their F-150s in
January alone. It's the best selling pickup truck in the US.

A New York man has filed a lawsuit taking issue with Ford's
marketing claims. Sadly, this "Built Ford Tough" vehicle possesses
an elemental defect: it's doors won't lock when the temperature
drops below freezing.

Ford recalled more than 800,000 sedans and small SUVs last year
for a door latch spring that could break. But it didn't apply to
the F-150.

Brandon Kommmer, who filed the lawsuit, said he had problems with
his front, rear, driver and passenger doors that would not latch
closed, an electric lock that would not open, door handles that
wouldn't move and locks that wouldn't release.
The lawsuit said Ford sent notes to dealers on how to fix door
latch issues on F-150s but didn't notify consumers. Those
consumers continue to experience the same problem.
NBC 5 reached out to Ford early this morning for their take on all
this, they confirm they received our message but they didn't get
back to us with a response just yet.


FREEDOM RAIN: Program Participants Are "Employees" Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama granted Plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment in the case captioned, BRIANA WALKER,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM RAIN, INC., d/b/a The Lovelady
Center, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00274-MHH (N.D. Ala.).

In the putative class action, plaintiff Briana Walker alleges that
defendant Freedom Rain, Inc., d/b/a The Lovelady Center, violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay her and the opt-in
plaintiffs the minimum wage required by the Act and by failing to
adequately compensate them for work performed in excess of forty
hours per week.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, each party has
asked the Court to enter judgment on the threshold issue of
whether the plaintiffs were Freedom Rain's "employees" under the
FLSA.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated March 7, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/61DNxs from Leagle.com, Judge Haikala found as a
matter of law that the plaintiffs who worked at the Lovelady
Center, the thrift store, Blackwell's Way, and Haymon Homes were
Freedom Rain's employees within the meaning of the FLSA.

Freedom Rain does not dispute that the plaintiffs who worked at
Blackwell's Way and Haymon Homes were employed by those facilities
within the meaning of the FLSA.  For purposes of the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether the
plaintiffs who were employed by Blackwell's Way and Haymon Homes
were also employed by Freedom Rain.

An "employer" under the FLSA is "any person acting directly or
indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an
employee. . . ." 29 U.S.C. Section 203(d). "An employee may have
more than one employer, and 'whether the employment by the
employers is to be considered joint employment or separate and
distinct employment for purposes of the [FLSA] depends upon all
the facts in the particular case.'"

In 2014, the Department of Labor conducted an investigation into
Freedom Rain's relationship with Blackwell's Way and Haymon Homes,
concluding that, "an employment relationship exist[ed] between the
[plaintiffs who worked at Blackwell's Way and Haymon Homes] and
The Lovelady Center as a joint employer."  Although the DOL
investigation does not demand deference, the Court agreed with its
conclusion.

According to Judge Haikala, facts in the case demonstrate that
Freedom Rain and the group homes had an arrangement to share the
plaintiffs' services and acted in each other's interest in
relation to the plaintiffs.  The FLSA is a remedial statute, and
the Court must broadly construe its definitions.  Accordingly, the
Court finds that the plaintiffs who worked at Blackwell's Way and
Haymon Homes while participating in Freedom Rain's rehabilitation
program were Freedom Rain's employees under the FLSA.

Briana Walker is represented by Robert J. Camp, Esq. --
rcamp@wigginschilds.com -- and -- Russell W. Adams, Esq. --
radams@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER &
GOLDFARB

Freedom Rain Inc. is represented by Anne Knox Averitt, Esq. --
aaveritt@bradley.com -- Mary Ann Couch, Esq. -- mcouch@bradley.com
-- Tiffany J. deGruy, Esq. -- tdegruy@bradley.com -- and -- T.
Matthew Miller, Esq. -- tmiller@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP


GENERAL CABLE: Sued Over Losses in Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille at BNA reports that General Cable Corp.'s
involvement in a foreign bribery scheme caused more legal woes on
March 15, when an investor in the company's retirement plan filed
a lawsuit over associated stock losses (Eley v. Gen. Cable Corp.,
E.D. Ky., No. 2:17-cv-00045-DLB-JGW, complaint filed 3/15/17).

The proposed class action claims that General Cable stock was
artificially inflated for more than 13 years because of an
undisclosed bribery scheme aimed at gaining business in violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In 2016, General Cable
agreed to pay more than USD75 million in penalties to resolve
investigations into the bribery scheme by the Department of
Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The new lawsuit seeks to hold General Cable and certain executives
liable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for drops
in the company's stock price that allegedly caused losses in
employees' retirement accounts. The company is also defending a
securities fraud class action based on similar allegations.

The ERISA lawsuit may face an uphill battle as the investors
attempt to satisfy the pleading standards established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

Since that 2014 decision, courts have frequently blocked investors
from using ERISA to challenge drops in company stock price. In the
past several years, courts have rejected such cases against Lehman
Brothers, JPMorgan Chase, Edison International, IBM and J.C.
Penney. A federal judge in Texas rejected a similar challenge
against three BP Plc executives, adding that no ERISA case has
satisfied this strict standard in the past year.

The lawsuit against General Cable -- which seeks class treatment
on behalf of as many as 4,480 participants in the company's
retirement plans -- was filed in a Kentucky federal court by Stull
Stull & Brody and Strauss Troy Co. LPA.

Another plaintiffs' law firm, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, announced on
March 8 that it was investigating potential ERISA violations
committed by General Cable, increasing the likelihood that the
company will face multiple ERISA lawsuits over the foreign bribery
scheme.

General Cable didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's
inquiry about the lawsuit.


GLOBAL BIZDIMENSIONS: TCPA Suit Not Precluded by Res Judicata
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in the case captioned, JOHN OLSEN, et al.,
Respondents, v. JAVED Q. SIDDIQI and GLOBAL BIZDIMENSIONS, L.L.C.,
Defendants, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant, Case No. ED103641 (Mo. App.).

In January 2008, John Olsen, individually and on behalf of the
other members of a certified class as assignees filed an original
class-action petition against Javed Q. Siddiqi, an individual
doing business as Quizno's Subs and managing member of Global
Bizdimensions, L.L.C., alleging Siddiqi sent unsolicited
advertising faxes to Plaintiffs in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction
prohibiting Siddiqi from engaging in further violations of the
TCPA and an award of $500.00 in damages for each violation of the
TCPA.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Siddiqi tendered defense of
the matter to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American
Family) pursuant to insurance policies issued to Global.

Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement for
$4,917,500.00 in damages, executable only against American Family.
The settlement agreement provided that, inter alia, Defendants
sent Plaintiffs a total of 9,835 unsolicited advertising faxes
between March 14, 2004 and March 6, 2007.

The trial court's grant of summary judgment awarded Plaintiffs a
total amount of $6,439,644.54 on their third garnishment action
against American Family, the general commercial liability insurer
for defendant Global.

American Family appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs arguing the trial court's October 2015 Judgment
granting summary judgment in favor Plaintiffs on their Third
Garnishment action was erroneous.  In its first point, American
Family asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
to Plaintiffs because they were not entitled to Rule 74.06(b)(5)
relief setting aside the trial court's August 2012 Judgment in
favor of American Family on Plaintiffs' Second Garnishment action.
In its second and third points, American Family contends,
respectively, that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment to Plaintiffs because the doctrines of collateral
estoppel and res judicata preclude Plaintiffs from obtaining
relief on their Third Garnishment action.

In his Order dated March 14, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/bQ3uCx from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals
concluded that under the circumstances of this case, the doctrine
of res judicata does not preclude Plaintiffs from obtaining relief
on their Third Garnishment action, and Plaintiffs have
demonstrated the doctrine fails as a matter of law.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company is represented by Robert
J. Wulff, Esq. -- rjwulff@evans-dixon.com -- Benjamin M. Fletcher,
Esq. -- bfletcher@evans-dixon.com -- EVANS & DIXON LLC

            -- and --

      Susan Ford Robertson, Esq.
      J. Zachary Bickel, Esq.
      ROBERTSON LAW GROUP LLC
      1903 Wyandotte St #200
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816)221-7010

John Olsen, et al. are represented by:

      Max G. Margulis, Esq.
      Alan S. Mandel, Esq.
      MANDEL & MANDEL LLP
      1108 Olive Street, Fifth Floor
      St. Louis, Missouri 63101
      Tel: (314)621-1701


GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects Settlement in Privacy Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Fuchs at Yahoo Finance reports Back in September 2015, Google
was hit with a lawsuit accusing it of secretly "intercepting,
reading, and analyzing" emails of non-Gmail users in order to
create targeted ads.

Google reached a settlement in the case this past December. That
deal hit a snag though: Judge Lucy Koh, who's known for handling
high-profile tech cases, rejected a preliminary motion to approve
the settlement -- forcing the litigation to drag on.

"Judges frequently grant preliminary approval of class action
settlements because judges usually favor settlements over
protracted litigation," Santa Clara Law Professor Eric Goldman
told Yahoo Finance. "However, judges are required to review a
class action settlement to ensure it's a good deal for class
members."

USD0 in cash damages for consumers

In this particular case, those class members would get exactly
USD0 in cash damages -- while the plaintiffs' attorneys would
pocket USD2.2 million. This is hardly unusual, and is at the heart
of an ongoing debate over the purpose of class actions that
generate little cash for consumers but millions in attorneys'
fees. According to Goldman, judges have increasingly wielded their
power to reject proposed settlements when those deals result in no
cash for the consumer.

"Increasingly, judges are more carefully scrutinizing settlement
deals in privacy class action lawsuits where the class gets no
money," Goldman said. "Judges are concerned that such settlements
may be a form of collusion between the defendants, who just want
to get a green light to continue their practices, and the class
action counsel, who are eager to get paid even if they don't
provide great remedies for the class."

Congress has also been scrutinizing class actions. U.S. Rep. Bob
Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of
2017, which would introduce a number of restrictions on class
actions including tying attorneys' fees to the amount of money
class members receive.

The bill has sparked a wave of criticism because it would
effectively curb the number of class actions in America.
Proponents of class actions argue that they are a way to force
consumer-facing corporations to comply with the law. Indeed, even
when consumers receive no cash, corporations often agree to change
their practices as part of class-action settlements.

In this particular case, the "class" (aka, non-Gmail users) would
have received an assurance that Google would not scan their
incoming email for the sole purpose of collecting advertising
data. But the deal kept the door open for Google to scan incoming
email for the "dual purpose" of detecting malware and getting
information that it would use at a later time for advertising.

Google may still be violating privacy laws: Judge

In rejecting the deal, Koh said it wasn't clear the settlement put
Google into compliance with the laws it was accused of violating,
the Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

"Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval provides no authority
as to whether or why the injunction's 'dual purpose' interception,
scanning, and analysis of in transit emails brings Google into
compliance with the Wiretap Act or CIPA," Koh noted.

For his part, Michael Sabol, an attorney for the plaintiffs with
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, said, "At this point, we will
press on with the litigation while still exploring opportunities
for resolution that are consistent with the court's directions."

He also pointed out that the plaintiffs only sought injunctive
relief in this case (i.e., getting Google to change its
practices). "The hopes of getting a class-wide recovery for
damages under these circumstances is very remote," Sabol said.

Still, Jay Edelson, a plaintiffs' lawyer dubbed "tech's least
friended man" by The New York Times, told Yahoo Finance he's
concerned that so-called injunctive-only class actions are being
overused.

"We believe that injunctive-only privacy settlements where
significant damages were originally being sought should be the
exception, rather than the norm," Edelson noted. "We remain
concerned that they are being over utilized, which will lead to
criticism that the settlements benefit the attorneys more than
their clients."

In the case of Google, Koh may end up satisfied if Google reins in
its behavior, in which case the plaintiffs' lawyers will
ultimately get their payday.

Google declined to comment on Koh's motion.


GUAM, USA: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in "Davis" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood granted the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment filed in the lawsuit entitled ARNOLD
DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
GUAM, GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, ALICE M. TAIJERON, MARTHA C. RUTH,
JOSEPH F. MESA, JOHNNY P. TAITANO, JOSHUA F. RENORIO, DONALD I.
WEAKLEY, and LEONARDO M. RAPADAS, Case No. 1:11-cv-00035 (D.
Guam).  All other pending motions in the case are moot.

The case is a civil rights action, which deals with the topic of
self-determination of the political status of the island and who
should have the right to vote on a referendum concerning such.
The Plaintiff claims that he is prohibited from registering to
vote on the referendum, which is a violation of the Voting Rights
Act, the Organic Act of Guam, and his Fifth, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendment rights.  In the complaint, he alleges
discrimination in the voting process by Guam and the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that under Guam law, a Political Status
Plebiscite is to be held concerning Guam's future relationship
with the United States.

The Plaintiff, a white, non-Chamorro, male and resident of Guam,
states that he applied to vote for the Plebiscite but was not
permitted to do so because he did not meet the definition of
"Native Inhabitant of Guam."  "Native Inhabitants of Guam" is
defined as "those persons who became U.S. Citizens by virtue of
the authority and enactment of the 1950 Guam Organic Act and
descendants of those persons."

The Court permanently enjoins the Government of Guam and its
officers, employees, agents, and political subdivisions from
enforcing the Political Status Plebiscite (1 Guam Code Ann.
Section 2110) that specifically limits the voters to "Native
Inhabitants of Guam" as defined in 3 Guam Code Ann. Section
21001(e), and any laws and regulations designed to enforce the
Plebiscite law, insofar as such enforcement would prevent or
hinder the Plaintiff and other qualified voters, who are not
Native Inhabitants of Guam from registering for and voting in the
Political Status Plebiscite.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiff.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zeuc46us

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Christian Adams, Esq.
          ELECTION LAW CENTER, PLLC
          300 N. Washington St., Suite 405
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 963-8611
          Facsimile: (703) 556-6540
          E-mail: ADAMS@Electionlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Mun Su Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PARK AND ASSOCIATES
          415 Chalan San Antonio Road
          Baltej Pavilion Blvd., #205
          Tamuning, GU 96913
          Telephone: (671) 647-1200
          Facsimile: (671) 647-1211
          E-mail: lawyerpark@hotmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Esq.
          Kenneth Orcutt, Esq.
          Julian Aguon, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          590 S. Marine Corps Drive, Suite 901
          Tamuning, GU 96913
          Telephone: (671) 475-2705
          Facsimile: (671) 477-4703
          E-mail: ebanderson@guamag.org
                  korcutt@guamag.org
                  julian@blueoceanlaw.com


HARVEY GULF: Faces "Lang" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
DROYCE LANG (11409 Malaga Sky Place, Temple Terrace, FL 33637) on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. HARVEY GULF INTERNATIONAL MARINE, LLC (c/o Statutory Agent
Robert A. Vosbein Jr., 701 Poydras Street, Ste. 3700, New Orleans,
LA 70139) Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01985 (E.D. La., March 8,
2017), arises out of Defendant's alleged practices and policies of
failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Harvey Gulf is a Louisiana limited liability company
that provides marine transportation, off-shore supply and multi-
purpose support vessels for deep water oil and gas operations.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Able-Bodied Seaman. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
     WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
     639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Phone: 504-308-1438
     Fax: 504-308-1446
     E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

        - and -

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


IMPACT HOME: Clark Moves for Certification of Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Clark asks the Court to conditionally certify the matter
titled DOROTHY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IMPACT HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-01413-UA-JLW (M.D.N.C.), as a collective action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to approve notice and
expedited consideration.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t7hitIzt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

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


IXIA: Faces "Krishna" Shareholder Suit Over Keysight Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUNANDA KRISHNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. IXIA, ERROL GINSBERG, BETHANY MAYER,
LAURENT ASSCHER, JONATHAN FRAM, GAIL HAMILTON, ILAN DASKAL,
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and KEYSIGHT ACQUISITIONS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01840 (S.D. Cal., March 8, 2017),
alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act by authorizing the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement in relation to the merger
between Ixia and Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight
Acquisitions, Inc.  The transaction is valued at approximately
$1.6 billion.

Specifically, the Preliminary Proxy allegedly omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(1) the background of the Proposed Acquisition; (2) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation exercises that
purportedly support the so-called "fairness opinions" provided by
the Company's financial advisor, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.;
and (3) Ixia's financial projections, relied upon by Deutsche
Bank.

Ixia provides application performance and security resilience
solutions to organizations in the United States and
internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (877) 534-2590
     Fax: (610) 667-9029
     E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


JOHN FRANCIS COYNE: NY Court Dismisses Sex Offender's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy of the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York granted motion
to dismiss to the extent they seek dismissal based upon lack of
subject matter jurisdiction in the case captioned, FRANKLIN D.
SCHAFER, Individually and as A Member of a Proposed Class,
Plaintiff, v. JOHN FRANCIS COYNE, ELIZABETH R. DONATELLO,
JACQUELINE FAITH COLLARD, DEBORAH STEVENSON, and JOHN AND JANE
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-00040-RJA-JJM (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff commenced the action in January 2012 pursuant to 42
U.S.C.Sections 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, alleging that his
"wrongful conviction was the result of misconduct by the
Defendants. He seeks class action certification under Rule 23 for
a class of "similarly aggrieved victims".  His six causes of
action center on the interviews of the minors that occurred during
the criminal investigation. Specifically, he alleges 1) that
defendant Donatello's "constitutionally deficient interviews of
the child accusers" subjected him to an unlawful arrest without
probable cause and an unreasonable search and seizure, in
violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count one), and violated
plaintiff's "right to procedural and substantive due process by
causing Plaintiff's deprivation of liberty and incarceration", in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (id., Count two);
2) that defendants Donatello, Coyne and Collard conspired to
violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1985(3) (Count three); that the medical defendants
were negligent and/or grossly negligent "by failing to determine
to what extent the accusations against Plaintiff emerged as the
result of improper questioning by Defendant Donatello on two
occasions prior to the medical exam" (Count four); and 4) that
defendant Stevenson violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1986, "by not
insisting that the constitutionally deficient interviews conducted
by Defendant Donatello be videotaped per CAC protocols".  Counts
five and six.

In lieu of answering the Complaint, defendants have moved to
dismiss the Complaint by arguing, inter alia, that the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims pursuant to
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and in the alternative that
plaintiff's claims lack merit or otherwise fail to state a cause
of action.

Before the court is the motion of defendants John Francis Coyne
and Jacqueline Collard to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. (Rules) 12(b)(6) and (b)(1), and the motion of
defendants Elizabeth Donatello and Deborah Stevenson to dismiss
the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and (b)(1), or in the
alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.

In his Decision and Order and Memorandum dated March 14, 2017,
available at https://is.gd/eNvY3K from Leagle.com, Judge McCarthy
concluded that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because there can be no dispute that
plaintiff was convicted and the applicability of the doctrine
turns on the third requirement, namely whether plaintiff's action
invites review and rejection of his conviction.

Franklin D. Schafer is represented by:

      Scott A. Stepien, Esq.
      Po Box 1421,
      Niagra Falls, NY 14302-1421
      Tel:(716)285-3526

John Francis Coyne and Jacqueline Faith Collard are represented
by:

      Kevin Vasquez Hutcheson, Esq.
      ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C.
      424 Main Street, Suite 1920
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Tel: (716)262-8417

Elizabeth R. Donatello and Deborah Stevenson are represented by
Elizabeth M. Bergen, Esq. -- ebergen@gmclaw.com -- GIBSON,
MCASKILL& CROSBY, LLP


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cashen" Securities Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cashen, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Xiaoming Hu,
Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu and Cheng Wang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01944 (S.D. N.Y., March 16, 2017), seeks compensatory damages
against the Defendants on behalf of a class of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi
securities between March 16, 2015 and March13, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the Class Period) for materially false and misleading
statements during the class period.

During the Class Period, Kandi securities were traded on an active
and efficient market. Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class, relying on the materially false and misleading statements,
which the Defendants made, issued or caused to be disseminated or
relying upon the integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Kandi securities at prices artificially
inflated by Defendants' wrongful conduct.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
produces, manufactures and distributes electric vehichles (EVs)
products, EV parts and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy A. Liberman, Esq.
   J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
   Hui M. Chang, Esq.
   Pomerantz, LLP
   600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 661-1100
   Fax: (212) 661-8665
   Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
          ahood@pomlaw.com
          hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

         - and -

   Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
   Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 697-6484
   Fax: (212) 697-7296
   Email: peretz@bgandg.com


KAUFFMAN TIRE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Billy Joe Johnson, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
Kauffman Tire, Inc., a foreign corporation authorized to do
business in Florida, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00414-CEM-TBS
(M.D. Fla., March 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
Johnson, and others similarly situated, for all hours worked over
40, which includes overtime during numerous applicable pay periods
by taking automatic 30 minute deductions from Johnson and others
similarly situated, without providing a policy advising drivers of
the deduction, how to accurately record actual time taken for
lunch, if any, or how to challenge deductions taken in a
reasonable and timely manner, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kauffman Tire Inc. -- http://www.kauffmantire.com/-- operates a
network of retail stores and wholesale distribution centers.
Plaintiff is a tire delivery driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENNY & LARRY'S: Allegedly Obtained Profit Through Unfair Trade
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline report that two consumers have filed a class action
lawsuit against a food manufacturer, alleging breach of implied
warranty, fraud, product liability and unjust enrichment.

Lori Cowen of Michigan and Rochelle Ibarrola of Illinois filed a
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Feb. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against Lenny & Larry's Inc., alleging the food
manufacturer obtained profit through unfair or deceptive trade or
commerce.

According to the complaint, Cowen and Ibarrola and other similarly
situated consumers were harmed financially from the defendant's
misleading and deceptive practice of falsely advertising the
nutritional value of its cookie products or grossly inflated the
actual protein content of the products.

The plaintiffs allege Lenny & Larry's issued false statement that
its product's nutrient content could help consumers maintain
healthy dietary practices, introduced a deceptive product in the
market that could harm consumers and caused consumers to pay
premium price for what they thought was a high-quality product.

Cowen and Ibarrola seek trial by jury, judgment against the
defendant, declare this case a class action, appoint the
plaintiffs as class representative and counsel, restitution,
disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, actual and
statutory damages, attorney fees, court costs and expenses, and
all further relief the court deems just. They are represented by
attorneys Edward A. Wallace -- eawk@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy
E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP in
Chicago; by Nick Suciu III -- nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- of Barbat,
Mansour & Suciu PLLC in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; and by Karin
R. Leavitt -- krl@wassermanlawgroup.com -- of Wasserman Law Group
in Tarzana, California.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 17-cv-01530


LG: Faces Suit Over GUSD and V10 BootLoop
------------------------------------------
David Kravets at Arstechnica reports that here's some good news
for Android fans who bought one of two bootloop-ridden LG
flagships: a handful of upset owners of the LG G4 and LG V10 have
lodged a proposed class-action lawsuit in a California federal
court. The owners claim that a repeating bootloop issue "renders
the phones inoperable and unfit for any use." That's legalese for
the phone being bricked.

Thousands of complaints about the G4 have been highlighted on
Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. There was even an online petition to
"launch a replacement program for defective LG G4s." Not to be
outdone, the V10 has been the subject of many online complaints as
well.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (PDF) filed Wednesday said
that LG replaced his G4 two times and that his third G4 constantly
freezes. The new phone, says the suit, is "manifesting signs of
the bootloop defect and is unmerchantable."

LG, the South Korean electronics and appliance firm, did not
immediately respond for comment.

A year ago, LG acknowledged the problem with the G4 and said it
was the result of "loose contact between components." The company
began offering replacement devices and fixes. The suit said that
even after the January 2016 announcement, "LG continued to
manufacture LG Phones with the bootloop defect."

What's more, the lawsuit claims:

Despite this admission, LG did not undertake a recall or offer an
adequate remedy to consumers who purchased the LG G4 phone. LG
instead replaced LG G4s that failed within the one-year warranty
period with phones that had the same defect. And LG refused to
provide any remedy to purchasers of LG G4s that failed outside the
warranty period because of the bootloop defect.
Regarding the V10, the suit says:

LG released the LG V10 phone in October 2015. The LG V10's
hardware closely resembles the LG G4 with only a few adjustments,
such as expanded storage and an additional camera. Within a few
months of its release, reports emerged that the V10 contained the
same bootloop defect as the G4. LG V10 phones unexpectedly crash
and then reboot interminably. Yet LG continues to sell and
distribute the V10.

The suit claims that both models' processors were inadequately
soldered to the motherboard, rendering them "unable to withstand
the heat." Initially, the phones begin to freeze, suffer
slowdowns, overheat, and reboot at random. Eventually, the suit
says, they fail "entirely."

"To the extent they have not been backed up, all photographs,
videos, contacts, and other data on the phone are permanently lost
when LG Phones fail due to the bootloop defect," the suit said.

The suit claims unjust enrichment, unfair trade, and various
breaches of warranty laws. It seeks "damages in an amount to be
determined at trial" in addition to legal fees and costs. Also,
the lawsuit demands that a federal judge order a "comprehensive
program to repair all LG phones containing the bootloop defect" in
addition to some undetermined amount of customer restitution.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Summary Judgment in Trash Disposal Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary
judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles in the appeals case
captioned, TERENCE SCHOSHINSKI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B269431
(Cal. App.).

In 2012, the City of Los Angeles settled Chakhalyan v. City of Los
Angeles (Chakhalyan), a class action lawsuit.  The suit alleged
the City had an unlawful practice of charging a trash disposal fee
to customers living in multi-unit dwellings who received no trash
disposal services from the City.  Cunningham v. City of Los
Angeles, another class action lawsuit asserting similar
allegations, was simultaneously pending.  The named plaintiff,
Brian Cunningham, did not opt out of the Chakhalyan class or
exclude himself from the settlement.  Following approval and
finalization of the settlement in Chakhalyan, the City
successfully moved for summary judgment of Cunningham's claims.
However, the trial court permitted Cunningham to amend the
complaint to add two additional named plaintiffs.

The two new plaintiffs, Terence Schoshinski and Thomas Ballatore
also alleged the City unlawfully charged them and others the trash
disposal fee. The City again moved for summary judgment, offering
evidence that in connection with an injunctive relief provision in
the Chakhalyan settlement, the City had already reimbursed the
plaintiffs for all improper charges. The City argued plaintiffs'
claims were now moot and they lacked standing to prosecute the
action. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in concluding
they could not continue representing the class defined in their
complaint. Plaintiffs assert their individual claims are not moot
because they did not receive all of the relief they demanded in
their complaint.

In an Order dated March 14, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/9iieL5 from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals held
that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the
ground that plaintiffs' claims are moot.

Terence Schoshinski, et al. are represented by Stanley D.
Saltzman, Esq. -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- and -- Stephen
P. O'Dell, Esq. -- sodell@marlinsaltzman.com -- MARLIN & SALTZMAN
-- Bassil A. Hamideh, Esq. -- bhamideh@hamidehfirm.com --
THEHAMIDEH FIRM

City of Los Angeles is represented by Michael N. Feuer, Esq. --
mike.n.feuer@lacity.org -- Thomas Peters, Esq. --
thom.peters@lacity.org -- and -- A. Patricia Ursea, Esq. --
patricia.ursea@lacity.org -- LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY


LYFT: Judge Approves US$27 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------
Deepanshu Khandelwal at Tech Portal reports that in what has
finally resulted into the end of a long-drawn, class-action
lawsuit against Lyft by its drivers, a US Judge gave final
approval on March 16 to a settlement worth USD27 Million, in
favour of the drivers. The same lawsuit had earlier seen a
USD12.25 Million settlement being rejected by the Judge, on terms
that it "short-changed" drivers.

The suit, despite forcing Lyft to pay millions to its driver
partners, might actually bring some relief to the company. The
lawsuit has been underway since 2013, and had kept Lyft on its
toes as the company's independent contractor status was under
serious threat. The settlement agreement keeps drivers as
independent contractors.

In what has finally resulted into the end of a long-drawn, class-
action lawsuit against Lyft by its drivers, a US Judge gave final
approval on March 16 to a settlement worth USD27 Million, in
favour of the drivers. The same lawsuit had earlier seen a
USD12.25 Million settlement being rejected by the Judge, on terms
that it "short-changed" drivers.

The suit, despite forcing Lyft to pay millions to its driver
partners, might actually bring some relief to the company. The
lawsuit has been underway since 2013, and had kept Lyft on its
toes as the company's independent contractor status was under
serious threat. The settlement agreement keeps drivers as
independent contractors.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan -- info@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan. Com, who represents the Lyft drivers, said on
Thursday she was "very pleased to be at the end of this process."

However, Judge Chhabria cautioned during the proceedings, saying,

To give you a brief background about the class-action lawsuit, the
suit was filed back in 2013, by a group of Lyft drivers, demanding
that they should be classified as employees and therefore be
entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gasoline and
vehicle maintenance. Drivers at both Uber and Lyft, pay those
costs by themselves.

With this settlement, drivers who had traversed longer miles on
the app platform, will receive thousands of dollars in settlement.
Most others will however, get a very nominal amount. Lyft, as of
now, has close to 700,000 drivers in the US.

Uber, the global leader in app-based cab aggregation domain is
also facing a similar, class-action lawsuit. To Uber's dismay
though, a recent USD100 Million settlement offer by the company
was rejected by a federal judge. Uber has close to 1.5 Million
drivers globally, and a group of 385,000 of them have been
clamouring for classification as employees, stating that they were
entitled to expenses.

US District Court Judge Edward Chen for the Northern District of
California, deemed the Uber settlement as both inadequate and
unreasonable.


MARS PETCARE: "Roberts" Suit Removed to E.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the class action lawsuit titled RANDY ROBERTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC., the Defendant, removed the
case from the Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Knoxville Division, under Case No. 3:17-cv-00043 (E.D.
Tenn.), pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased, Royal Canin USA, Inc.  He
"seeks to represent a statewide Class," defined as "all persons in
the State of Tennessee who purchased Prescription Pet Food
manufactured" by Mars Petcare US, Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages under the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act and restitution under the doctrine of unjust
enrichment. The Complaint states that "[t]otal sales of
Prescription Pet Food in Tennessee were in the millions of
dollars." Moreover, the Complaint alleges that more than $24
billion is spent each year on the "[m]anufacturing, producing,
marketing, advertising, distributing, and selling [of] pet food"
in the United States. Taken together, these allegations indicate
that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000.

Mars Petcare produces and distributes pet food. The company offers
pet care brands that includes Pedigree, Whiskas, Cesar, and The
Goodlife Recipe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Dale Grimes, Esq.
          Russell E. Stair, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (865) 521 6200
          Facsimile: (865) 521 6234
          E-mail: dgrimes@bassberry.com
                  rstair@bassberry.com

               - and -

          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434 5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434 5029
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          GORDON BALL PLLC
          550 Main Street, Ste. 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525 7028
          Facsimile: (865) 525 4679
          E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun, Ste. 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 238 3647
          Facsimile: (615) 293 7375
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

               - and -

          Lance K. Baker, Esq.
          THE BAKER LAW FIRM
          550 Main Street, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525 7028
          Facsimile: (865) 525 4679
          E-mail: lkbakerlaw@gmail.com


MINNESOTA: Ct. Reverses Refusal to Dismiss Education Clause Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order
refusing to dismiss for lack of justiciability without addressing
appellants' other assignments of error in the case captioned,
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor
children, et al., Respondents, v. State of Minnesota, et al.,
Appellants, Higher Ground Academy, et al., Intervenors, Case No.
A16-1265 (Minn. App.).

Respondents are the parents of children who are enrolled, or
expected to be enrolled, in the Minneapolis public schools,
Special School District No. 1, and the St. Paul public schools,
Independent School District 625.  Respondent One Family One
Community is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation located in
Minneapolis.

In November 2015, respondents sued appellants State of Minnesota,
Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Department of
Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius, and the Minnesota Senate
and Minnesota House of Representatives.  Respondents also named
Governor Mark Dayton, Senate President Sandra L. Pappas, and House
Speaker Kurt Daudt as defendants. Respondents claimed violations
of the Education, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses of the
Minnesota Constitution, asserting that the children had been
denied the fundamental right to receive an education. Respondents
also claimed a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
asserting that the children have been unlawfully discriminated
against "in education on the basis of race and status with regard
to public assistance."

Appellants moved to dismiss respondents' complaint under Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.02 on the grounds that "(1) the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) the Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3)
respondents failed to join a party pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P.
19." In the alternative, appellants asked the district court to
order respondents to provide a more definite statement under Minn.
R. Civ. P. 12.05.

The district court dismissed the complaint as to Governor Dayton,
Senate President Pappas, and Speaker Daudt, concluding that they
are entitled to legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate
Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court also
dismissed respondents' claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
concluding that respondents lacked standing. The district court
otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss and for a more
definite statement, noting, however, that "concerns regarding
justiciability may be warranted."

Appellants appealed, raising four issues: (1) whether the district
court erred by refusing to dismiss, on legislative-immunity
grounds, the claims against the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota
House of Representatives, (2) whether the district court erred by
refusing to dismiss the complaint as one that presents a
nonjusticiable political question, (3) whether the district court
erred by refusing to dismiss the complaint based on respondents'
failure to join all interested persons, and (4) whether the
district court erred by refusing to dismiss the claims against the
State of Minnesota because it is not a proper party defendant.
Appellants also petitioned for discretionary review of the
district court's refusal to dismiss respondents' claims on the
merits.

In a Memorandum and Order dated March 7, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/pnsyRK from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals found
that respondents' claims present a nonjusticiable political
question, thus the district court's refusal to dismiss the
respondents' claims on the merits is reversed.

Alejandro Guzman, et al. are represented by Daniel R. Shulman,
Esq. -- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com -- Joy Reopelle Anderson, Esq. -
- joy.anderson@gpmlaw.com -- Richard C. Landon, Esq. --
richard.landon@gpmlaw.com -- and -- Kathryn E. Hauff, Esq. --
kathryn.hauff@gpmlaw.com -- GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT,
P.A.

State of Minnesota, et al. are represented by:

      Lori Swanson, Esq.
      Karen D. Olson, Esq.
      Kathryn M. Woodruff, Esq.
      Kevin A. Finnerty, Esq.
      Andrew Tweeten, Esq.
      MINESSOTA CITY ATTORNEY
      City Hall, Room 210
      350 S. 5th St.
      Minneapolis, MN 55415
      Tel:(612) 673-2010


MODEL SERVICE: Fit Models' Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV, of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part Plaintiff's omnibus motion to compel discovery responses and
denied Defendants' cross-motion to compel the production of tax
returns by the plaintiff and other persons who opt-in to the
litigation in the case captioned, EVA AGERBRINK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MODEL
SERVICE LLC d/b/a MSA MODELS, SUSAN LEVINE, and WILLIAM IVERS,
Defendants, Case No. 14 Civ. 7841 (JPO) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Eva Agerbrink, the plaintiff, worked for the corporate defendant,
Model Service LLC as a "fit model" from March 2013 through June
2014.  While MSA classified her as an independent contractor, Ms.
Agerbrink contends that she should have been deemed an employee
and compensated accordingly.  She has brought this action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law (NYLL).  She also
alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched when MSA relied
on an unenforceable liquidated damages provision in her contract
to withhold monies owed to her.

The case has been conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) as a collective action on behalf of all fit models
who have worked for MSA at any time after September 2011, three
years before the action was filed. Ms. Agerbrink also intends to
seek certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of a class of all fit models who could assert NYLL
claims (the Fit Model Class), as well as all models employed by
MSA who were subject to withholding of compensation under the
challenged liquidated damages provision (the Unjust Enrichment
Class).

The Honorable J. Paul Oetken, U.S.D.J., has granted partial
summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her unjust
enrichment claim, finding that the liquidated damages provision in
the employment contract constituted an unenforceable penalty.

The plaintiff has made an omnibus motion to compel discovery
responses, while the defendants have cross-moved to compel the
production of tax returns by the plaintiff and other persons who
opt-in to the litigation.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 8, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Qkd5a1 from Leagle.com, Magistrate Francis directed
Defendants to (1) produce for all exclusive fit models, except
those with arbitration agreements, the same information they have
previously provided with respect to Ms. Agerbrink and the exemplar
models; for exclusive fit models who have arbitration agreements
with MSA, the defendants must produce those agreements; (2)
produce financial check reports and reports on "go-sees" for all
exclusive fit models except those with arbitration agreements; and
(3) permit plaintiff to inspect and copy, at her expense, the
contracts, vouchers, and schedule books.

As to Defendants' cross-motion, the Court found that defendants
simply have not demonstrated that the tax returns -- and only the
tax returns -- contain the potentially relevant information.

Eva Agerbrink, et al. are represented by Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. --
cd@duggerlawfirm.com -- THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC

Model Service LLC, et al. are represented by Evan J. Spelfogel,
Esq. -- espelfogel@ebglaw.com -- Matthew Savage Aibel, Esq. --
maibel@ebglaw.com -- and -- Ronald M. Green, Esq. --
rgreen@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.


MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Slow Snow Storm Response
--------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that lawyers on behalf of motorists left stranded
in their cars on a highway after March 14's snowstorm applied on
March 16 for a class action lawsuit against the Quebec government
and City of Montreal.

Plaintiffs are seeking USD2,000 for each of the 500 people they
estimate were caught in a traffic bottleneck after a truck crashed
on the city's Highway 13.

Many motorists had to spend the night in their vehicles as the
city was blanketed with about 40 centimetres of snow.

Plaintiffs say the provincial and city governments "failed in
their obligations" to manage the road block.

"The members of the group were imprisoned in their vehicles for 10
hours, in the cold, with limited -- or even non-existent --
information on rescue efforts," the suit alleges.

The plaintiffs are asking a Superior Court Justice to approve
their class action application.

The allegations contained in the lawsuit have not been proven in
court.


MOON HOUSE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO RAMIREZ, and GILMAR RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against MOON HOUSE
CHINESE RESTAURANT INC. (d/b/a MOON HOUSE RESTAURANT), YUK YAN
ZHANG, and LINDA ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01743
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage or overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked each week.

The suit seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations
of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as delivery workers. [BN]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


NEW YORK, USA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Sze" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary L. Sharpe entered a memorandum-decision and order in
the lawsuit entitled KWOK SZE, o/b/o himself and all others
similarly situated v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al., Case No. 9:13-cv-
00534-GLS-DEP (N.D.N.Y.):

   -- granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   -- dismissing the Plaintiff's first and second causes of
      action;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class;

   -- directing the parties to contact Magistrate Judge David E.
      Peebles to schedule further proceedings consistent with the
      Memorandum-Decision and Order; and

   -- directing the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of the
      Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.

Anthony Annucci is the Acting Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

Plaintiff Kwok Sze commenced the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against the Defendants alleging individual
constitutional torts as well claims on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated for a denial of access to courts and a
violation of the First Amendment.

At all relevant times, Mr. Sze was an inmate with the DOCCS where
he was housed at Clinton, Franklin, Greene, and Mid-State
Correctional Facilities.  He had at least five attorneys, who
represented him in civil and post-conviction criminal matters.

A copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fQ6zHkkA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank V. Raimond, Esq.
          OFFICE OF FRANK RAIMOND
          305 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10007-1188
          Telephone: (646) 801-8778
          E-mail: frank.raimond@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.
          Michael G. McCartin, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          The Capitol
          Albany, NY 12224-0341
          Telephone: (800) 771-7755
          E-mail: Eric.Schneiderman@ag.ny.gov
                  michael.mccartin@ag.ny.gov


NORTHWEST PAIN: Faces "Monaco" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA MONACO, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST PAIN
MANAGEMENT CENTER, LTD., LAURA A. CRANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
NICOLE GIACOPOLI, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01859
(N.D. Ill., March 8, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was required to
work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, without pay for those
hours over 40 at a rate of time and one-half her regular hourly
rate, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant, NORTHWEST PAIN MANAGEMENT CENTER, LTD. provides medical
services, chiropractic services, nutrition counseling, in addition
to several pain management services for customers.  Plaintiff,
ALEXANDRA MONACO, is a past employee who performed work for
Defendants in the front office performing general clerical office
and customer service duties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450


OAKHURST DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
NY Times reports that a class-action lawsuit about overtime pay
for truck drivers hinged entirely on a debate that has bitterly
divided friends, families and foes: The dreaded -- or totally
necessary -- Oxford comma, perhaps the most polarizing of
punctuation marks.

What ensued in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, and in a 29-page court decision handed down, was an
exercise in high-stakes grammar pedantry that could cost a dairy
company in Portland, Me., an estimated USD10 million.

In 2014, three truck drivers sued Oakhurst Dairy, seeking more
than four years' worth of overtime pay that they had been denied.
Maine law requires workers to be paid 1.5 times their normal rate
for each hour worked after 40 hours, but it carves out some
exemptions.

A quick punctuation lesson before we proceed: In a list of three
or more items -- like "beans, potatoes and rice" -- some people
would put a comma after potatoes, and some would leave it out. A
lot of people feel very, very strongly about it.


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Fleurisma" TCPA Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Shella Fleurisma, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80345-DMM
(S.D. Fla., March 16, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant used auto-dialed and pre-
recorded calls, as well as letters and bills pertaining to the
collection of debt.

Ocwen is a mortgage servicing company in America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
   Zebersky Payne, LLP
   110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: jshaw@zpllp.com
          mperez@zpllp.com


PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Gift Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement has been reached between the Plaintiff and the
remaining Defendants in the class action Cannon v. ParkLane
Financial Group Limited et al. regarding the ParkLane Funds for
Canada Gift Program, which operated from 2005 to 2009. The
settlement is a negotiated resolution of disputed claims.  The
remaining Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the class action.  The court has not made any
finding of liability against any of the remaining Defendants in
respect of any of the allegations in the class action.

The settlement requires court approval before it will be
effective.  The hearing for the approval of the settlement and for
approval of class counsel's legal fees has been scheduled for
April 24, 2017 at the Osgoode Hall Court House, 130 Queen Street
W., Toronto, Ontario.

If the settlement is approved, the remaining Defendants will pay
USD17,500,000 plus accrued interest of USD164,931.50 , and all
cross-claims, counterclaims and third party claims will be
dismissed, and all claims against the remaining Defendants will be
dismissed, bringing the class action to an end.

This is the second settlement in this class action.  In 2013,
several Defendants settled with the class, paying a little over
USD28 million.  The funds from that settlement were distributed to
the class in 2014.


REMINGTON ARMS: Dismal Claims Rates Prompt Settlement Scrutiny
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that after a federal
judge rejected a class action settlement with Remington Arms Co.
due to an "appalling" claims rate, lawyers in the case scrambled
to reach out to more gun owners.  They put together a targeted ad
campaign on Facebook and radio that was estimated to reach 74
percent of class members.

More than a year later, their efforts paid off: The total number
of claims jumped from 2,327 to 22,000.  And on March 14, U.S.
District Judge Ortrie Smith in Kansas City, Missouri, gave his
final approval of the deal.

But he still was disappointed in the claims rate.  After all, an
estimated 7.5 million class members had guns that might
inadvertently go off without pulling the trigger, risking death,
injuries or property damage.

"While not required by Rule 23, the court is concerned as to why
more claims have not been submitted," he wrote, citing the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure that governs class actions.  "To the
extent class members do not want to participate, the court cannot
force them to do so."

Dismal claims rates, which are the percentage of potential class
members who actually make claims to get compensated under a
settlement, have long been an accepted outcome in many class
actions.  Few judges or lawyers have addressed the issue in the
courtroom, and data on claims rates remains sparse.

But that might be changing.  In November, the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission subpoenaed eight claims administrators for information
on notice procedures and response rates of class action
settlements.  The FTC said the subpoenas are part of its Class
Action Fairness Project, which aims to improve class action
settlements for consumers while making sure lawyers and defendants
aren't benefiting at their expense.  This month, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a class action reform bill that, among many
other things, would require lawyers in a class action settlement
to turn over claims data to the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts and the Federal Judicial Center.  Even judges, like Smith,
are starting to ask more questions about why more class members
aren't participating.

"It's taken years for it to bubble up," said Ted Frank, who has
been pushing judges to look at claims rates since 2009, when he
founded the Center for Class Action Fairness, now part of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. "And as more and more and more
of those examples happen, people are going to recognize that this
is a standard that class action settlements should be held to."

Why Claims Rates Hasn't Been an Issue

Poor claims rates generally aren't a reason for class action
settlements to get rejected.  For one thing, claims rates aren't
among the myriad factors judges must consider in approving a
settlement.  In his order, Judge Smith cited nearly a dozen other
cases in which judges had approved settlements with similar, if
not worse, claims rates than the Remington case.

But some blame inherent conflicts of interest in class actions
that keep claims rates low.  In many cases, the attorney fees are
based on the potential, not actual, amount paid to class members,
and defendants don't want to pay more than they have to.  Also,
claims administrators bidding for the work have little incentive
to pitch expensive notice programs that might reach more class
members.

Such conflicts create "a problem which has prompted FTC action to
compel claims-rate transparency, and anti-consumer legislation in
Congress that would eviscerate class actions," Todd Hilsee, a
notice expert at The Hilsee Group in Philadelphia, wrote in a
statement following the ruling in the Remington case.  Mr. Hilsee
had filed an amicus brief opposing the settlement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has highlighted
many of these conflicts.  In a 2014 ruling in Redman v.
RadioShack, Judge Richard Posner cited a "built-in conflict of
interest in class action suits" that should make judges more
hesitant to approve settlements.  And in Pearson v. NBTY, Posner
criticized a "selfish deal" between class counsel and the
defendant that left class members out in the cold.

"I think Judge Posner's opinion in Pearson is very, very
persuasive," said Mr. Frank, who represented an objector in the
case.  "And I think judges who look at that opinion and think
about the incentives they're creating for parties creating class
actions settlements would agree you need to look at the claims
rate."

A few judges are doing just that.  In 2015, a federal judge in
Oakland, California, noted a claims rate of 0.58 percent when
rejecting final approval of a class action settlement involving
alleged brake defects in Nissan vehicles.  "Where 6.5 percent of
the payout goes to the class members and 80.2 percent goes to the
attorneys purporting to represent those class members, the tail is
clearly wagging the dog," wrote U.S. District Judge Phyllis
Hamilton, who ultimately granted final approval last year.

This year, another federal judge in Oakland rejected final
approval of a class action settlement involving PlayStation game
consoles after concluding that a claims rate of 11,300 out of
about 10 million "appears quite low."

"Counsel's failure to provide more than argument about the basis
for its estimate of the class size, and thus the claims rate,
leaves the court without any basis of confidence" about the
settlement, wrote U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in a
Jan. 31 order.

In the Remington case, the claims rate issue became particularly
acute because the legal dispute involved public safety.  The case
was featured in a CNBC report and an episode of "60 Minutes."  The
revised settlement drew objections from attorneys general of 10
states.

In his order, Judge Smith took pains to outline many of the
challenges in reaching out to class members: Remington didn't have
a customer list, and records from the National Rifle Association
of America or state hunting licenses provided unhelpful or
unavailable information.  He also said class members might not be
making claims because they aren't worried about the problem or
don't trust the government or attorneys enough to give up their
firearms.

In praising Judge Smith's order, lead plaintiffs' attorney W. Mark
Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston acknowledged the
shortcomings.

"I wish we had full compliance with the opportunity to fix the
triggers," he said in an email.  "But we don't.  And we won't. Yet
every one we get fixed potentially saves a life or limb."


REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Buchanan" Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Buchanan, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Republic Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00101 (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2017), seeks payment of wages
and overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Plaintiff Buchanan has been employed as a non-exempt waste
disposal driver at Republic's Corpus Christi, Texas waste disposal
facility since approximately 2014.

Republic provides waste collection and disposal services to its
customers throughout the State of Texas and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
   Clif Alexander, Esq.
   Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
   Anderson2X, PLLC
   819 N. Upper Broadway
   Corpus Christi, TX 78401
   Tel: (361) 452-1279
   Fax: (361) 452-1284
   Email: austin@a2xlaw.com
          clif@a2xlaw.com
          lauren@a2xlaw.com


RH: Faces "Errichiello" Securities Class Action in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Errichiello, Jr., Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RH, Gary G. Friedman and Karen
Boone, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01425 (N.D. Cal., March 16,
2017), seeks compensatory damages against the Defendants for
misrepresentations or failure to disclose material facts in RH's
financial reports during the class period.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of RH between March
26, 2015 and June 8, 2016, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) contrary to Defendants' representations that the Company was
prepared for the launch of RH Modern, that inventory was adequate
and that customers would not face shipping delays, in reality, the
Company had severely inadequate inventory and was woefully
unprepared to launch RH Modern; and (ii) as a result, RH's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

RH is a leading luxury retailer in the home furnishing
marketplace. The Company operates an integrated business with
multiple channels of distribution including over 70 retail stores
in the United States, source book magazine and websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
   Pomerantz LLP
   468 North Camden Drive
   Beverly Hills, CA 90210
   Tel: (818) 532-6499
   Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

   Jeremy A. Liberman, Esq.
   J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
   Pomerantz, LLP
   600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 661-1100
   Fax: (212) 661-8665
   Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
          ahood@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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


RHODE ISLAND: Court Narrows Suit Filed by Firefighters, Police
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Mary M. Lisi of the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed without prejudice
Counts I, II and III of the Complaint and dismissed with prejudice
Count IV in the case captioned, CRANSTON FIREFIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL
1363, AFL-CIO, on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS, LOCAL 301, AFL-CIO,
on its own behalf and on behalf of its members Plaintiffs, v. GINA
RAIMONDO, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode
Island, SETH MAGAZINER, in his capacity as the General Treasurer
of the State of Rhode Island, the EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
RHODE ISLAND, by and through Seth Magaziner, in his capacity as
Chairperson of the Retirement Board, and Frank J. Karpinski, in
his capacity as Executive Director of the Retirement Board, and
CITY OF CRANSTON, by and through its Finance Director, Robert F.
Strom, and its Treasurer, David Capuano, Defendants, Case No. 16-
130-ML (D.R.I.).

On March 16, 2016, Cranston Firefighters, IAFF Local 1363, AFL-
CIO, and International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 301-
CIO, filed a four-count complaint, alleging:

   * Count I -- that Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011
("RIRSA"), as amended by Rhode Island Public Laws Chapter 141,
Article 21, "Relating to Pensions" (the "2015 Amendments"),
"substantially impair Plaintiffs' contract rights" under the
Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution;

   * Count II -- that RIRSA and the 2015 Amendments deprive them
of their constitutionally protected property and liberty interests
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

   * Count III -- that RIRSA and the 2015 Amendment constitute a
regulatory taking of the Plaintiffs' property rights without just
compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In addition, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court
that RIRSA and the 2015 Amendments are unconstitutional, void, and
unenforceable as applied to Plaintiffs; and (Count IV) that the
2015 Settlement Agreement cannot prohibit or prevent "Retired
Cranston Public Safety Officers from joining active public safety
offers as Plaintiffs, or interested parties, in the action."

The plaintiff class was defined as "all persons (and/or their
beneficiaries who, on or before July 1, 2015, are receiving
benefits or are participating in the State Employees, Teachers or
Municipal Employees' retirement plans administered by ERSRI
Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and all future
employees, excepting only those individuals who on July 1, 2015
are participating in a municipal retirement system administered by
ERSRI for municipal police officers in any municipality and/or for
fire personnel of the City of Cranston." The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and notice was granted and a fairness
hearing was held over a five-day period in May 2015.

On June 7, 2016, the State filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The City filed its motion to dismiss the
Complaint on June 27, 2016, relying on the doctrine of abstention.
The City requested that the Court either dismiss the Complaint or
stay further proceedings until final adjudication of the ongoing
Rhode Island Superior Court litigation in Cranston Police Retirees
Action Committee v. City of Cranston, KC-13-1059 ("CPRAC").

In her Order and Memorandum dated March 7, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/x33t8q from Leagle.com, Judge Lisi dismissed without
prejudice Counts I, II and II of the Complaint because abstention
is warranted to await the Rhode Island Supreme Court's final word
in CPRAC to the extent the Plaintiffs rely on the CBAs and/or City
Ordinances to establish a constitutionally protected property
right.  The Court held that Plaintiffs rely on Rhode Island
pension statutes to create the contractual rights is misplaced.
Plaintiffs' lack of standing to challenge the provisions of a
final Settlement Agreement in state court, to which only the
retiree class members were parties, warrants the dismissal of
Count IV.

Cranston Firefighters, IAFF Local 1363, AFL-CIO and International
Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 301, AFL-CIO are represented
by Elizabeth A. Wiens, Esq. -- ewiens@rilaborlaw.com -- GURSKY,
WEINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD.

Governor Gina Raimondo and Seth Magaziner are represented by Kelly
A. McElroy, Esq. -- mcelroy@czrlaw.com -- R.I. DEPARTMENT OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island is represented by
John A. Tarantino, Esq. -- jtarantino@apslaw.com -- Joseph
Avanzato, Esq. -- javanzato@apslaw.com -- Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq.
-- nbenjamin@apslaw.com -- and -- Patricia K. Rocha, Esq. --
procha@apslaw.com -- ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.


RICHARD MCCORKLE: Inmate Allowed to Pursue Overcrowding Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana held that Defendants in the case
captioned, CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD McCORKLE,
individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Henry
County, BRUCE BAKER, KIM CRONK, ED YANOS, RICHARD BOUSLOG, ROBIN
RENO-FLEMING, STEVEN DUGGER, NATHAN LAMAR, CLAY MORGAN, MICHAEL
THALLS, HAROLD GRIFFIN, HENRY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and HENRY
COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03026-JMS-MPB (S.D.
Ind.), did not violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff Christopher Baker, an inmate at the Henry County Jail in
New Castle, Indiana, brings the putative class action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Jail is overcrowded and
presents unsanitary and unsafe conditions, which he contends
violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

Defendants, which include Henry County Sheriff Richard McCorkle,
several Henry County Commissioners and Council members, and the
Henry County Council, have asserted as an affirmative defense
their contention that Mr. Baker failed to comply with the
exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

In her Order dated March 14, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/yt6Wg8 from Leagle.com, Judge Magnuson-Stinson found
that the Defendants have met their burden of proof as to claims
relating to certain conditions at the Jail, but that Mr. Baker has
exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his overcrowding
allegations.

The Court finds that:

   * The Jail's grievance procedure was sufficiently clear so that
inmates were required to file initial grievances in order to
exhaust their administrative remedies;

   * The Jail's appeals process was vague and unknown to inmates,
so inmates were not required to appeal initial grievance decisions
in order to exhaust their administrative remedies;

   * The issue of overcrowding was beyond the control of Jail
officials so, according to the grievance procedure set forth in
the Inmate Handbook, Mr. Baker was not required to file a
grievance related to overcrowding in order to exhaust his
administrative remedies;

   * Mr. Baker was required to file grievances to complain about
Jail conditions unrelated to overcrowding -- including issues he
raised in the Complaint relating to mold, not being permitted to
use the recreation area, and being forced to sleep naked in a
padded cell shared with another naked inmate -- and did not do so;
and

   * Mr. Baker may proceed with this litigation on the issues of
overcrowding in his cell block and increased fighting caused by
overcrowding.

Christopher Baker is represented by:

      Julie A. Newhouse, Esq.
      Tracy J. Newhouse, Esq.
      NEWHOUSE AND NEWHOUSE
      301 North Main St.
      Rushville, IN 46173
      Tel: (765)932-2327

            -- and --

      Michael K. Sutherlin, Esq.
      MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC
      1027 N Alabama St,
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Tel: (317)634-6313

Richard Mccorkle, et al. are represented by:

      James S. Stephenson, Esq.
      Ronald J. Semler, Esq.
      STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
      3077 E 98th St # 240,
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Tel: (317)844-3830


RST GLOBAL: Faces "Porter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemmis Porter, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself individually and
all others similarly situated v. RST Global Solutions Gulf of
Mexico LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00836 (S.D. Tex., March
16, 2017), seeks payment of overtime pay at one and one-half times
his regular rate pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an Instructor and Trainer
at RST Global Solutions Gulf of Mexico LLC.

RST Global Solutions Gulf of Mexico LLC is engaged in the Gasoline
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
   The Foley Law Firm
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


SAN JOSE, CA: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Trump Rally Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part the City
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned, JUAN HERNANDEZ,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 16-CV-03957-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez, Frank Velasquez,
Rachel Casey, Mark Doering, Mary Doering, Barbara Arigoni, Dustin
Haines-Scrodin, Andrew Zambetti, Christina Wong, Craig Parsons,
the minor I.P., Greg Hyver, Todd Broome, Donovan Rost, Michele
Wilson, Cole Cassady, Theodore Jones, Martin Mercado, and
Christopher Holland bring the putative class action against
Defendants the City of San Jose; San Jose Police Chief Edgardo
Garcia; Police Officers Loyd Kinsworthy, Lisa Gannon, Kevin
Abruzzini, Paul Messier, Paul Spagnoli, Johnson Fong, and Jason
Ta; Anthony Yi; the minor H.A.; the minor S.M.; Victor Gasca;
Daniel Arciga; Rafael Medina; Anthony McBride; and Does 1-55.

Plaintiffs are individuals who attended a rally for then
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump on June 2, 2016 at the
McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, California. According to
the complaint, Garcia, Kinsworthy, and other unspecified actors
devised the crowd-control plan for the Trump Rally and were
deliberately indifferent to whether the plan caused harm to
Plaintiffs.

The instant action began with a complaint filed on July 14, 2016.
In the complaint, fourteen Plaintiffs asserted twenty-eight claims
for relief against six named defendants. The original complaint
named the City of San Jose, Mayor Sam Liccardo, and Garcia as City
Defendants.  The remaining police officers were not yet named in
the original complaint, but instead were listed as Doe Defendants.
Plaintiffs' complaint also sought to represent a class consisting
of "all persons who attended the June 2, 2016 Trump Rally at the
McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, California, and exited the
rally from the east-northeast exit."

The City Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original
complaint on August 4, 2016.  The motion sought to dismiss all
four claims against the City Defendants, which were as follows:
(1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Liccardo, Garcia,
and the City for violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments (Count 1); (2) a claim for violation of
the Bane Act, CAL. CIV. CODE Section 52.1, against Liccardo,
Garcia, and the City (Count 2); (3) a claim for violation of the
Ralph Act, CAL. CIV. CODE Section 51.7, against Liccardo, Garcia,
and the City (Count 3); and (4) a California common law negligence
claim against the City as employer of Does 1-15 (Count 4).

On October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. After the Court granted the motion to
dismiss in part, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The FAC
asserts four claims against the City Defendants: (1) a claim under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Garcia, the named Police Officers,
and Does 1-15 for violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment (Count 1); (2) a claim against the City under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment the City (Count 2); a claim for violation of
the Bane Act, CAL. CIV. CODE Section 52.1, against Garcia, the
City, the named Police Officers, and Does 1-15 (Count 3); and (4)
a California common law negligence claim against the City (Count
4).

In the FAC, Plaintiffs also seek to represent the following class:
"All persons who attended the June 2, 2016 Trump Rally at the
McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, California, and who exited
the rally from the east-northeast exit, were denied the ability to
leave through alternative exits by the City Defendants, or agents
under the City Defendants' control, and/or were directed toward
the anti-Trump protest by the City Defendants, or agents under the
City Defendants' control, and/or were refused assistance by the
City Defendants, or agents under the City Defendants' control
after being directed towards the dangerous protest."

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 1983
claim against Garcia, the named Police Officers, and Does 1-15 on
two grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the individual City
Defendants have qualified immunity.

In her Order dated March 14, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/6iHzWt from Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted the motion
to dismiss concluding that Plaintiffs have not stated Section 1983
claim against the City to the extent that the claim is based on
the adoption of a policy in City documents prior to the Trump
Rally, on the adoption of a policy by Garcia prior to the Trump
Rally, or on the City's failure to train. The Court denied the
motion to dismiss to the extent that the claim is based on
Garcia's alleged ratification of the police officers' actions
after the Trump Rally and Plaintiffs' Se 1983 claims on the basis
of qualified immunity.

Nathan Velasquez, et al. are represented by Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Esq. -- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Krista L. Baughman, Esq. --
kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com -- and -- Gregory Richard Michael, Esq. -
- GMichael@dhillonlaw.com -- DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.

City of San Jose, et al. are represented by Ardell Johnson, Esq. -
- Ardell.Johnson@sanjoseca.gov -- and -- Matthew W. Pritchard,
Esq. -- Matthew.Pritchard@sanjoseca.gov -- SAN JOSE CITY OFFICE OF
THE CITY ATTORNEY


SPOKEO INC: "Vinci" Lawsuit Sent from Circ. Court to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A request for removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
was filed in the case captioned NICOLE VINCI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SPOKEO,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, under case no. 1:17-cv-
01519, according to a docket entry dated February 27, 2017.

Spokeo Inc. operates as a people search engine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: (312) 589-6370
     E-mail: brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
     EDELSON P.C.
     350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: (312) 239-3362
     E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Christopher Steven Comstock, Esq.
     MAYER BROWN LLP
     71 S. Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 464-8386
     E-mail: ccomstock@mayerbrown.com

        - and -

     Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
     MAYER BROWN LLP
     1221 Avenue of The Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 506-2647
     E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com


STONEGATE MORTGAGE: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Home Point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STONEGATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, RICHARD A.
KRAEMER, KEVIN BHATT, JAMES BROWN, SAM LEVINSON, RICHARD A. MIRRO,
SCOTT MUMPHREY, HOME POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and LONGHORN
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00711-JMS-DML (S.D.
Ind., March 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by issuing a Proxy Statement in
relation to the acquisition of Stonegate Mortgage Corporation by
Home Point Financial Corporation and Longhorn Merger Sub, Inc.
that omits material information.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Stonegate will receive $8.00 in cash for each share of Stonegate
common stock.

According tot the complaint, the Proxy Statement (i) omits
material information regarding Stonegate's financial projections
and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Barclays Capital, Inc., in support of its so-called
fairness opinion, (ii) omits material information regarding FBR
Capital Markets & Co., Stonegate's second financial advisor in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, (iii) fails to disclose
whether any non-disclosure agreement executed by Stonegate
contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions
that prevented (or are preventing) parties from submitting topping
bids to acquire the Company, or from requesting a waiver a
standstill provision, and (iv) the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's officers and directors.

STONEGATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION is a specialty finance company that
operates as an intermediary between residential mortgage borrowers
and the ultimate investors of these mortgages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Truck Drivers Win Partial OK of TRO Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in the case captioned, John Doe 1, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:10-cv-00899 JWS (D. Ariz.).

The five named plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction regarding a
new independent contractor operating agreement (ICOA) that
Defendant Swift Transportation Co., Inc., is currently requiring
current contract drivers, whom Plaintiffs refer to as lease
operators, to sign before March 1, 2017. The operative complaint
includes class action claims.

On January 5, 2017, the court ruled that Plaintiffs had contracts
of employment, which effectively denied Defendants' request to
compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in those contracts. A
few days after the court issued the order effectively denying
arbitration, Swift informed its current contract drivers operating
trucks under a lease agreement (Lease Operators) via its on-board
satellite communications system, Qualcomm, that they must sign a
new ICOA by March 1, 2017, or be terminated.

Plaintiffs argue that these provisions "are having a profound
chilling effect on the Lease Operators who are being required by
Swift to sign the ICOA " because they could reasonably be read to
limit damages and to make the Lease Operator liable for Swift's
attorneys' fees if Plaintiffs ultimately fail to prevail on their
claims in the case. Plaintiffs ask that the court take the
following actions: (1) enjoin the application of paragraphs 16 and
17E of the new ICOA; (2) require Defendants to inform all lease
operators, including those who have already signed the Agreement,
that paragraphs 16 and 17E are not operative; (3) enjoin
Defendants and their counsel from engaging in any further contacts
with current opt-ins and putative class members regarding the
matters raised in the suit.

Defendants argue that there is no class action to manage given the
class has not yet been certified and that the five named
Plaintiffs do not otherwise have standing to challenge the new
ICOA because they are no longer employed by Swift.

In his Order and Opinion dated February 24, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/KNXOjs from Leagle.com, Judge Sedwick denied
Plaintiffs' request to enjoin Defendants from engaging in future
contact with putative class members regarding matters in the suit
as unnecessarily restrictive.

Defendants are directed to send via Qualcomm the notice attached
as Exhibit A to this order to those drivers who have been
instructed to sign Swift's new ICOA. The Qualcomm message with the
notice shall be sent on three consecutive days, starting February
27, 2017.

Joseph Sheer, et al. are represented by Dan Charles Getman, Esq. -
- dgetman@getmansweeney.com -- GETMAN SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC

            -- and --

      Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
      Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
      Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
             1850 N Central Ave # 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Tel: (602)240-6900

Swift Transportation Company Incorporated is represented by Anna
M. Stancu, Esq. -- astancu@sheppardmullin.com -- Ellen M.
Bronchetti, Esq. -- ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- Kevin M.
Cloutier, Esq. -- kcloutier@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul S. Cowie,
Esq. -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig, Esq. --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- and -- Ronald J. Holland, Esq. --
rholland@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
LLC


TOP SURGEONS: Cal. App. Says No Reason to Arbitrate "Faitro"
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals case
captioned, JOHN FAITRO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOP SURGEONS,
INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B241353 (Cal.
App.).

In 2011, plaintiff John Faitro on behalf of himself and a putative
class sued Dr. Michael Omidi, Julian Omidi, Cindy Omidi and their
affiliated lap band surgery centers under the Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL) and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, alleging violations of California's false
advertising and unfair competition laws in relation to defendants'
advertising campaign for lap band weight loss surgery.

On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
alleging that they were all consumers who had called the
defendants' 1-800-GET-THIN phone number, attended purportedly
"free" seminars, and contracted with defendants' companies for lap
band surgery. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and restitution
for the alleged violations of the UCL, FAL and CLRA. Plaintiffs
asserted that they "do not seek damages for wrongful death or
personal injuries for themselves, their decedents, or represented
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, however, reserve their individual rights
to seek damages in a separate action for wrongful death, medical
malpractice, and/or survival actions."

On January 20, 2012, defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint
and a petition to compel arbitration. Defendants contended in
their petition that the claims were subject to arbitration
agreements signed by plaintiffs before their surgery was
performed. On May 10, 2012, the trial court denied the petition to
compel arbitration. The court found that the complaint's claims
for alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA were not subject
to the arbitration agreement because they were not claims for
medical malpractice and did not "arise out of or relate to
treatment or service provided by the physician."

The Defendants appeal from the trial court's May 10, 2012 order
denying their petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs contend
the appeal is moot because the parties executed a written
settlement agreement after the denial of the petition.

In an Order dated March 14, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/C377Uw from Leagle.com, California Court of Appeals
held that there is no reason to compel the parties to arbitrate
the case because the settlement disposed of all the disputes and
claims at issue in the action.

Top Surgeons, Inc., et al. are represented by Dmitriy Aristov,
Esq. -- dima@aristovlaw.com -- ARISTOV LAW -- Mark Jubelt, Esq. --
mjubelt@msn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF MARK JUBELT

John Faitro, et al. are represented by John M. Walker, Esq. --
fugue@well.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. WALKER -- Alexander
Robertson, IV, Esq. -- arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com -- ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES


TOURNAMENT PLAYERS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Food Servers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' cause of action under
section 50-2-107 for failure to state a claim in the case
captioned, KIM HARDY, v. TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB AT SOUTHWIND,
INC., D/B/A "TPC SOUTHWIND," ET AL, Case No. W2014-02286-SC-R11-CV
(Tenn.).

Defendant Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., hired
plaintiff Kim Hardy as a food server/bartender on November 14,
2004. She eventually became a Service Captain/Lead Server. TPC
Southwind is a private club with dining and banquet facilities.

On March 18, 2014, Ms. Hardy filed the lawsuit against Defendants
TPC Southwind, PGA Tour, Inc., and PGA Tour Golf Course
Properties, Inc.  Ms. Hardy filed it as a putative class action on
behalf of past and present employees of the Defendants whose
employment income was derived from gratuities, tips, or service
charges. Ms. Hardy alleged that the Defendants' failure to pay her
and other similarly situated employees all of the tips,
gratuities, and/or service charges they earned, and the practice
of paying a portion of them to non-tipped employees, violated the
Tennessee Tip Statute. Ms. Hardy also asserted breach of contract,
conversion, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in procuring
employment in violation of the Tip Statute, aiding and abetting,
and civil conspiracy. Ms. Hardy sought class-action certification
and compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of Ms. Hardy and
other similarly situated persons.

In April 2014, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. Among other things, the Defendants
argued that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-2-101, another
statute in the so-called "Tennessee Wage Regulation Act," does not
afford a private remedy. The trial court granted the defendant
employers' motion to dismiss the plaintiff employee's claim
pursuant to section 50-2-107 for failure to state a claim, on the
ground that there was no private right of action under the
statute.

In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, based in part
on a 1998 Court of Appeals decision recognizing a private cause of
action under the Tip Statute.  On appeal, the club argued inter
alia that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims under the Tip Statute.

In the Opinion dated March 8, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/lbJp6L from Leagle.com, the Tennessee Supreme Court
found that the Court of Appeals' reasoning in Owens v. University
Club of Memphis is inconsistent in part with the analysis in this
Court's subsequent decisions in Brown and Premium Finance.  For
this reason, the Tennessee Supreme Court decline to apply the
doctrine of legislative inaction to presume that the legislature
knew of the Court of Appeals' holding in Owens, recognizing a
private right of action under the Tip Statute, and acquiesced in
it.  The Tennessee Supreme Court, held instead that Ms. Hardy has
no private right of action under section 50-2-107 and overrule
Owens to the extent that it is inconsistent with our holding
herein.

Accordingly, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the judgment of
the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' cause of action
under section 50-2-107 for failure to state a claim.  The
Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.  Costs of the
appeal are assessed to the Plaintiff Kim Hardy and her surety, for
which execution may issue, if necessary.

Kim Hardy is represented by Todd P. Photopulos, Esq. --
todd.photopulos@butlersnow.com -- and -- Diana M. Comes, Esq. --
diana.comes@butlersnow.com -- ATTORNEY AT BUTLER SNOW LAW FIRM

Tournament Players Club is represented by Bruce S. Kramer, Esq. --
bkramer@appersoncrump.com -- Amy E. Strickland, Esq. --
astrickland@appersoncrump.com -- and -- Patrick H. Morris, Esq. --
pmorris@appersoncrump.com -- APPERSON CRUMP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Price" Suit Alleging Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINTON PRICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RASIER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00706-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 8,
2017), seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of current and
former Uber Drivers arising from Uber's misclassification of Uber
Drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uber Technologies, Inc. provides a smartphone application that
connects drivers with people who need a ride. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vess A. Miller, Esq.
     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     Vess A. Miller, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481
     Fax: (317) 636-2593
     E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
             vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

        - and -

     Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
     Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     E-mail: PMaslo@NapoliLaw.com
             ADressel@NapoliLaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to
compel the Plaintiffs in the cases captioned, MANZOOR MUMIN and
VICTOR MALLH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants; JOSE ORTEGA and JOCE MARTINEZ, on
their own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER, LLC, UBER USA LLC,
UBER NEW YORK LLC, UBER TRANSPORTATION LLC, and JOHN DOE "UBER
AFFILIATES," Defendants, Case Nos. 15-CV-6143 (NGG) (JO), 15-CV-
7387 (NGG) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.), to arbitrate their claims and granted
in part motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' operative complaints.

Plaintiffs in these two related putative class actions assert
claims under New York Labor Law and other New York statutory and
common law against Uber Technologies, Inc., and a number of
related or affiliated entities.  In the first action, Plaintiffs
Manzoor Mumin and Victor Mallh bring their action against
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and John Does 1-
10. In the second action, Plaintiffs Jose Ortega and Joce Martinez
have filed suit against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Rasier, LLC, Uber USA LLC, Uber Transportation LLC, and John Doe
Uber Affiliates.

Plaintiffs allege that Uber misclassifies its drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees. The operative
complaint in the action is the Third Amended Class Action
Complaint, filed on March 18, 2016. The Mumin Plaintiffs assert
the following claims, all under New York law: (1) violations under
the New York Labor Law, including (a) unlawfully retaining
gratuities, (b) failure to keep required payroll records, and (c)
failure to pay minimum wages; (2) tortious interference with a
contract and business relations; (3) breach of contract; (4)
unjust enrichment; (5) conversion; (6) fraud and
misrepresentation; and (7) promissory estoppel.

Plaintiffs allege that in order to avoid New York Labor Law
requirements, such as minimum wage, overtime pay, and expense
reimbursement. They assert that Uber "exercised control over their
wages, their hours, and their working conditions," and "regulated
every aspect of Uber Drivers' job performance." They also incurred
weekly expenses such as fuel, insurance, finance payments for
their vehicles, as well as cleaning, tolls, and car maintenance
costs, while driving for Uber. Uber did not reimburse Plaintiffs
for their expenses.

Each of the Uber agreements Plaintiffs Mallh and Martinez agreed
to contained a substantially similar arbitration clause. Both
Plaintiffs did not opt out of the arbitration provision of either
the April 2015 Agreement or the December 2015 Agreement.

Before the court are Uber's motions to (1) compel arbitration as
to Plaintiff Victor Mallh in the Mumin Action and Plaintiff Joce
Martinez in the Ortega Action; and (2) dismiss the operative
complaints in both actions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 7, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/BYbEqR from Leagle.com, Judge Garaufis found that
the Arbitration Provision provides clear and unmistakable evidence
that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability
to an arbitrator, and further found that the Provision is not
unconscionable. The court also holds that the Class Action Waiver
is valid and enforceable.

As to motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Mumin's
claims for violation of New York Labor Law Section 195, tortious
interference with business relations, breach of contract,
conversion, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and fraud and
intentional misrepresentation and denied as to Plaintiff Mumin's
claims for violations of New York Labor Law Sections 196-d and
652. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jose Ortega's claims
granted as to claims for violations of New York Labor Law Sections
191 and 652, violations of N.Y., tortious interference with
business relations, breach of contract, and conversion and denied
as to claims for violations of New York Labor Law Sections 195 and
196-d and false advertising.

Manzoor Mumin and Victor Mallh are represented by Brittany Sloane
Weiner, Esq. -- brittany@lawicm.com -- and -- Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
-- lahiff@lawicm.com -- IMBESI LAW P.C.

            -- and --

      Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
      Paul Brian Maslo, Esq.
      Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
      Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      360 Lexington Ave., 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel:(844)230-7676

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier LLC are represented by Andrew
M. Spurchise, Esq. -- aspurchise@littler.com -- David M. Wirtz,
Esq. -- dwirtz@littler.com -- and -- Kevin Robert Vozzo, Esq. --
kvozzo@litter.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


UGI STORAGE: Pa. Ct. Vacates Orders in Meeker Storage Field Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated orders of the Court of
Common Pleas of Tioga County sustaining UGI Storage Company's
preliminary objections and dismissed John Albrecht, et al.'s
Petitions for the Appointment of a Board of Viewers in the cases
captioned, Carl Hughes, Ellen Hughes, Bruce Hughes, and Margaret
Hughes, Appellants, v. UGI Storage Company; John Albrecht,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellant, v. UGI Storage Company, Case Nos. 629 C.D. 2016, 630
C.D. 2016 (Pa. Comm. Ct.).

UGI Storage Company filed an application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission in 2009 seeking to operate underground
natural gas storage facilities, including a gas storage field (the
Meeker Storage Field). UGI further sought to delineate a 2,980
acre protective buffer zone (Meeker Buffer Zone) around the Meeker
Storage Field. On October 10, 2010, FERC granted UGI's application
to operate the Meeker Storage Field and certified portions of the
Meeker Buffer Zone for those areas to which UGI had property
rights.

On November 5, 2015, John Albrecht, on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly-situated individuals, filed a Class Action
Petition with the trial court for the appointment of a Board of
Viewers pursuant to Section 502 of the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain
Code (Code). On November 13, 2015, Carl F. Hughes, Ellen B.
Hughes, h/w, and Bruce D. Hughes and Margaret K. Hughes, h/w,
filed an Amended Petition for the appointment of a Board of
Viewers pursuant to the Code. All parties alleged that UGI
effected a de facto taking of certain subsurface mineral rights
within a buffer zone surrounding UGI's Meeker Storage Field -- a
buffer zone for which UGI sought certification and that was
partially certified by FERC.

After UGI failed to timely file preliminary objections to either
Petition, the trial court entered Orders for both matters on
January 6, 2016, affirmatively finding that UGI effected a de
facto taking of the oil, gas, and mineral rights at issue, and
appointing a Board of Viewers. UGI thereafter filed preliminary
objections for both matters on January 14, 2016, asserting that
the Petitions should be dismissed on grounds that UGI does not
have the power of eminent domain and Appellants did not establish
a de facto taking occurred.

On April 4, 2016 the trial court sustained UGI's preliminary
objections, dismissed both the Class Action Petition and Amended
Petition for the Appointment of a Board of Viewers and vacated the
January 6, 2016 Orders appointing a Board of Viewers.

On appeal, Appellants ask the court to review three issues: (1)
whether the trial court erred in finding that UGI does not have
the power of eminent domain with respect to Appellants' property
situated within the protective buffer zone surrounding UGI's
Meeker Storage Field; (2) whether the trial court erred in
concluding that, for those properties in the protective buffer
zone for which UGI sought certification from FERC, UGI's actions
did not constitute a de facto taking; and, (3) whether the trial
court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the Affidavits
that were submitted as attachments to Appellants' Supplemental
Memoranda of Law in Further Opposition to UGI's Preliminary
Objections.

In an Opinion dated March 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/HB81tq from Leagle.com, the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court concluded that Section 3241 was
unconstitutional as it violates the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Carl Hughes, Ellen Hughes, Bruce Hughes, and Margaret Hughes are
represented by Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. -- Nick@chimicles.com -
- Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- and --
Andrew William Ferich, Esq. -- AWF@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES&TIKELLIS, L.L.P.

UGI Storage Company is represented by Stanley Yorsz, Esq. --
stanley.yorsz@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC

      Pace Reich, Esq.
      PACE REICH, P.C.
      726 Meetinghouse Road
      Elkins Park, PA 19027
      Tel: (215)887-0130


UPMC: Lawyer Tries to Sabotage Contractual Relationship
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling at Triblive reports that a Pittsburgh lawyer is
interfering with the contractual relationship between UPMC and
some of its patients, the medical giant claims in a lawsuit filed
on March in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.

Attorney Michael O'Day -- michael.oday@dlapiper.com -- of DLA
Piper reports -- is using a former patient to recruit other
patients for a proposed class-action lawsuit against UPMC
Presbyterian-Shadyside, UPMC Community Medicine Inc. and Dr.
Ghassan Bejjani, a neurosurgeon, the lawsuit says.

A UPMC spokeswoman declined to comment.

The proposed class-action lawsuit involves patients Bejjani
treated for Chiari malformation, a structural defect that
displaces part of the brain through an opening at the base of the
skull and into the spinal canal.

The hospital is seeking a court order that would stop O'Day from
contacting patients and is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages.

O'Day said he is one of a group of lawyers working on the proposed
class-action lawsuit, which hasn't been filed yet. UPMC's claims
are meritless, he said.

"This is an attempt to intimidate me and, more disturbingly, my
clients from their right to seek counsel and file a lawsuit," he
said.

He declined further comment because of the pending lawsuit.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Falsely Labeled Sunscreen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two California
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical
companies, alleging design defect, liability, negligence and
product liability.

Christina Labajo and Mary Yoon filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated March 3 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC, alleging they falsely labeled
their products as made with naturally sourced sunscreen
ingredients.

According to the complaint, Labajo and Yoon sustained monetary
damages from being misled into buying baby sunscreen with
dangerous synthetic ingredients. The plaintiffs allege the
defendants deceives consumers into believing that their sunscreen
products are made of natural sunscreen ingredients despite having
none and, instead, containing a long list of synthetic
ingredients.

Labajo and Yoon seek trial by jury, compensatory, treble, punitive
damages, enjoining the defendant, interest, restitution and all
other relief and court costs. They are represented by attorneys L.
Timothy Fisher, Joel D. Smith and Yeremey Krivoshey of Bursor &
Fisher PA in Walnut Creek, California, and by Scott Bursor of
Bursor & Fisher in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:17-cv-00412-AB-DTB


VIRGINIA MEADOWS: W. Va. Court Dismisses Limited Funds Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied
Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint and motion for cost of
service in the case captioned, DANNY and SARAH CAMPBELL, JOSHUA
and MELISSA POWELL, RICHARD and TANA TOLLEY, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA MEADOWS, LLC,
CORNERSTONE CUSTOMS, INC., OLD COLONY COMPANY, d.b.a. Old Colony,
Realtors, a.k.a. Old Colony, MERCYBUILT, LLC, JORDAN GARNES,
a.k.a. Drew Barnes, BRAD GARNES, RICHARD GARNES, LINDA GARNES,
WOODLAND DESIGNS, INC., RICHLIN INVESTMENTS, LLC, JIMMY CALHOUN,
d.b.a. Calhoun Engineering and Surveying, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-8696 (S.D.W.Va.).

Plaintiffs' brought the putative limited funds class action suit
against Defendants alleging that Defendants violated various state
laws and the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act by knowingly building numerous homes in a Putnam County, West
Virginia housing development that did not meet building codes and
intentionally concealing the defects from Plaintiffs.

Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss contending that
Plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to state a claim on
which relief could be granted, did not plead facts sufficient to
maintain a class action, and failed meet the heightened pleading
standard required for RICO fraud claims.

Rather than responding, Plaintiffs moved the Court to amend their
complaint, believing that an amendment could cure any defect
raised by Defendants in their motions to dismiss. The amended
complaint added Randolph and Jessica Simpson and "the Wilt family"
as class representatives. It also emphasized that Virginia Meadows
was "the glue which binds all the residences and families
together" and added the allegation that all the houses at issue
were built by the same subcontractors.

Plaintiffs then filed an amended motion to amend, which not only
amended the motion to amend but also amended the complaint for a
second time. The second amendment attempted to address issues
raised in Defendant Old Colony's motion to dismiss which was filed
shortly after the Plaintiffs' original motion to amend. Then,
realizing that the first amended complaint and the amendment to
that, i.e. the second amended complaint, failed to include all but
one defendant in the case style, the Plaintiffs file a third
amended complaint explaining that they had mistakenly forgotten to
add the Defendants to the style, but also that, in actuality, they
intended to remove Brad Garnes as a defendant in his individual
capacity.

Defendants raise a surfeit of arguments in their motions to
dismiss and their responses to Plaintiff's motions to amend.
Multiple Defendants have raised the same argument against
Plaintiffs RICO cause of action.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2017 available
at https://is.gd/vIn3k6 from Leagle.com, Judge Chambers found that
Plaintiffs have failed to explain with specificity what
information was conveyed or concealed; how it was conveyed or
concealed (verbally, by written document, some combination), and
if by written document, which specific document or documents
(contract, brochure, etc.) and failed to allege where the
fraudulent interactions took place or when they took place.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion to Amend Limited
Funds Class Complaint is denied.  Virginia Meadows' Motion to
Dismiss Limited Funds Class Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs'
Motion for Cost of Service is denied.

The motions to dismiss filed by Brad Garnes, Woodland Designs,
MercyBuilt, Cornerstone Customs, Jordan Garnes, Linda Garnes,
Richard Garnes, Richlin Investments, Old Colony, and Jimmy Calhoun
are therefore denied as moot.  The motions for a more definite
statement filed by Brad Garnes, Woodland Designs, and MercyBuilt
are also denied as moot. Virginia Meadows' Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Class Allegations, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend,
Cornerstone Customs' and Jordan Garnes' Motion to Strike
Conditional Notice of Appearance, Cornerstone Customs' and Jordan
Garnes' Motion to Strike Conditional Response Language from
Plaintiffs' Reply to Responses, Old Colony's Motion for Joinder,
Cornerstone Customs and Jordan Garnes' Motion to Strike
Conditional Notice of Appearance, Old Colony's Motion for Joinder,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Notice of Fault of Non-Parties,
Cornerstone Customs' and Jordan Garnes' Motion for Leave to File
Third-Party Complaint, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Amended Notice
of Fault of Non-Parties, Cornerstone Customs' and Jordan Garnes'
Amended Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint, and
Woodland Design's Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint
are denied as moot.

Sarah Campbell, et al. are represented by Anthony J. Majestro,
Esq. -- amajestro@powellmajestro.com -- POWELL & MAJESTRO --
Benjamin Sheridan, Esq. -- ben@kswvlaw.com -- Daniel K. Armstrong,
Esq. -- daniel@kswvlaw.com -- and -- Mitchell Lee Klein, Esq. --
mitch@kswvlaw.com -- KLEIN & SHERIDAN

Virginia Meadows, LLC, et al. are represented by Charles R.
Steele, Esq. -- csteele@thesteelelawfirm.com -- and -- Thomas G.
Steele, Esq. -- tsteele@thesteelelawfirm.com -- STEELE LAW OFFICES

Cornerstone Customs, Inc., et al. are represented by Caleb B.
David, Esq. -- cdavid@shumanlaw.com -- Joseph T. Cramer, Esq. --
jcramer@shumanlaw.com -- and -- Natalie C. Schaefer, Esq. --
nschefer@shumanlaw.com -- SHUMAN MCCUSKEY & SLICER


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Says Jones Day Office Raid "Unacceptable"
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Jones
Day, a secretive firm with close ties to the current U.S.
president, saw its offices in Germany raided on March 15 by local
prosecutors investigating its client, Volkswagen AG.

The move by prosecutors in Munich, which came two days before
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was due to arrive in the U.S. for
a meeting with President Donald Trump, was called "unacceptable"
and a "clear violation of legal principles" in a statement by
Volkswagen.

Jones Day has been handling an internal investigation for
Volkswagen into an emissions software scandal that led the German
auto giant to reach a $15.3 billion settlement last year to
resolve consumer class actions.  Volkswagen agreed earlier this
year to pay $4.3 billion in civil and criminal penalties in an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

In February, Volkswagen agreed to pay another $1.2 billion to
settle a few remaining claims and a suit brought by the Federal
Trade Commission involving 75,000 3.0-liter diesel engine
vehicles. (Many of those vehicles can be found in empty stadium
parking lots and old military bases around the U.S.) Vehicle
pollution-related issues have already cost Volkswagen at least $22
billion and the automaker's tally is expected to rise.
German prosecutors have been conducting an investigation into
whether certain Volkswagen executives were responsible for the
emissions disaster at the company. A summary of Jones Day's
findings has been provided by Volkswagen to the Justice
Department, but has yet to be released publicly.  Reuters reported
that Jones Day's probe found instances of wrongdoing by certain
Volkswagen executives but exonerated members of the Wolfsburg,
Germany-based company's management board. (One of those board
members, attorney Hans Michel Piech, spoke with German news
magazine Der Spiegel last year about how Volkswagen can recover.)

In January, Volkswagen's top emissions compliance officer, Oliver
Schmidt, and five other corporate executives were indicted as the
company -- advised by Sullivan & Cromwell, Steptoe & Johnson and
Magic Circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer -- agreed to
plead guilty to three U.S. felonies related to cheating on
emissions regulations. Later that month, Volkswagen's top
compliance chief, former German judge Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt,
abruptly left the company with a $12.8 million exit package,
according to news reports.

German legal publication Juve reported that several German firms -
- such as Brehm & v. Moers, Eckstein & Kollegen, Haver & Mailander
and Krause & Kollegen -- have been retained by executives of
Volkswagen's Audi unit as a result of the investigation by German
authorities. Volkswagen's general counsel is Manfred Doess.

German prosecutors searching Jones Day's Munich office did so the
same day that Audi's headquarters was also searched, according to
German newspaper Handelsblatt, which first had news of the raids.
While Jones Day's internal investigation for Volkswagen is not yet
complete, the paper reported in January that the company had
decided against publicly releasing the firm's findings amid
concerns that doing so could strengthen the legal case of
investors and customers pursuing emissions-related claims, many of
them in Europe.

Two media representatives for Jones Day in the U.S. and Europe did
not return requests for comment.  Besides its office in Munich,
the firm has outposts in DÃ…sseldorf and Frankfurt. Germany's laws
on attorney-client privilege are more maleable than in the U.S. or
U.K., according to an analysis by British firm Simmons & Simmons.
Nonetheless, Volkswagen did not mince words in its statement.

"In our opinion the search of a law firm mandated by a company
contravenes the principles of the code of criminal procedure,"
Volkswagen said.

The search of a law firm's offices by government authorities,
while unusual, is not without precedent. The American Lawyer
reported in 2009 on the Moscow offices of DLA Piper and White &
Case being raided by officials from Russia's interior ministry as
part of an investigation into the development of a hotel in the
city.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Elkin" Securities Class Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Elkin, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Walter Investment Management Corp.,
Denmar J. Dixon, George M. Awad, Anthony N. Renzi and Gary L.
Tillett, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20997-UU (S.D. Fla., March
16, 2017), seeks compensatory damages against the Defendants on
behalf of a class of all person and entities other than the
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Walter from May 3, 2016 through March 13, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the Class Period) for materially false and
misleading statement during the class period.

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company had a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the complaint.

Defendant Walter is a diversified mortgage banking firm, which
focuses primarily on the servicing and origination of residential
loans in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Laurence Rosen, Esq.
   The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
   275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
   New York, NY 10116
   Tel: (212) 686-1060
   Fax: (212) 202-3827
   Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALEXIS PREGENT, JENNIFER
MASSAT, MEGAN KUCHENBECKER and JESSICA CLARK, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00993 (N.D. Ill.), ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of:

     all individuals who were employed by the Defendant in the
     company's Illinois offices, as Customer Service Reps at any
     time during the relevant statute of limitations period who
     were not paid for all of the overtime hours they worked.

Alexis Pregent, et al., bring the action for unpaid compensation,
monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and other
equitable and ancillary relief.  The action is brought under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uNDn8CGS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          17W220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
          17W 220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  vdt@ditommasolaw.com


YGRENE ENERGY: Faces Potential Suit Complaint Over Deception
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Digitale at Press Democrat reports that Ygrene Energy Fund
has been sued in a potential class-action complaint that alleges
the Santa Rosa company deceived customers about the costs and
difficulties linked to its financing for home energy improvement
projects.

The federal lawsuit alleges the company misled clients in
California and Florida by suggesting they wouldn't have to pay off
their Ygrene financing if they sold or refinanced their homes. In
reality, it is "impossible or nearly impossible for consumers to
sell their homes without first paying off the loan and incurring a
large prepayment penalty," the lawsuit maintains.

The reason is that two key federally controlled mortgage
enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, won't purchase home
mortgages on properties tied to financing like Ygrene provides,
commonly called property assessed clean energy, or PACE financing.
As a result, homeowners who want to sell or refinance their houses
typically first must pay off their Ygrene financing, which often
results in a prepayment penalty of 5 percent of the loan balance,
the lawsuit alleges.

A Ygrene spokesman said the lawsuit lacks merit and vowed a
vigorous defense.

"We hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards," Mike Lemyre,
a senior vice president, said in a statement. "Complete
transparency and a commitment to consumer disclosure, protection,
and education are of utmost importance to Ygrene."

Lemyre declined further comment on the lawsuit's specific
allegations.

Ygrene, founded in 2010 by developer Dennis Hunter, calls itself
"the nation's leading provider" of PACE financing.

In December, the company announced it had received a total of
USD329 million in investments and had approved more than USD1.85
billion in energy-efficiency projects for homes and businesses.

Ygrene and other PACE financing companies around the nation
receive authorization from local governments to offer PACE loans
in a particular jurisdiction.

Homeowners and businesses in those areas can borrow money for
energy-saving projects and repay the loans via their property tax
bills.

The idea was pioneered here by the Sonoma County Energy
Independence Program, a government agency that offers financing
for solar electric generation and other energy upgrades.

The suit alleges that Ygrene markets PACE loans through a network
of 3,200 "ill-trained and self-interested" home improvement
contractors who misrepresent the risks and restrictions of the
loans to maximize their own profits.

The lawsuit was filed March 9 in the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco by two firms that specialize in class-action cases:
Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner in Los Angeles and Tycko & Zavareei,
in Washington, D.C. Attorneys did not return a call seeking
comment.


* Class Action Defense Spending Cripples Companies' Budgets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Business Observer reports that defense spending against class
action lawsuits has crippled companies' budgets, with a spike in
high-risk cases, according to a new report from Carlton Fields.

The law firm, with 10 offices nationwide including five in Florida
and one in Tampa, recently published the 2017 Carlton Fields Class
Action Survey. One highlight: After steadily decreasing
expenditures from 2010 to 2014, spending on defense for class
action lawsuits rose in 2016 for the second consecutive year.

Companies across multiple industries spent USD2.17 billion
defending class action lawsuits in 2016, the report shows. That's
up from USD2.10 billion in 2015 and a decade-low USD2.03 billion
in 2014. It also accounted for 11.2% of all litigation spending in
the United States. The spending uptick occurred even though the
percentage of companies that reported facing class action lawsuits
on an on-going basis has normalized, from a high of 60.6% in 2015
to 53.8% last year.

"There appears to be a trending increase in the magnitude of class
actions, with companies facing increasingly higher risk and
exposure," says Julianna McCabe, director of Carlton Fields' Class
Action Survey and chair of the firm's National Class Actions
practice group, in a statement. "Understandably, companies are
spending more to manage that increased exposure."

The survey is based on 387 in-depth interviews with general
counsel, chief legal officers and direct reports to general
counsel of 373 companies. Businesses that participated in the
survey, from more than 25 industries, had average annual revenue
of USD13.8 billion and median annual revenue of USD4.9 billion.

From a company's general counsel standpoint, even more alarming
than the rise in spending on defense work in class action cases is
the actual lawsuits being filed. To wit: the number of companies
facing so-called bet-the-company class actions doubled, from 8.3%
in 2015 to 16.7% in 2016. Bet-the-company cases are lawsuits that,
if the plaintiff wins, could destroy the entire business. Bet-the-
company and high-risk cases combined increased from 9.5% in 2015
to 25.3% in 2016, the report shows.

Other survey nuggets include:
Corporate legal departments continue to use fewer in-house
attorneys to manage caseloads.
Labor and employment matters displaced consumer fraud as the most
common type of class action lawsuit in 2016. Labor and employment
now accounts for 37.7% of class actions and 38.9% of spending, the
survey reports.

Survey respondents report that wage and hour cases are the most
anticipated next wave of class actions, at 25.9%, followed closely
by Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, at 22.2%.

* DOL Review Could Take Aim at Class-Action Provision
-----------------------------------------------------
Barron's reports that experts say the fiduciary rule's so-called
right of private action could be a victim of DOL review, The Wall
Street Journal reports.

This provision increases the ability of clients to bring possible
class-action cases against brokers they accuse of breaching
fiduciary duty, the Journal says, noting that the potential for
such litigation is effectively the rule's main enforcement
component.

The Obama-era regulation was supposed to take effect April 10, but
President Trump has asked the DOL to review it for possible
revision or repeal. As part of the review, the White House wants
the agency to determine whether the fiduciary rule would lead to
increased litigation costs.

Arjun Saxena, a principal at consulting firm PwC, says the DOL
likely will conclude that the rule would increase legal action.
That's because in the past the lack of a uniform agreement
governing interactions has made it difficult for clients to join
together in lawsuits.

Sean Tuffy, an executive in charge of regulatory intelligence at
Brown Brothers Harriman, expects the rule to be revised and not
rescinded. "It's possible to draft a rule that ensures that
there's not unlimited liability and still make sure advisors work
in [their clients'] best interest," he says.


* Expansion Of Jurisprudence Under New Class Action Bill
--------------------------------------------------------
Kymberly Kochis and Veronica M. Wayner at Law360.com reports that
the House passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of
2017, H.R. 985, by a vote of 220 to 201. The act was introduced on
Feb. 9, 2017, by Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee. If enacted, the act will significantly
impact class action litigation under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and implement new rules for multidistrict
litigation. One key provision of the act that has not garnered
substantial attention affords class action litigants a compulsory
right to appeal an order granting or denying class certification.

In its current iteration, the act contains an appeals provision
stating, "A court of appeals shall permit an appeal from an order
granting or denying class action certification under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Currently, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f) states that, "A Court of appeals may permit
an appeal from an order granting or denying class action
certification." The act's substitution of "shall" for "may" will
have a significant impact on class action litigants and will
likely change the legal landscape of class action jurisprudence.
This article will provide background on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) and explore why the change to compulsory appeals
of class certification orders under the act will: (1) eliminate
inconsistencies with how Rule 23(f) is applied by the circuit
courts of appeals; (2) advance fundamental class action case law
that might not be developed otherwise; and (3) eliminate
inefficiencies created by delaying the appeal of certification
decisions until after a trial on the merits.

A federal district court's decision granting or denying class
certification under Rule 23 is often determinative of the outcome
of the litigation. For defendants, the certification of a class
dramatically increases their potential exposure, litigation fees
and expenses and, correspondingly, appetite for settlement;
conversely, the denial of certification decreases potential
exposure and settlement value. For plaintiffs, granting of
certification substantially improves their bargaining power in
settlement discussions, while the denial of certification
dramatically decreases the value of the case and forces plaintiffs
to decide whether to expend additional resources on a possible
appeal or attempt to settle the case on an individual basis.

Indeed, the importance of class certification decisions led to the
amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in 1998 to add
subsection (f). Rule 23(f) permits parties to petition the circuit
courts of appeal for interlocutory review of class certification
orders. Before the addition of Rule 23(f), there were very few
bases for interlocutory appeal of class certification orders and a
small number of class actions that actually proceeded through
litigation and to appeal, creating a dearth of class action
decisions from the circuit courts. Rule 23(f) as currently
drafted, however, provides the circuit courts unfettered
discretion to decide whether to permit an appeal and does not
provide substantive guidance to the circuit courts as to when an
interlocutory class certification appeal is appropriate.

Currently, Rule 23(f) provides circuit courts with wide latitude
to develop their own standard as to when an appeal of a
certification order should be allowed. This discretion has
resulted in the inconsistent application of Rule 23(f). This
inconsistent application has resulted in varying standards being
applied to Rule 23(f) petitions, creating vast differences among
the circuit courts as to the number of Rule 23(f) petitions filed
and resulting appeals granted. If passed, the act will remove
circuit courts' discretion as to whether to hear an appeal of a
class certification order, eliminating the inconsistent
application of Rule 23(f).

In addition, the act's mandatory appeal provision will advance
fundamental class action jurisprudence. Rule 23(f)'s discretionary
interlocutory appeal creates an absence of circuit court guidance
to the district courts on the standards and application of complex
Rule 23 certification requirements. For example, the Third
Circuit's decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide, which discussed
application of a "rigorous analysis" to the certification process,
how to deal with expert evidence at the certification stage and to
what extent courts should look beyond the pleadings to determine
the propriety of class certification, would not have been issued
absent the granting of a Rule 23(f) petition. 552 F.3d 305 (3d
Cir. 2008). The Third Circuit's class certification decision also
streamlined the issues for trial and prevented a subsequent, more
complicated, appeal that would have had to address all of the
elements of certification as well as the actual merits of the
case. Furthermore, had an interlocutory appeal not been allowed,
this case may have settled leaving a noticeable absence of
guidance to district courts in that circuit.

Finally, mandatory appeals of class action orders will eliminate
inefficiencies created by the delay of certification decisions
until after a trial on the merits. The act's mandatory right to
appeal will provide litigants with a final decision on class
certification prior to undergoing the expense of class notice and
trial, eliminating considerable inefficiencies and preserving
judicial resources. Delaying the appeal of certification decisions
until after notice has been provided to the class and a trial on
the merits requires the parties and the courts to litigate issues
that would never see the light of day if certification were deemed
improper.

Despite the House's passage, the act's future is uncertain, which
is evidenced by the fact that a more modest version of the bill
stalled in the Senate last year. With the House's passage of the
act, it will now move to the Senate and be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.


* Gorsuch Dissents in Workers' Rights Issue Favor Employers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in a decade of dissents, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch
revealed a similarity to the late Antonin Scalia, sharing the
justice's skepticism of federal labor regulations, his zeal for
individual privacy and his disdain for legislative history.
Gorsuch on March 20 will head to the U.S. Senate for his
confirmation hearing, where his record as a federal appeals judge
-- his majority rulings and his dissents -- will come under new
scrutiny.

The late Justice William O. Douglas once said, "The right to
dissent is the only thing that makes life tolerable for a judge on
an appellate court." If that's true,

Gorsuch, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, has found satisfaction and solace in his 35 dissents.
A Gorsuch dissent is characterized by a careful, point-by-point
refutation of the majority's arguments.  There is rarely any legal
jargon.  There are occasional clever turns of phrase -- but they
lack the bite for which Scalia was known.  "I think sharpness is
sometimes needed to demonstrate how much a departure I believe the
thing is," Scalia told one interviewer in 2013.  Scalia often said
he wrote dissents for law students -- "they will read dissents
that are breezy and have some thrust to him."

Gorsuch, in one dissent last year, turned to Charles Dickens to
make his point.  Gorsuch, disagreeing with two colleagues, would
not have granted qualified immunity to a police officer who
arrested a 13-year-old student who disrupted classes with his
burping.

"Often enough the law can be 'a ass -- a idiot' . . . and there is
little we judges can do about it," Gorsuch wrote.  He continued:
"So it is I admire my colleagues today, for no doubt they reach a
result they dislike but believe the law demands -- and in that I
see the best of our profession and much to admire.  It's only
that, in this particular case, I don't believe the law happens to
be quite as much of a ass as they do."

Conservative groups will find much to like in Gorsuch's dissents,
and progressive groups that are opposed to Gorsuch's nomination
will find evidence to bolster their criticism.  The liberal group
People for the American Way, for instance, which conducted its own
review of Gorsuch's dissents, concluded they are "consistently
right-wing, generally seeking to favor big business and other
authority and harm the interests of workers and those who have
suffered abuse by government officials."

As is true of so many appellate judges' work over a long period of
time, their records are rarely as black and white as partisan
groups often see them.  Gorsuch's work is no different.  What
follows are some takeaways gleaned from his dissents.

Workers' Rights
Gorsuch's rulings and dissents in this area of the law are likely
to receive attention from Democratic senators on the Senate
Judiciary Committee.  In two dissents last year, Gorsuch, with a
sharp edge to his writing, sided with employers and against
federal regulators on pay and safety issues.

Writing in National Labor Relations Board v. Community Health
Services, Gorsuch rejected the board's policy justifications for a
significant change in its approach to awarding back pay to certain
employees whose hours were improperly reduced.  Before the change,
interim earnings were deducted from back pay to avoid a windfall
recovery, but no longer under the new rule. The majority deferred
to the board.

"In the end, it's difficult to come away from this case without
wondering if the board's actions stem from a frustration with the
current statutory limits on its remedial powers -- a frustration
that it cannot pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing
employers for unlawful actions or maximizing employment," he
wrote.  "In our legal order the proper avenue for addressing any
dissatisfaction with congressional limits on agency authority lies
in new legislation, not administrative ipse dixit."

In TransAM Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, the majority
accused Gorsuch of taking a too narrow view of the word "operate"
in the whistleblower provisions of the federal Surface
Transportation Assistance Act.  The story: A trucker waited more
than three hours in freezing temperatures in an unheated truck for
employer assistance after the brakes failed on his trailer. He was
fired after disconnecting the trailer and driving off; he said his
feet and legs were going numb. His employer had instructed him to
drive the truck while pulling the trailer with the failed brakes.

"But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who
'refuse[] to operate a vehicle' out of safety concerns," Gorsuch
wrote.  "And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The
trucker in this case wasn't fired for refusing to operate his
vehicle. . . . The trucker was fired only after he declined the
statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead
to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his
employer did not.  And there's simply no law anyone has pointed us
to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways
their employers forbid."

Gorsuch dissented in Compass Environmental v Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission from the panel decision not to review
a company's appeal of a final order that found a serious safety
violation.  The commission found that the employer failed to train
an employee, who was killed, to recognize and avoid the hazard
presented by a high-voltage overhead power line at his worksite.

Gorsuch argued the commission failed to prove that "reasonably
prudent employers in the industry would have done more to
anticipate or train a trench hand for the accident than Compass
did."


* Morningstar Expects Up to $150MM in Annual Suit Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit Pro reports that in a perfect world, all investors with
qualified retirement accounts would have unfettered access to
reasonably compensated fiduciary advisors offering non-conflicted
advice on all investment options available in the market today.

And no one would get sued.

"That would be the best imaginable outcome," says Michael Wong, a
senior equity analyst for Morningstar Research Services. "The best
circumstance would be the fiduciary rule goes through, everyone
uses the BIC (best interest contract exemption), and there are no
class action lawsuits."

Unfortunately, few in the industry expect that to be the case if
the Labor Department's fiduciary rule is implemented as written,
not the least of whom is Wong.

Wong was the lead Morningstar analyst behind recently published
estimates of class-action settlements the financial services
industry can expect to pay under the rule, assuming it goes into
effect with the private right-of-action provision intact.

Related: How the fiduciary rule affects plan sponsors

In the long term, industry can expect to pay between USD70 million
and USD150 million in annual class-action settlements. In the near
term, the numbers are likely to be higher, said Wong.

The BIC Exemption's private right-of-action provision prohibits
institutions from writing class-action exclusions into the
contracts advisors will have to use to earn commission-based and
variable compensation on investment recommendations.

"The DOL would prefer that every firm would be able to comply with
the BIC Exemption without material conflicts," said Wong.

"But it would be hard to deny there will be some class action law
suits lodged against wealth management firms if the rule is
implemented as is," he added.


* New Proposals Could Dramatically Alter Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seessel, Esq., Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq., Christine Stoddard,
Esq., at Carlton Fields, in an article for JD Supra Business
Advisor, wrote that like many things these days, the legal
landscape is changing. One target is class action litigation. Some
important new proposals have the potential to dramatically alter
class actions in the near future. In particular, these changes
would impact class certification and the settlement process.

Rule 23 Amendments

First, a spate of amendments may bring changes to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23. The comment period on the amendments closed on
February 15th and the changes are expected to be adopted, with an
effective date of December 1, 2018. Specifically, the amendments
include a variety of changes regarding class settlement and
notice. The new proposal's greatest impact would be on class
settlement objectors, governed by Rule 23(e)(5). The proposed
amendment seeks to prevent bad faith objections by requiring
objectors to state the grounds for their objection with
specificity. Objectors would also be required to state whether the
objection applies only to themselves, to the whole class, or to a
portion of the class. The amendment deletes the rule's current
language requiring court approval for the withdrawal of an
objection. Instead, the new rule would require approval for
payment to an objector or his counsel in connection with either
the withdrawal of an objection or the abandonment of an appeal of
a judgment approving a settlement. These changes seek to prevent
objectors from interfering with settlements merely to obtain a
payoff.

Under the new proposal, Rule 23(c)(2)(B), which governs notice for
23(b)(3) classes, would allow for notice to be given not only via
mail, but also electronic or other appropriate means. The new rule
would also clarify that Rule 23(e)(1) notice to a proposed
settlement class would trigger the opt-out period, in conformance
with common practice. Additionally, Rule 23(e)(1) would be amended
to require parties to give the court sufficient information to
determine whether to order notice, and an amendment to Rule 23(f)
would clarify that an order to send notice to the class is not
appealable. The new amendments would also alter Rule 23(e)(2),
which requires a court to determine whether a settlement is "fair,
reasonable and adequate" before approval. The new rule would list
factors for the court to consider in making this determination,
including the adequacy of representation and relief, whether all
class members are treated equitably, and if the settlement was the
product of arm's length negotiations. Although meant to provide
guidance to courts, the list would not eliminate the various
approval factors courts have already developed for this purpose.

               Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act

Meanwhile, a bill pending before Congress could result in even
more sweeping reforms. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
("FICALA"), H.R. 985, proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va), seeks
to "assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and
multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims" while
also "diminish[ing] abuses in class action and mass tort
litigation." To that end, the bill sets stricter requirements for
class certification. For example, it requires a party seeking to
certify a class for monetary relief to affirmatively demonstrate
that each putative class member suffered the same type and scope
of injury as the named plaintiff. It also restricts who can serve
as class representatives, prohibiting such individuals from having
familial, employment, or contractual relationships with class
counsel and compelling disclosures about potential conflicts of
interest in that regard. It also creates a heightened
ascertainability standard by requiring that a class be defined
with reference to objective criteria, and that the party seeking
certification demonstrate that a reliable and feasible method
exists both to identify class members and to distribute any
monetary relief.

Additionally, FICALA places restrictions on the certification of
issue classes and requires a mandatory stay of discovery pending
motions to dismiss, transfer, or strike class allegations, unless
"necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice."
The bill also requires disclosure of third-party litigation
funding agreements, and, importantly, gives parties a mandatory
right to appeal class certification orders.

Like the Rule 23 changes, the bill also affects class settlements.
In particular, it seeks to provide class members a meaningful
amount of any judgment or settlement by limiting attorney's fees
to a reasonable percentage of payments distributed to class
members, not to exceed the total amount distributed to the class,
as well as preventing attorneys from receiving fees before class
members are paid. Under FICALA, information about the distribution
of settlement funds must also be reported to the Federal Judicial
Center and Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. Finally, the bill incorporates various changes to the
multidistrict litigation process.

Unsurprisingly, reaction to the bill has been mixed; though some,
like the American Association for Justice, have claimed the bill
rolls back consumer protection and civil rights, others such as
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have praised FICALA for its ability
to protect both businesses and consumers from abusive lawsuits
that result in increased prices and fewer jobs. Although the House
passed the bill on March 9th, its fate in the Senate is uncertain.
Republicans, most of whom support the bill, control the Senate 52-
48, but the close split means the vote could swing either way.
Indeed, a less expansive proposal by Rep. Goodlatte died in the
Senate last year. If adopted as drafted, FICALA would usher in a
wave of changes that could have a significant impact on class
actions in the future.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates May File Amended Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California dismissed with leave
to amend the second amended complaint filed by Paul Adams, Phillip
L. Dorsey, and Ezequiel Monarrez alleging defendants California
Correctional Institution and California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation violated their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege (1) CCI and CDCR are subjecting
Plaintiffs to an environment "infested with air born asbestos
particles," thereby demonstrating a deliberate indifference to
inmates' health and safety; (2) CCI and CDCR are knowingly
administering "tainted drinking water to the prison inmate
population"; and (3) CCI is conspiring with medical providers to
misdiagnose inmates to conceal the "tainted drinking water," which
represents a deliberate indifference "to the serious medical needs
of the inmate population."

The case is PAUL ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 16-
1678-AB (KK)(C.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 15, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/kxj2fvofrom Leagle.com.

Paul Adams, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Phillip L. Dorsey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

William J. Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ezequiel Monarrez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand Machinist's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward O'Connor commenced a personal injury action in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, alleging that he now
suffers from lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure from
years spent working as a machinist onboard several oil tankers in
the early 1980s.  O'Connor names as defendants Cove Shipping, Inc.
and Maritime Management Corp., the collective entity for whom
O'Connor contends he was working at the time.  Via the Louisiana
Direct Action Statute, La. R.S. 22:1269, O'Connor also names West
of England as defendant, for the P&I Club's role as Cove
Shipping's insurer during the years relevant to his lawsuit.  West
of England subsequently removed the action, invoking the removal
provision of the Uniform Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"
or "Convention"), 9 U.S.C. Section 205.

As justification for using the New York Convention for removal,
West of England cites an arbitration clause found in its Club
Rules that it contends were in effect at the time of O'Connor's
alleged employment and now apply to his lawsuit, notwithstanding
the fact that O'Connor is a third-party to the insurance agreement
(including the Club Rules) between West of England Shipowners
Mutual Insurance Association and Cove Shipping. In his motion for
remand, O'Connor makes six distinct arguments in support of the
contention that he is not bound by the arbitration clause and,
thus, the case should be remanded:

  First, West of England has failed to demonstrate it is entitled
  to arbitration under documents it submitted with removal.
  Second, English law forbids the application of this arbitration
  agreement to non-signatories such as Mr. O'Connor. Third, the
  arbitration agreement is unenforceable because the prohibitive
  costs of the agreement prevent Mr. O'Connor from vindicating his
  federal statutory rights. Fourth, West of England waived its
  right to arbitrate. Fifth, Jones Act Claims are not subject to
  arbitration. And sixth, the law of Louisiana forbids arbitration
  in insurance disputes, which does not run afoul of the New York
  Convention.

West of England opposes the motion.  Having considered the
submissions of the parties, the record, and applicable law, Judge
Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, denies the motion to remand,
finding that removal of the direct action plaintiff's lawsuit
against a foreign insurer was appropriate based on the existence
of an arbitration clause found in the club rules of the insurer.

A full-text copy of the Order & Reasons dated March 16, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/lqmjhjjfrom Leagle.com.

James Edward O'Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Jared
Austin, Stephen J. Austin, LLC.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, represented by Glenn L.M.
Swetman, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor
Manning LLP & Meaghan M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin
Morton, III, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, Ebony Shadae
Morris, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, McNeil James
Kemmerly, McNeil Kemmerly, Attorney at Law, Richard Munice Crump,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC & Shelley K. Napolitano,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC.

West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association
Luxemborg, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. LaVie, Phelps
Dunbar, LLP & Justin Cole Warner, Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haw. Appeals Ct. Throws Out Fisher's Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated asbestos litigation cases in Hawaii,
Defendant-Appellant Fisher Controls International LLC appeals from
an interlocutory order granting Defendant-Appellee Shin Nippon
Machinery Co., Ltd.'s petition for a determination of good faith
settlement pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 663-15.5
(2016), filed on December 21, 2015, in the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit.

On appeal, Fisher contends that the circuit court erred because:
(1) there was a lack of compliance with requirements under HRS
Section 663-15.5; (2) there was a failure to comply with
requirements under the Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order
No. 1; (3) the circuit court's interpretation and enforcement of
CMO-1 did not comply with HRS Section 663-15.5; and (4) the
Petition, substantive joinders, and the hearing on the Petition
did not provide the circuit court with sufficient information to
determine the propriety of the settlements.

In a memorandum opinion dated March 16, 2017, the Intermediate
Court of Appeals of Hawaii affirmed, pointing out that the circuit
court's knowledge of the case was not limited to what was
contained in the Petition, the joinders, and the DeRobertis
Declaration.  The circuit court, according to the Court of
Appeals, could consider any "factor that is relevant to whether a
settlement" was made in good faith including factors beyond the
Petition and affidavits.  The circuit court, the Court of Appeals
said, was not required to demonstrate that all of the factors
listed in Troyer v. Adams were considered.  Rather, the Troyer
court emphasized that the determination of a good faith settlement
rests in the discretion of the trial court and that appellate
review would be for abuse of discretion.

The case is IN RE: HAWAI'I STATE ASBESTOS CASES. This Document
Applies To: GAIL K. DIAS, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of MANUEL ALTON SOUZA DIAS, Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. 1) CRANE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
2) CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., as successor to AQUA-CHEM, INC., a
Delaware corporation, 3) ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, successor to
COPES VULCAN, INC., an Illinois corporation, 4) FLSMIDTH, INC.,
successor to EIMCO PROCESS EQUIPMENT, a Delaware corporation, 5)
ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY COMPANY, INC., a subsidiary of EBARA
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 6) ALSTOM, a French
corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and 7) FISHER CONTROLS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellant,
and 8) FOSTER WHEELER LLC, a Delaware corporation, 9) GARDNER
DENVER, INC., individually and as successor by merger to THE NASH
ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 10) GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation, 11) INGERSOLL RAND CO.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to ALDRICH PUMPS and as
successor-in-interest to TERRY STEAM TURBINE CO., a New Jersey
corporation, 12) MAXIM EVAPORATORS, LLC, a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company, 13) SFS (USA) HOLDING, INC., dba PEERLESS PUMP
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 14) ROPER INDUSTRIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, 15) ROTH PUMP COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, 16) SHIN NIPPON MACHINERY CO., LTD., a Japanese
corporation, 17) BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German corporation,
18) KOCH INDUSTRIES INC., JOHN ZINK COMPANY, a Kansas corporation,
19) CBS CORPORATION, fka VIACOM INC., successor by merger to CBS
CORPORATION, fka WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, 20) JOHN CRANE, INC., a Delaware corporation, 21) THE
LYNCH CO., INC., a Hawaii corporation, 22) PUGET SOUND COMMERCE
CENTER, INC., fka TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, 23) KAANAPALI LAND, LLC, as successor by merger to
NORTHBROOK CORPORATION, successor by merger to AMFAC, INC., a
Hawaii corporation, 24) FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, successor-in-
interest to ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, successor-in-interest
to EDWARD VALVE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and successor-in-
interest to EDWARD VALVES, INC., a New York corporation,
Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 3 to 25, Defendants, No. CAAP-16-
0000012 (Haw. App.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated March 16, 2017,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/lv9ox2ofrom Leagle.com.

On the briefs:

Thomas Benedict, Esq. -- tbenedict@goodsill.com -- Dawn T.
Sugihara, Esq. -- dsugihara@goodsill.com -- (Goodsill Anderson
Quinn & Stifel), for Defendant-Appellant.

Gary O. Galiher, L. Richard DeRobertis, Ilana K. Waxman, Alyssa R.
Segawa, (Galiher DeRobertis Waxman), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Stevens" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William E. Smith of the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island accepted Magistrate Judge Lincoln D.
Almond's recommendation that defendant Foster Wheeler's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned SUZANN STEVENS, Personally
and as Representative and Trustee of the Estate of JAMES STEVENS,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 14-157S
(D.R.I.), be denied.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated March 16, 2017,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/lxgylsofrom Leagle.com.

Suzann Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Donald P. Blydenburgh,
Levy Konigsberg LLP, pro hac vice.

Suzann Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by John E. Deaton, The
Deaton Law Firm, Keith W. Binder, Levy Konigsberg LLP, pro hac
vice & Lisa M. Cronin, The Deaton Law Firm.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Oswald,
Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Kristen W. Sherman, Adler Pollock &
Sheehan P.C., Kathryn T.R. O'Brien, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. &
R. Bart Totten, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone,
Esq. -- cmone@piercedavis.com -- Pierce Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Maureen L. Pomeroy, Esq. -- mpomeroy@piercedavis.com -- Pierce,
Davis & Perritano, LLP, pro hac vice, Shannon M. O'Neil, Esq. --
soneil@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Zachary
M. Weisberg, Esq., Pierce Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone,
Pierce Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP, pro hac vice, Maureen L. Pomeroy, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP, pro hac vice, Shannon M. O'Neil, Pierce, Davis &
Perritano, LLP & Zachary M. Weisberg, Pierce Davis & Perritano,
LLP.

Taco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig R. Waksler, Eckert
Seamans Cherin and Mellott, LLC & Jennifer A. Whelan, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Kevin W. Hadfield, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP, pro hac vice.

Lennox Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Danielle
J. Mahoney, Asquith & Mahoney P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms $5.8MM Judgment vs. Honeywell
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned CHARITY FAITH PHILLIPS et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant and Appellant, No. F070761 (Cal. App.), Defendant
Honeywell International Inc. appeals from a judgment of over $5.8
million awarded to the spouse and surviving children of a man who
died of asbestos-related cancer.  The jury found the mesothelioma
contracted by James Lester Phillips was caused in part by exposure
to asbestos contained in Bendix brakes.

Honeywell contends a new trial is warranted because (1) the jury's
special verdict was fatally inconsistent; (2) the trial court
erroneously refused to give its proposed jury instruction on the
factors relevant to causation; and (3) the trial court erroneously
admitted prejudicial evidence.  Moreover, Honeywell contends
judgment should be entered in its favor because the verdict was
based entirely on a failure to warn theory that lacked sufficient
evidentiary support.  If judgment is not entered in its favor,
Honeywell contends, the $3.5 million award of punitive damages
must be reversed because plaintiffs failed to introduce sufficient
evidence of malice or oppression.

In the published opinion, the Court of Appeals of California,
Fifth District, rejects Honeywell's claims of evidentiary error.
The trial court properly admitted -- subject to a limiting
instruction -- a 1966 letter of a Bendix employee sarcastically
addressing an article in Chemical Week magazine that stated
asbestos had been accused, but not yet convicted, as a significant
health hazard.  The letter is circumstantial evidence relevant to
the issue of Bendix's awareness of asbestos's potential to cause
cancer, the Court of Appeals concludes.  The Illinois and Florida
cases holding admission of this letter was prejudicial are
distinguishable because they did not include a limiting
instruction, the Court of Appeals says.

In addition, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court
properly admitted the testimony of plaintiffs' expert about
causation and the contributions to Phillips's risk of cancer from
every identified exposure to asbestos that Phillips experienced.
In the context of this case, the every-identified-exposure theory
is distinguishable from the every-exposure theory and the Court of
Appeals joins courts from other jurisdictions in recognizing that
distinction.  Furthermore, the Court of Appeals concludes the
application of every-identified-exposure theory in this case was
consistent with California law addressing proof of causation in
asbestos-related cancer cases. Consequently, the Court of Appeals
said it need not address the every-exposure theory that the Second
District allowed to be presented to the jury in Davis v. Honeywell
Internat. Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, review denied May 25,
2016 (Davis) and Honeywell's contention that this court should
split with Davis.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeals
rejects Honeywell's other contentions. First, the jury's answers
to questions in the special verdict about causation are not
inconsistent. Second, the trial court properly rejected
Honeywell's proposed instruction about the factors relevant to
causation of asbestos-related cancer. Third, as to the sufficiency
of the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded there was adequate
evidentiary support for the jury's findings that (1) Honeywell was
liable under a failure to warn theory and (2) Honeywell's
predecessor, Bendix, acted with malice -- that is, a willful and
conscious disregard of the safety of others.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 17, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/kumjnp4from Leagle.com.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Esq. -- lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com
-- Robert H. Wright, Esq. -- rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- Curt
Cutting, Esq. -- ccutting@horvitzlevy.com -- and Perkins Coie,
Brien F. McMahon and Daniel D. O'Shea for Defendant and Appellant.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

OPINION

FRANSON, J.







ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Shonkwiler" Remanded to Ohio State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Lioi of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, remanded to the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas the asbestos-related case
captioned RAPLPH T. SHONKWILER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-2749
(N.D. Ohio), noting that the plaintiff has dismissed the only
parties that appear to be able to invoke federal subject matter
jurisdiction.  A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order of Remand dated March 17, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/xXZPrQ from Leagle.com.

Ralph T Shonkwiler, Plaintiff, represented by:

     James L. Ferraro, Esq.
     Kelley & Ferraro
     Tel: 216-202-3450

Ralph T Shonkwiler, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Ryan J. Cavanaugh, Esq.
     Kelley & Ferraro
     Tel: 216-202-3450

         -- and --

     Shawn M. Acton, Esq.
     Kelley & Ferraro
     Tel: 216-202-3450

Joyce Shonkwiler, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Ferraro, Ryan
J. Cavanaugh, Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M. Acton, Kelley & Ferraro.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, represented by John P.
Patterson, Tucker Ellis & Ryan T. Winkler, Tucker Ellis.

Akron Gasket & Packing Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Brendan P. Kelley, Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Jno J. Disch Co., Defendant, represented by Carol K. Metz, Esq. --
metz@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King, Justin W. Whelan, Esq. --
whelan@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King & Theodore M. Dunn, Jr.,
Esq. -- dunn@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Kelley,
Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Ingersoll-Rand Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

ITT LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton, Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius.

Aurora Pump Division of General Signal Corp., Defendant,
represented by Tammy L. Imhoff, Dinsmore & Shohl.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Kelley,
Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, represented by John A. Kristan,
Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A. Valenti,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Defendant, represented by Perry W.
Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Uniroyal Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela M.
Hayden, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing.

Greene Tweed & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Simek, Esq. -- dsimek@sutter-law.com -- Sutter O'Connell & Matthew
C. O'Connell, Esq. -- moconnell@sutter-law.com -- Sutter
O'Connell.

Zurn Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R. Simek,
Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter O'Connell.

Red Seal Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Perry W.
Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Clark Industrial Insulation Co., Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

UB West Virginia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Georgia-Pacific Corp., Defendant, represented by Christine E.
Watchorn, Esq. -- cwatchorn@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne & Timothy
M. Fox, Esq. -- tfox@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph D.
Silvaggio, Esq. -- jsilvaggio@willmanlaw.com -- Willman &
Silvaggio, Melanie M. Irwin, Esq. -- mirwin@willmanlaw.com --
Willman & Silvaggio, pro hac vice & Steven G. Blackmer, Esq. --
sblackmer@willmanlaw.com -- Willman & Silvaggio.

Bryan Steam Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Michalec,
Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp & Matthew
T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Wolf,
Esq. -- twolf@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce P.
Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Esq. -- jkline@ulmer.com --
Ulmer & Berne, Kurt S. Siegfried, Esq. -- ksiegfried@ulmer.com --
Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Esq. -- rzulandt@ulmer.com
-- Ulmer & Berne.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele L. Larissey, Swartz
Campbell.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara J.
Arison, Frantz Ward & Jenifer E. Novak, Frantz Ward.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Patterson,
Tucker Ellis & Joseph A. Manno, Tucker Ellis.

ITT LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius.

Crane Co., Cross-Claimant, represented by Michele L. Larissey,
Swartz Campbell.

Ralph T Shonkwiler, Cross Defendant, represented by James L.
Ferraro, Ryan J. Cavanaugh, Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M. Acton,
Kelley & Ferraro.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross-Claimant, represented by
Joseph D. Silvaggio, Willman & Silvaggio, Melanie M. Irwin,
Willman & Silvaggio, pro hac vice & Steven G. Blackmer, Willman &
Silvaggio.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John P.
Patterson, Tucker Ellis & Ryan T. Winkler, Tucker Ellis.

Akron Gasket & Packing Enterprises, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Brendan P. Kelley, Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong,
Tucker Ellis.

Jno J. Disch Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Carol K. Metz,
Buckley King, Justin W. Whelan, Buckley King & Theodore M. Dunn,
Jr., Buckley King.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Ingersoll-Rand Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
J. Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher
Sharp & Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Aurora Pump Division of General Signal Corp., Cross Defendant,
represented by Tammy L. Imhoff, Dinsmore & Shohl.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan P.
Kelley, Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Carver Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Perry
W. Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Uniroyal Holdings, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Angela M.
Hayden, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Perry
W. Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Clark Industrial Insulation Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
John A. Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna &
John A. Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

UB West Virginia, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Georgia-Pacific Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Christine
E. Watchorn, Ulmer & Berne & Timothy M. Fox, Ulmer & Berne.

Bryan Steam Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Genuine Parts Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas R.
Wolf, Reminger & Reminger.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bruce
P. Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne, Kurt S.
Siegfried, Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer & Berne.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Barbara J. Arison, Frantz Ward & Jenifer E. Novak, Frantz Ward.

Carrier Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John P.
Patterson, Tucker Ellis & Joseph A. Manno, Tucker Ellis.

Greene Tweed & Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Douglas R. Simek, Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter
O'Connell.

Zurn Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Simek, Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter O'Connell.

Red Seal Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan P.
Kelley, Tucker Ellis & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation May Fund Suits Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, is subject to exposure for
asbestos-related personal injury liability alleged at certain
current and formerly owned generation facilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Future legislative action could require Generation to make a
material contribution to a fund to settle lawsuits for alleged
asbestos-related disease and exposure.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, generates and markets electricity
in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 80 percent of the open asbestos-related claims against
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company are non-malignancy or
unspecified disease claims at December 31, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company
or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold
by Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes. None of our existing or previously-owned
businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related liability. The methodology
used to project the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon
and included the following factors, among others:

   -- the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   -- epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma
and lung cancer;

   -- the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   -- the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

   -- an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
disease claimed and by year filed;

   -- an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
claims, by type of disease claimed;

   -- an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

   -- an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At December 31, 2016, over 80 percent of the open claims against
the Company are non-malignancy or unspecified disease claims, many
of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the
vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against
the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal
and judicial treatment of such claims.

Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company manufactures industrial
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $631.2MM Liabilities at Dec31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of $631.2 million as of December 31, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to Ingersoll-
Rand Company and Trane was $129.6 million and $142.9 million at
December 31, 2016, and $166.4 million and $149.2 million at
December 31, 2015, respectively.

Income and expenses associated with Ingersoll-Rand Company's
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are
recorded within discontinued operations, as they relate to
previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump,
which was sold by the Company in 2000. During the year ended
December 31, 2016, the Company reached settlements with various
insurance carriers related to Ingersoll-Rand Company asbestos
matters. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within Other income/(expense), net as part of continuing
operations. During the second quarter of 2015, the Company reached
a settlement with an insurance carrier related to Trane asbestos
matters.

The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance
recoveries as of December 31, 2016 is entirely supported by
settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance
carriers. Most of these settlement agreements constitute
"coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories
agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for
asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-
handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain
releases and indemnifications.

In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of Ingersoll-
Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. Since filing the
actions, Ingersoll Rand Company has settled with half of the
insurer defendants, and has dismissed one of the actions in its
entirety.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable
of recovery because of the following factors:

   -- Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its
recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   -- a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlement;

   -- the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   -- the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.
The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired,
over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company manufactures industrial
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Still Gets Suit Dismissals at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Inc. has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its
financial condition, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited
amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In addition to
compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive
damages. Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or
settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows. The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to
the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or
judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. At this
time, the amount of reasonably possible additional asbestos
claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or operating cash flows although
these matters could result in the Company being subject to
monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings
in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products that serve a range of markets, including commercial
roofing, energy, agriculture, mining, construction, aerospace and
defense electronics, medical technology, transportation, general
industrial, protective coatings, wood, auto refinishing,
foodservice, and healthcare and sanitary maintenance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kemper Corp. Had $16.7MM A&E-Related Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discontinued Operations of Kemper Corp. are predominantly long-
tailed exposures, of which $16.7 million was related to asbestos,
environmental matters and construction defect exposures at
December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016.

In estimating the Company's Property and Casualty Insurance
Reserves, the Company's actuaries exercise professional judgment
and must consider, and are influenced by, many variables that are
difficult to quantify. Accordingly, the process of estimating and
establishing the Company's Property and Casualty Insurance
Reserves is inherently uncertain and the actual ultimate net cost
of claims may vary materially from the estimated amounts reserved.
The reserving process is particularly imprecise for claims
involving asbestos, environmental matters, construction defect and
other emerging and/or long-tailed exposures that may not be
discovered or reported until years after the insurance policy
period has ended. Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves related
to the Company's Discontinued Operations are predominantly long-
tailed exposures, of which $16.7 million was related to asbestos,
environmental matters and construction defect exposures at
December 31, 2016.

Kemper Corp. is a multi-line property and casualty insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Has $30.16MM A&E Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------
Assurant Inc. carries $30,161,000 (before reinsurance) case
reserves due exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016.

The Company has exposure to asbestos, environmental and other
general liability claims arising from our participation in various
reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose from
a contract that we discontinued writing many years ago.

The Company states: "We carry case reserves, as recommended by the
various pool managers, and total incurred but not reported (IBNR)
reserves totaling $30,161,000 (before reinsurance) and $25,092,000
(net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2016. Estimation of these
liabilities is subject to greater than normal variation and
uncertainty due to the general lack of sufficiently detailed data,
reporting delays and absence of a generally accepted actuarial
methodology for those exposures. There are significant unresolved
industry legal issues, including such items as whether coverage
exists and what constitutes a claim. In addition, the
determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of
losses to financially responsible parties are highly uncertain.
Based on information currently available, and after consideration
of the reserves reflected in the Consolidated Financial
Statements, we do not believe or expect that changes in reserve
estimates for these claims are likely to be material.

"Reserves for the previously written Assurant Health business are
established using generally accepted actuarial methods. Factors
used in the reserve calculation include experience derived from
historical claim payments and actuarial assumptions, such as
trends, the incidence of incurred claims, the extent to which all
claims have been reported, and internal claims processing
changes."

Assurant Inc. is a provider of targeted specialized insurance
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 20,567 Unresolved Claims in 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corp. has 20,567 asbestos claims unresolved at the end of
2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2016.

Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were
acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by
any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured
products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally
were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries'
customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects
such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among
other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims
arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed
for no payment.

The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-
related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy
to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the
longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate.

The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims that will be
resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after
the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation
against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred.

Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership of each independent entity. The Company has
evaluated the insurance assets for each subsidiary based upon the
applicable policy language and allocation methodologies, and law
pertaining to the affected subsidiary's insurance policies.

One of the subsidiaries was notified in 2010 by the primary and
umbrella carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the
subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its
primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. The
subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer insurers
whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella carrier,
which parties' dispute was resolved by the Delaware state courts
during 2016. This litigation confirmed that asbestos-related costs
should be allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums"
allocation (which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in
connection with a claim from any insurer whose policy is
triggered, up to the policy's applicable limits), that the
subsidiary has rights to excess insurance policies purchased by a
former owner of the business, and that, based on the September 12,
2016 ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court, the subsidiary has a
right to immediately access the excess layer policies. Further,
the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in the subsidiary's favor on a
"trigger of coverage" issue, holding that every policy in place
during or after the date of a claimant's first significant
exposure to asbestos was "triggered" and potentially could be
accessed to cover that claimant's claim. The Court also largely
affirmed and reversed in part some of the prior lower court
rulings on defense obligations and whether payment of such costs
erode policy limits or are payable in addition to policy limits.

Based upon these rulings, the Company currently estimates that the
subsidiary's future expected recovery percentage is approximately
92% of asbestos-related costs with the subsidiary expected to be
responsible for approximately 8% of its future asbestos-related
costs.

Since approximately mid-2011, the Company had funded $94.9 million
of the subsidiary's asbestos-related defense and indemnity costs
through December 31, 2016, which it expects to recover from
insurers. Based on the court rulings, the Company recently
requested that its insurers reimburse all of that amount and
currently expects to receive substantially all of that amount. In
late December 2016, $23.6 million of that amount was reimbursed.
Certain of the excess insurers have advised the subsidiary that
they are still reviewing costs data relating to the other
unreimbursed amounts. The subsidiary also has requested that
certain excess insurers provide ongoing coverage for future
asbestos-related defense and/or indemnity costs. The insurers to
which the vast majority of pending claims have been tendered have
not yet responded to this request. To the extent any disagreements
concerning excess insurers' payment obligations under the Delaware
Supreme Court's rulings remain, they are expected to be resolved
by Delaware court action, which is still pending and has been
remanded to the Delaware Superior Court for any further
proceedings. In the interim, and while not impacting the results
of operations, the Company's cash funding for future asbestos-
related defense and indemnity costs for which it expects
reimbursement from insurers could range up to $10 million per
quarter.

In 2003, another subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number
of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of
disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims asserted against it. Court rulings in 2007 and 2009
clarified the insurers allocation methodology as mandated by the
New Jersey courts, the allocation calculation related to amounts
currently due from insurers, and amounts the Company expects to be
reimbursed for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods.

A final judgment at the trial court level was rendered in 2011 and
confirmed by the Appellate Division in 2014. In 2015, the New
Jersey Supreme Court refused to grant certification of the
appeals, effectively ending the matter. The subsidiary expects to
be responsible for approximately 21% of all future asbestos-
related costs.

During the year ended December 31, 2014 the Company recorded a
$6.9 million pre-tax charge due to a higher number of asbestos
claims settlements and a decline in the insurance recovery rate.
The charge was comprised of an increase in asbestos-related
liabilities of $14.5 million partially offset by an increase in
expected insurance recoveries of $7.6 million. During the year
ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded a $4.1 million pre-
tax charge due to an increase in mesothelioma and lung cancer
claims and higher settlement values per claim that have occurred
and are expected to continue to occur in certain jurisdictions.
The pre-tax charge was comprised of an increase in asbestos-
related liabilities of $20.2 million partially offset by an
increase in expected insurance recoveries of $16.1 million. These
pre-tax charges were included in Selling, general and
administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an
$8 million increase in asbestos-related liabilities due to higher
settlement values per claim. The related insurance asset was
accordingly increased $6.4 million, resulting in a net pre-tax
charge to Selling, general, and administrative expense of $1.6
million.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/9SXOLh

Colfax Corp. is an industrial manufacturing and engineering
company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $51.16MM Accrued Liability in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corp. has accrued asbestos liability of $51,166,000 and
long-term asbestos liability of $330,194,000 in 2016, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.

On September 12, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed prior
rulings regarding the subsidiary's insurance policies and also
ruled on other matters including specific determinations of
coverage for defense costs under the excess policies. The net
result of the ruling is an adjustment to the Company's expected
future recoveries, resulting in an $8.2 million reduction to the
net recoverable insurance asset recorded as a pre-tax charge to
the Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended December
31, 2016. The estimated future expected recovery rate may change
over time as these claims are fully settled, which may result in
periodic adjustments impacting our financial condition and results
of operations.

Certain matters, including potential interest which could be
awarded to the subsidiary, are subject to further rulings from the
Delaware courts. While the outcome is uncertain, none of these
matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the
Company.

The Delaware Supreme Court's ruling is also expected to result in
the receipt from excess insurers of approximately $73 million in
unreimbursed costs funded by the subsidiary in defense and
settlement of asbestos claims, although the timing of cash defense
and settlement costs, compared to levels experienced prior to the
ruling, remains uncertain.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/9SXOLh

Colfax Corp. is an industrial manufacturing and engineering
company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $877.5MM Asbestos Liabilities in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. reported $877.5 million asbestos-related liabilities in
December 31, 2016, compared to $954.8 million in 2015, according
to the Company's 2016 fourth-quarter and full-year financial
results.

On February 14, 2017, ITT Inc. disclosed on an 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it issued a press
release reporting the financial results for the fourth fiscal
quarter and the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A full-text copy of the report is available at
https://is.gd/pqpxpK

ITT Inc. is a diversified leading manufacturer of highly
engineered critical components and customized technology
solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Has $59MM Occupational Reserves in 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. has occupational reserves of $59 million for 2016,
representing liabilities for occupational disease claims and
occupational injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2016.

Occupational disease claims arise primarily from allegations of
exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Occupational injury claims
arise from allegations of exposure to certain other materials in
the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals (collectively
referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes)
or allegations of chronic physical injuries resulting from work
conditions, such as repetitive stress injuries. The Company has
experienced a downward trend in the number of occupational claims
and reserves for these claims have decreased to a level that is no
longer material to the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

Occupational reserves represent liabilities for occupational
disease and injury claims. Occupational disease claims arise
primarily from allegations of exposure to asbestos in the
workplace. Occupational injury claims arise from allegations of
exposure to certain other materials in the workplace, such as
solvents, soaps, chemicals (collectively referred to as
"irritants") and diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes) or allegations
of chronic physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such
as repetitive stress injuries.

The greatest possible exposure to asbestos for employees resulted
from work conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that
were largely phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of
exposures, however, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued until these exposures were
substantially eliminated by 1985. Diseases associated with
asbestos typically have long latency periods (amount of time
between exposure to asbestos and the onset of the disease) which
can range from 10 to 40 years after exposure.

Management reviews asserted asbestos claims quarterly. Unasserted
or incurred but not reported ("IBNR") asbestos claims are analyzed
by a third-party specialist and reviewed by management annually.

CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates are analyzed to determine future anticipated claim filing
rates and average settlement values for asbestos claims reserves.
The potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSXT's
employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the
specialist estimates the IBNR claims liabilities.

CSX Corp. is an international transportation company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Continues v. Sealed Air's Canadian Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. warns that although the possibility is remote, it
could be required to pay substantial damages for asbestos claims
involving its Canadian subsidiaries, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "In November 2004, the Company's Canadian
subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been
named a defendant in the case of  Thundersky v. The Attorney
General of Canada, et al.  (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in
the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -
Conn. were also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the
claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for
alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in
the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing,
selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering
asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the
Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in
January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the
Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter
proceeding,  Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of
Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.  (File No.
CI05-01-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health
services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the
members of the class of plaintiffs in the  Thundersky  proceeding.
In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class
proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal
courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -
Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company
and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense,
including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

"In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order was renewed repeatedly. In November
2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court
ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has
subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be
entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on
December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not
have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but
we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in
favor of the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon
the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United
States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI
Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the
Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court entered the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the
Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court
entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on January
30, 2012 and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June
11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011
recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's
Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in
accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.

"..[T]he PI Settlement Plan became effective on February 3, 2014.
In accordance with the December 13, 2009 order of the Canadian
court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed
until they were amended to remove the Grace parties as named
defendants. The actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties
on February 19, 2014.  The remaining actions were either dismissed
or discontinued with prejudice by the Canadian courts as against
the Grace parties in May and June 2015, but for two actions in the
Province of Quebec, which were discontinued by order of the Quebec
court in February 2016.

"Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the Canadian
courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the
Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable
to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these
cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which
we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results
of operations."

Sealed Air Corp. provides packaging and hygiene solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos May Exist in Kilroy Realty Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental site assessment on Kilroy Realty Corp.'s
properties may have included an assessment of asbestos-containing
materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Many laws and governmental regulations
relating to the environment are applicable to our properties, and
changes in these laws and regulations, or their interpretation by
agencies and the courts, occur frequently and may adversely affect
us.

"Existing conditions at some of our properties.  Independent
environmental consultants have conducted Phase I or similar
environmental site assessments on all of our properties. We
generally obtain these assessments prior to the acquisition of a
property and may later update them as required for subsequent
financing of the property, if a property is slated for
disposition, or as requested by a tenant. Consultants are required
to perform Phase I assessments to American Society for Testing and
Materials standards then-existing for Phase I site assessments and
typically include a historical review, a public records review, a
visual inspection of the surveyed site, and the issuance of a
written report. These assessments do not generally include any
soil samplings or subsurface investigations; however, if a Phase 1
does recommend that soil samples be taken or other subsurface
investigations take place, we generally perform such recommended
actions. Depending on the age of the property, the Phase I may
have included an assessment of asbestos-containing materials or a
separate hazardous materials survey may have been conducted. For
properties where asbestos-containing materials were identified or
suspected, an operations and maintenance plan was generally
prepared and implemented.

"We are subject to environmental and health and safety laws and
regulations, and any costs to comply with, or liabilities arising
under, such laws and regulations could be material. As an owner,
operator, manager, acquirer and developer of real properties, we
are subject to environmental and health and safety laws and
regulations. Certain of these laws and regulations impose joint
and several liability, without regard to fault, for investigation
and clean-up costs on current and former owners and operators of
real property and persons who have disposed of or released
hazardous substances into the environment. At some of our
properties, there are asbestos-containing materials, or tenants
routinely handle hazardous substances as part of their operations.
In addition, historical operations, including the presence of
underground storage tanks, have caused soil or groundwater
contamination at or near some of our properties.

"Although we believe that the prior owners of the affected
properties or other persons may have conducted remediation of
known contamination at these properties, not all such
contamination has been remediated and further clean-up at these
properties may be required. As of December 31, 2016, we had
accrued environmental remediation liabilities of approximately
$25.1 million recorded on our consolidated balance sheets in
connection with certain development projects and recent
development acquisitions. The accrued environmental remediation
liabilities represent the costs we estimate we will incur when we
commence development at various development acquisition sites.
These estimates, which we developed with the assistance of a third
party expert, consist primarily of the removal of contaminated
soil and other related costs since we are required to dispose of
any existing contaminated soil when we develop new office
properties as these sites. It is possible that we could incur
additional environmental remediation costs in connection with
these recent development acquisitions. However, given we are in
the early stages of development on certain of these projects,
potential additional environmental costs are not reasonably
estimable at this time. Unknown or unremediated contamination or
the compliance with existing or new environmental or health and
safety laws and regulations could require us to incur costs or
liabilities that could be material."

Kilroy Realty Corp. is a real estate investment trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Corp. Has $9.71MM Litigation Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corp. has asbestos litigation reserve of $9,710,000 as
of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve
exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly
owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never
manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos.
Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or
Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual
for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected
insurance recoveries.

"The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions
and factors:

   -- We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences
both the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity
cost associated with such resolutions.

   -- The estimated percent of claimants in each case that, after
discovery, will actually make a claim against us, out of the total
number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with
past experience and current trends.

   -- We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the
basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims.
These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and
former employees who worked at past and present company locations.
We also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation.

   -- No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

   -- The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases
are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement
agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company.

"Based on the assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of $11 million at
both December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The liabilities
related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses
(current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are
recoverable through the settlement agreement with The Travelers
Indemnity Company, as well as an agreement with Albemarle
Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related to
premises asbestos liabilities was $5 million at December 31, 2016
and $6 million at December 31, 2015. These receivables are
included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The
noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other
assets."

NewMarket Corp. is a holding company.  The Company operates
through petroleum additives segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. is involved in unresolved legal actions, most
prevalent of which involve disputes related to product design,
manufacture and performance liability, including claimed asbestos
and welding fumes exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "...[W]e are involved in other unresolved
legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. The
most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues, environmental matters or
intellectual property rights. The aggregate range of reasonably
possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities, if any,
associated with these unresolved legal actions is not material. In
some cases, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss because
there is insufficient information regarding the matter. However,
we believe there is no more than a remote chance that any
liability arising from these matters would be material. Although
it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
unresolved legal actions, we believe that these actions will not
individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated results of operations, financial position or
liquidity."

Caterpillar Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets construction,
mining, and forestry machinery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has Exposure to A&EP Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. has exposures related to asbestos and
environmental pollution claims, which could result in material
losses, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Our property and casualty insurance
subsidiaries have exposures related to A&EP claims. Our experience
has been that establishing claim and claim adjustment expense
reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims is subject
to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other
claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques
employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in
estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP.
As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and
unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of
variability. On August 31, 2010, we completed a retroactive
reinsurance transaction under which substantially all of our
legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company
(NICO), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an
aggregate limit of $4 billion (Loss Portfolio Transfer). The
cumulative amount ceded under the Loss Portfolio Transfer as of
December 31, 2016 is $2.8 billion. If the other parties to the
Loss Portfolio Transfer do not fully perform their obligations,
net losses incurred on A&EP claims covered by the Loss Portfolio
Transfer exceed the aggregate limit of $4 billion, or we determine
we have exposures to A&EP claims not covered by the Loss Portfolio
Transfer, we may need to increase our recorded net reserves which
would result in a charge against our earnings. These charges could
be substantial."

The Company also states: "Based upon the Company's 2016 A&EP
reserve review, net unfavorable prior year development of $200
million was recognized before consideration of cessions to the
LPT. The unfavorable development was driven by an increase in
anticipated future expenses associated with determination of
coverage, higher anticipated payouts associated with a limited
number of historical accounts having significant asbestos
exposures and higher than expected severity on pollution claims.
An A&EP reserve review was not completed in 2014 because
additional information and analysis on inuring third-party
reinsurance recoveries were needed to finalize the review. The
review was finalized in the second quarter of 2015 and management
has adopted the first quarter of the year as the timing for all
future annual A&EP claims actuarial reviews, subject to the timing
of the corresponding review performed by NICO. Unfavorable
development of $150 million was recorded in 2015 to reflect a
decrease in anticipated future reinsurance recoveries related to
asbestos claims and higher than expected severity on pollution
claims. While this unfavorable development was ceded to NICO in
2016 and 2015 under the LPT, the Company's Net income in both
periods was negatively affected due to the application of
retroactive reinsurance accounting."

CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial property and
casualty insurance products.






                         *********


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  * * *