CAR_Public/170505.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Friday, May 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 90



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Anti-trust Case Transferred to D. Utah
AARON'S INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under Labor Code
ACCORDIA LIFE: "Clapp" Sues Over Discontinued Insurance Coverage
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Propranolol
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol

ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces "Troll" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
ALL ACCESS: Faces "Alcazar" Wage and Hour Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Action With the Blind
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH: Faces "Contreras" Wage & Hour Suit
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Mistretta" Suit in Eastern District New York

ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Vosefski" Suit in Eastern District New York
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callace" Suit in Eastern District New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Misrepresentation in Debt Collection Suit
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "O'Connell" Suit Challenges Sterling Merger
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide

AUTOLIV INC: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: "Valle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Has Conditional Class Certification
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Responds to Suit Over Fees Welfare Recipients
BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Davis" Wage and Hour Suit

CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
CHEN OSAKA: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay, Tips
CLASSIC HARBOR: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District New York
CONNECTICUT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
COPEL: Appeal on BRL105,010 Payable to Tradener Still Pending

COVELLI FAMILY: "Leleux" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CREDIT CONTROL: "Kaziev" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
CREDIT CONTROL: "Lerman" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
CREDIT CONTROL: "Shields" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify Class

DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Not Required to be Unbiased bet. Candidates
DENVER, CO: Homeless Plaintiffs' Suit Gets Class Action Status
DIRECT ENERGY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Richards" Suit
DNC SERVICES: Court Hears Arguments on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
DR PEPPER: Lawyers Say Consumers Fail to Support False Ad Claims

ERIK FREESE: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Northern District of Illinois
ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Molina" Suit in Middle District of Florida
EUREKA, CA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cobine"
EXPRESS COURIER: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
EXTERIOR DESIGNS: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

FASHION NOVA: "Rosillo" Suit Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code
FLINT, MI: MDEQ Defendants Appeal Ruling in "Nappier" Class Suit
FOUGERA PHARMA: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Clobetasol
FOX RESTAURANT: "Watt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Premium Wages

GARDENS ON THE BAY: "Adler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
GENPACT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
GUILLERMO PRADO: "Ledo" Claims Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
HARBOR FREIGHT: Misrepresents Solar Kit Wattage, Morgan Claims
HARRIS COUNTY: Judge Says Bail System Unfair to Indigent People

HD SUPPLY: Court Wants Settlement Approval Bid Revised
HODGSON MILL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit
HOWARD HUGHES: Picasso Seeks to Block Vote On Share Purchase
ILLINOIS: "Koss" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Class Action Over Prison Health Care

INFOMART INC: Faces "Mills" Suit in N.D. West Virginia
IRWIN SIMON: "Barnes" Hits Company Financials, Fiscal Governance
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Faces "Whatley" Suit in E.D. Texas
JOHNSON & SON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in N.D. California
KANDI TECH: "Tavrovsky" Sues Over Share Drop, Faulty Financials

KELLY SERVICES: Sued Over Employment-Related Communications
KIMPTON HOTEL: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Case Settlement Fails to Win Approval
MARSHALL SQUARE: Mediation to Settle Claims Over 2015 Fire Fails
MATCH GROUP: Hit With Deceptive Advertising Class Action

MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Laptops Not Upgradeable, Thornton Says
MILWAUKEE BUCKS: Settles Cheerleader Pay Class Action
MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
MYLAN INC: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injectable
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Deepe Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Cir.

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Asks Court to Remove 2 Players From Class Action
NATIONAL IMAGING: "Mauthe" Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
NEW MEXICO: Judge Allows Wage Law Violations Suit to Proceed
OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Lundgren" Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.

ONTARIO: Fails to Eliminate Wait List for Support Services
ONTARIO HOCKEY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Minimum Wage
PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stradford" Suit
PERSONIFIED CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Shabu Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA

PIZZA HUT: Court to Hear Appeal in Franchisee Suit This Month
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lockridge" Suit in E.D. New York
QUAIN ENTERPRISES: "Buron" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
QUALCOMM INC: "Carroll" Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
QUALITY DINING: Joseph Appeals E.D. Penn. Ruling to Third Circuit

QUALITY DINING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cicero" Class Suit
RBS HOLDINGS: BBSW Manipulation Class Action Underway
RBS HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Forex Manipulation Case Accord
RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Rent Dispute Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
RITE AID: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit Over Flu Vaccine

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Coroners Sold Land Containing Gravesites
TESLA: Suit Says Autopilot Car Dangerously Defective
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in W.D. Kentucky
SAN PIETRO: Faces "Carchi" Suit in Southern District of New York
SIGNET JEWELERS: Firemen's Fund Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y

SPOKANE, WA: "Trevino" Suit v. Social Health Service Filed
SRM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hill" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SYRACUSE, NY: Winston Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of N.D.N.Y. Ruling
TACONIC: Judge Denies Dismissal of Water Pollution Suit
TOWER HILL: MSPA Appeals S.D. Fla. Ct. Ruling to 11th Cir.

TSG COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. New York
UNION LOCAL 237: Discriminates Minority Employees, Wynn Says
UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Vidrio" Suit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Claims vs. Unit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Peterson" Suit

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces "Kuykendall" Wage and Hour Suit
USCB INC: "Gallups" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sabin" Suit in Eastern District New York
WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Settlement in "Magana" Suit Has Initial OK
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Suit

* Fin'l Advisers Face Increased Risk of Class Action Litigation
* Foley & Lardner Comments on Challenging Limited Issue Suits


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Foster Wheeler Summary Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Avondale Remanded to State Ct
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. District Court Keen to Remand "Abrogast"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bobo" Suit Remanded for Damages Recalculation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destructive Testing OK'd in Mesothelioma Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Verdict vs. Millar Companies Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had US$108.5MM Reserve at Feb. 28
ASBESTOS ALERT: Arconic, Units Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records US$696MM Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Faces 36,052 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc, Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS ALERT: DOJ, EPA Probe Metaldyne Unit's WI Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Ups A&E IBNR Reserves by US$3.5MM in 2016

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,711 Asbestos, Silica Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Inc. Still Defends in Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at Feb. 3
ASBESTOS ALERT: Northwest Pipe Accrues $0.2MM for Plant VCP

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Face 58 PI Suits at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Facing Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Energy Fuels' Mill Still Pending in TX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPA17 Records $17.7-Mil. ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had US$303.6MM Loss Reserves at Dec 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $89.6MM Gross Reserve at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Claims at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Faces 636 PI Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had US$1.7-Bil. Reserve at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Face PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port to Rid of Asbestos in Hillcrest Properties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School District Faces $628,000 Fines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Resident Fears Asbestos in Dumped Rubbish
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Faces Jail for Dumping Asbestos Waste

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wish School Reopens After Receiving Clearance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U of T Rooms Reopen Following Asbestos Leaks




                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Anti-trust Case Transferred to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kathryn Champion, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60696, (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2017), was
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Utah on April 24, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-00323.

1-800 Contacts sells contact lenses and related products over the
internet and by telephone throughout the United States, including
the State of Arkansas. It allegedly entered into bidding
agreements with search engine companies that did not display the
prices, products and services offered by its competitors in the
market for online sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and
competition. [BN]

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including treble damages,
costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief in resulting from restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 West 7th Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Telephone: (501) 312-8500
     Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
     Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com

            - and -

     Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
     Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     One Tower Bridge
     100 Front Street, Suite 1235
     West Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (610) 834-7506
     Facsimile: (610) 834-7509
     Email: sbloch@baileyglasser.com
            mdesanto@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     James L. Kauffman, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Sara M. Nielson, Esq.
     Robert S. Clark, Esq.
     PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
     101 South 200 East, Suite 700
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111
     Tel: (801) 532-7840
     Fax. (801) 532-7750
     Email: rclark@parrbrown.com
            snielson@parrbrown.com


AARON'S INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMINDA SEVILLA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. AARON'S, INC., a Georgia corporation, and
Does 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC659590
(Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, wages for meal and rest break violations,
unreimbursed business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution,
statutory penalties and damages pursuant to California Labor Code.

The case is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of: (1) all
hourly-paid employees employed by, or formerly employed by,
Defendants within the State of California, to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, wages for meal and rest break violations,
unreimbursed business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution,
as well as other damages owed pursuant to the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq. (the "Hourly Paid Class"); and, (2) all former
similarly-situated employees of Defendants that did not receive
the timely payment of their wages upon the termination of their
employment to recover statutory penalties and damages owed
pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 (the "Waiting Time
Class").

As a result of Defendants' company-wide policies and practices,
Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were denied
overtime wages because Defendants failed to include commission and
bonuses earned when determining Plaintiff and other members of the
class' regular rate of pay for calculating their overtime wages.
Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were also not
reimbursed for necessary business expenses because Defendants
required them to wear specific uniforms but did not reimburse
Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class for the uniforms'
cost. Further, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other
members of the Hourly Class with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and
rest breaks as they routinely compelled Plaintiff and other
members of the class to work during and through their meal and
rest breaks. Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly Class were
not paid all wages due upon their termination because they did not
timely receive all compensation due including overtime wages,
additional wages for meal and rest periods that were not provided;
premium pay for the failure to provide meal and rest breaks; and
reimbursement of business expenses. Plaintiff and
other members of the Waiting Time Class were not paid all wages
due upon their termination because they did not timely receive all
of their earned wages. Plaintiff and other members of the Hourly
Class did not receive accurate itemized wage statements that
complied with California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a),
because the wage statements did not accurately state gross wages
earned, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly
rate, and net wages earned due to Defendants' failure to properly
calculate and pay overtime wages and to maintain lawful
meal or rest break policies.

Aaron's, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer. The company focuses on
leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics, appliances, and
computers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          Andrew J. Malatesta, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenji@employeeiustice.law
                  malatesta@emploveejustice.law


ACCORDIA LIFE: "Clapp" Sues Over Discontinued Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Clapp, Mary Jones and Daryl McCleary, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Accordia Life and Annuity Company, Global Atlantic Financial Group
Limited and Alliance-One Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02097, (C.D. Ill., April 20, 2017), seeks actual and
compensatory damages and interest, restitution, disgorgement and
other equitable monetary relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses and costs and any other relief resulting from negligence,
breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unfair and deceptive trade practices and common law
consumer fraud.

Plaintiffs purchased universal life insurance policies in which
the policies had a no-lapse guarantee rider, under which the
policy was guaranteed never to lapse. The policy premiums were to
be automatically deducted from Plaintiffs' checking account
monthly, for approximately 10 years.

Plaintiffs allege that insurer Accordia ceased making automatic
withdrawals of premium payments from their individual accounts,
beginning in approximately August of 2015, thus removed the no-
lapse guarantee from Plaintiff's policy. Accordia stopped
automatically withdrawing or accepting premium payments during a
conversion period which caused the policies to lapse in order to
have their "no-lapse guarantee" removed and converted from one
type of policy to another type of policy sans crucial and highly-
valuable features, says the complaint.

Global Atlantic is a financial services holding company that sells
insurance and investment products through various subsidiaries,
including Accordia. Alliance-One is a third-party insurance
administrator hired by Accordia to administer its life insurance
and annuity contracts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Stephen L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
      646 Walnut Street
      Terre Haute, IN 478070
      Telephone: (812) 232-0107
      Email: steve@williamsinjurylaw.com


ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Propranolol
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company D/B/A Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v.
Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Pliva, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical,
Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Upsher-Smith
Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01876 (E.D. Pa.,
April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
the purchase price for Defendants' generic Propranolol products,
other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 through the present,
restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages,
punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of
restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits
received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates,
successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors,
partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons
acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them,
from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the
conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further
overpricing.  The suit also seeks costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of
trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair,
unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for
violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws
protection and unfair competition statutes.

Defendants control the United States market for generic
propranolol, a beta-blocker used to manage cardiac arrhythmias,
tremors, angina, hypertension, heart rhythm disorders and other
heart or circulatory conditions. Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix the prices of propranolol to eliminate competition.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health
insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to
covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative
services and manages health care services for its members.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes generic
drugs.

Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Fairfield, New Jersey. It sells
Propranolol Capsules in this District and throughout the United
States.

Endo International PLC is an Irish corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dublin, Ireland and United States
headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Its subsidiary, Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sells Propranolol Tablets throughout the
United States.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage
sells propranolol tablets throughout the United States. Heritage
is a subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune,
India.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic Propranolol Tablets.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales,
Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 200 Elmora Ave.,
Elizabeth, NJ 07207. Actavis was acquired by Teva in 2016.

Pliva, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place
of business at 72 Deforest Ave. East Hanover, NJ 07936. Pliva is a
subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.

UDL Laboratories, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business at 1718 Northrock Ct, Rockford,
Illinois 61103. UDL is a subsidiary of Mylan Inc.

Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with
its principal place of business at 6701 Evenstad Drive, Maple
Grove, Minnesota 55369.

Defendants market and sell generic propranolol tablets throughout
the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Lance Bordelon, Esq.
      Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
      365 Canal St., Ste. 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Ursodiol
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v.
Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Lannett Company, Inc. and Epic Pharma,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01875 (E.D. Pa., April 25,
2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in
the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased,
paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price for Defendants' generic Ursodiol, other than for resale,
from October 1, 2012 through the present, restitution and/or
damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or
disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received,
injunction against Defendants, their affiliates, successors,
transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors, partners,
agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, from in
any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct,
contract, conspiracy, or combination from further overpricing.
The suit further seeks costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of trade, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable,
deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for violation of the
Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws protection and unfair
competition statutes.

Defendants control the United States market for generic Ursodiol
or ursodeoxycholic acid, in capsule form. It is a bile acid that
decreases the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver and
absorbed by the intestines and is prescribed for gallbladder stone
dissolution.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health
insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to
covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative
services and manages health care services for its members.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic Urdodiol.

Epic Pharma, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Laurelton, New York. Epic markets
and sells generic Ursodiol throughout the United States.

Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. is a Delaware corporation that has its
administrative headquarters in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Lance Bordelon, Esq.
      Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
      365 Canal St., Ste. 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces "Troll" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SASCHA TROLL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., GREGORY W.
SCOTT, THOMAS S. HALL, FRANK R. WILLIAMS JR. and TIMOTHY L.
FIELDING, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex., April
27, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Adeptus securities between
April 29, 2016 and March 1, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class
Period). Throughout the Class Period, 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) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal control
over financial reporting in the areas of revenue recognition,
accounts receivable, accounting for a contribution to an
unconsolidated joint venture, and accounting for equity in (loss)
earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures; (ii) accordingly, the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Adeptus's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On March 2, 2017, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 announcing the
delay in the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016 and revealing additional material weaknesses in
its internal control over financial reporting. On this news,
Adeptus' share price fell $3.76 or 57.4%, to close at $2.79 per
share on March 2, 2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Adeptus Health operates an independent network of free-standing
emergency rooms. The Company provides emergency medical care to
patients in Texas and Colorado. Founded in 2002, the Company is
headquartered in Lewisville, Texas. Adeptus's stock trades on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "ADPT."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 643 6011
          Facsimile: (281) 254 7789
          E-mail: cwbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ALL ACCESS: Faces "Alcazar" Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------
BLANCA ALCAZAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALL ACCESS APPAREL, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC659608 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover premium wages for missed meal and rest periods,
penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to
the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations.

For at least four years prior to the filing of the action and
continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy
of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees or former employees within the State of
California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
the employees worked more than five hours in a workday and a
second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the
employees worked in excess of ten hours in a work day, and failing
to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods; failing
to provide rest periods of at least ten minutes per four hours
worked or major fraction and failing to provide compensation for
such unprovided rest periods; and failing to pay full amount of
wages upon termination and/or resignation.

All Access, doing business as Self Esteem, manufactures clothing
line for teens. The company's clothing line includes fashion tops
and active wear.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Action With the Blind
------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports under a new settlement,
one of the nation's largest movie theater chains, AMC, will adopt
sweeping reforms to give blind customers access to devices that
describe visual elements in films.

"It makes the movie going experience more equal for blind patrons
to experience what folks who are sighted see in movies," said
Michael Nunez, Esq. -- mnunez@rbgg.com -- of Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, who represented a class of blind and visually
impaired moviegoers.

Lead plaintiff Scott Blanks sued AMC in February 2016, saying that
though the theatre chain supposedly offered audio-description
devices, it often gave blind patrons the wrong gadgets, such as
devices intended for deaf people, or malfunctioning equipment.

Under the two-year settlement deal, AMC will train employees how
to use and set up the devices, create a step-by-step guide for
them, and test the equipment weekly.

Nunez said the class hopes the new policies and procedures will
become engrained in AMC culture and remain in place long after the
two-year settlement term expires.

As part of the deal, AMC will keep all complaints it receives
about the audio description devices, and a disability access
coordinator will review and resolve those complaints, Nunez said.
The theatre chain will also create audio descriptions for its pre-
film announcements, giving blind patrons a chance to test their
devices and make sure they work properly before the film starts.
AMC also will ensure that suppliers of movie trailers provide
audio descriptions for film previews whenever possible, Nunez
said.

Beyond carrying out changes in theatres, AMC will also make its
website and mobile app more accessible and publicize the
availability of its audio-description equipment online.

Furthermore, it will update its website and mobile apps to inform
patrons when audio equipment is out or unavailable at certain
locations, Nunez added.

"We're hoping the policies and practices in the settlement serve
as a model for other movie theatre chains as they look to improve
access to audio description at their theatres as well," Nunez
said.

Nunez, of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld in San Francisco, worked
with attorneys from Disability Rights Advocates in Berkeley to
secure the settlement deal.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Blanks, the California Council
of the Blind, Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Leah
Gardner, Charles Nabarrete, Robert Schulenburg and Empish Thomas.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on April 27 approved a
stipulated request to dismiss the case without prejudice. Rogers
will retain jurisdiction over the case until April 2019 to ensure
compliance.

AMC did not immediately respond to a phone call and email seeking
comment on April 27 night. [GN]


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH: Faces "Contreras" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CONTRERAS, in her individual and representative capacity
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC659580 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay and regular/minimum wages under California's wage and
hour laws.

The Plaintiff was a receptionist/office administrator/assistant at
American University Of Health Sciences, Inc. who was regularly
denied legally required timely and uninterrupted meal periods and
rest periods and was denied payment of overtime actually worked.
The American University uses an array of similarly situated
"receptionists," "administrators," or "assistants," or similar
titles, to carry out the same or similar functions as Plaintiff
who are, on information and belief, similarly denied timely and
uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods and payment for
overtime worked.

The Employer subjected Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to various unlawful wage and hour practices, including
but not limited to (1) failing to pay overtime pay; (2) failing to
pay minimum wages; (3) failing to provide uninterrupted off-duty
meal periods and/or required penalties; (4) failing to provide
uninterrupted off-duty rest periods and/or required penalties; (5)
failing to maintain adequate records; (6) failing to furnish
accurate wage statements; and (7) failing to timely pay all wages
due upon termination.

The American University of Health Sciences (AUHS) was established
in 1994 by Dr. Kim Dang (Hon.) and Pastor Gregory Johnson. AUHS is
a Christian based, private, for profit, postsecondary education
institute created to provide excellence in education for students
interested in a career in healthcare. Students can obtain
healthcare degrees in the school of nursing, school of pharmacy or
clinical research professions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Ward J. Lott, Esq.
          HARDIN & LOTT, APC
          4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 380
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 337 4810
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: jhardin@hardinemploymentlaw.com
                  wlott@hardinemploymentlaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Mistretta" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is entitled as Loretta Mistretta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02547 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It
caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Vosefski" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Holly F. Vosefski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02554 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It
caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callace" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Callace, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02533
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 27, 2017).

ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It
caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces Misrepresentation in Debt Collection Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Cook County Record reports that consumer has filed
a class action lawsuit against Asset Recovery Solutions LLC, a
debt collector, citing alleged misrepresentation in debt
collection.

Yuridia Trujillo filed a complaint on behalf of a class on March
27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Asset Recovery Solutions alleging that it sent a
collection letter to the plaintiff regarding her student loan
debts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in
February 2017, she sustained damages from receiving a collection
letter that contained misleading information regarding her debt.
The plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff
that her student loan debt is time-barred.

The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of USD1,000 for each loan
that was the subject of an improper communication, actual damages,
court costs and any further relief this court grants. She is
represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, James O.
Latturner and Emiliya Gumin Farbstein -- info@edcombs.com -- of
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:17-cv-02303[GN]


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "O'Connell" Suit Challenges Sterling Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA O'CONNELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JOHN R.
CHRIN, JOHN J. CORRADO, ROBERT GIAMBRONE, GERARD C. KEEGAN, BRIAN
M. LEENEY, PATRICIA M. NAZEMETZ, RALPH F. PALLESCHI, MONTE N.
REDMAN, and STERLING BANCORP, the Defendants,
Case No. 603703/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), is brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of Astoria Financial
Corporation against members of Astoria's Board of Directors and
Sterling Bancorp alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and/or
other violations of state law, and aiding and abetting, in
connection with the Board's decision to sell Astoria to Sterling
for inadequate consideration to the detriment of the Company's
public stockholders following a flawed sales process, as announced
on March 7, 2017 ("Proposed Transaction").

On March 7, 2017, Astoria and Sterling jointly announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement (Merger Agreement)
pursuant to which Sterling will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Astoria in exchange for 0.875 shares of
Sterling (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $2.2
billion. The Proposed Transaction is the end product of an
insufficient sales process where a desperate Astoria Board sought
a quick sale of the Company to lock in for itself certain merger
related financial benefits that it would not have otherwise
received absent a transaction -- even going as far as to ignore an
interested alternative bidder's potentially topping bid while
agreeing to contractual provisions that closed the door on a
superior offer.

On October 28, 2015, Astoria announced that it had entered into a
merger agreement "Failed NYCB Merger Agreement") pursuant to which
it agreed to be acquired by New York Community Bank (the "Failed
Transaction"). According to reports, federal regulators refused to
approve the deal over concerns that the bank would become too
"systematically important", or in other words, too big to fail.
The Company formally announced the termination of the Failed
Merger Agreement on December 20, 2016, to be effective on January
1, 2017. As alleged further, the Board never considered and was
entirely unprepared to manage the Company as a standalone entity
following the Failed Transaction, and entered into the Proposed
Transaction in order to cash out of the Company and secure for
themselves certain financial benefits related to their
directorships.

Following the collapse of the NYCB merger, neither the Board of
Astoria, nor Company management were interested in continuing
operations as a standalone entity, as numerous stock options,
RSUs, and RSAs, had vested at the conclusion of 2015 in
anticipation of the Failed Transaction. Moreover, in December
2016, certain members of the Board only narrowly won reelection to
their seats, garnering only a plurality of the votes and not a
majority, with the Company also having consecutive say-on-pay
proxy proposals voted against. The shifting tides of stockholder
sentiment against the Board indicate that support for the Board
was wearing thing and some, if not all of the Company's directors
would soon see themselves on the outs absent a sale of the
Company.

Accordingly, when the NYCB merger terminated, Astoria sought out a
quick deal the first viable bidder available, agreeing to the
Proposed Transaction with Sterling that fails to provide Astoria
stockholders with adequate compensation for their shares in the
current high growth environment for the financial sector. The
Proposed Transaction also fails to provide sufficient
consideration to Astoria stockholders in light of the increased
risk posed by the stock for stock exchange with Sterling, as the
Proposed Transaction exposes Astoria stockholders to a bank with a
weaker capital position. Indeed, the announcement of the Proposed
Transaction has already resulted in Astoria's debt holdings being
placed under review by Moody's for a prospective downgrade.
Further, the structure of the Merger Agreement does nothing to
protect from the deflating effect of a drop in Sterling's stock
price, as the Board failed to negotiate any collar for the benefit
of Astoria's stockholders.

On March 6, 2017, the day in which the Merger Agreement was
executed, the adjusted closing price of Sterling was $25.05. Since
then, Sterling's stock price has faced a consistent decline,
trading below $23 per share as of April 20, 2017, resulting in a
lower implied valuation for the Company and its stockholders.

Compounding the flawed sales process and insufficient Merger
Consideration, the Board has also agreed to certain deal
protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that effectively
guard against a topping offer. Specifically, in the Merger
Agreement, the Board agreed to: (i) a strict no-solicitation
provision that prevents the Company from soliciting other
potential Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties
and/or aided and abetted said breach to Astoria stockholders on
April 4, 2017, when they caused the materially false and
misleading S-4 to be filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, as amended on April 21, 2017 (the
"Registration Statement" or "S-4"). Intended to solicit
stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the S-4 fails to
include all material information concerning, inter alia: (i) the
existence of restrictive standstill provisions preventing
previously interested parties from submitting a superior offer for
the Company; (ii) the unfair sales process that resulted in the
Proposed Transaction; (iii) the inputs and assumptions underlying
the valuation analyses prepared by Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. ("Sandler") Astoria's financial advisor in the Proposed
Transaction, in connection with rendering its fairness opinion to
the Board; and (iv) the projections for the Company's future
financial performance, as used by Sandler to support its
fairness findings,. As a result, Astoria's stockholders are unable
to make a fully informed decision as to whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction.

On April 21, 2017, the Company announced that the special meeting
of Company stockholders at which they would be asked to vote on
the Proposed Transaction was scheduled for overtime wages, double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
June 13, 2017. Thus, if the S-4's disclosure deficiencies, as
alleged herein, are not cured in a timely fashion, Plaintiff and
the Class will be irreparably harmed by having to cast an
uninformed vote on the future of Astoria. As alleged, the Board
agreed to the Proposed Transaction in breach of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated stockholders.

Formed in 1993, Astoria is the holding company that owns Astoria
Federal Savings & Loan Association. Astoria Bank was established
in 1888 and currently has deposits close to $8.9 billion, making
it the second largest depository in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


AUROBINDO PHARMA: Louisiana Health Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v.
Aurobindo Pharma USA, INC., Citron Pharma, LLC, Heritage
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Jeffrey A.
Glazer and Jason T. Malek, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01878
(E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities in the United States and its territories who
indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some
or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic glyburide,
other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 through the present,
restitution and/or damages, actual damages, statutory damages,
punitive or treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on such monetary relief, equitable relief in the form of
restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits
received, injunction against Defendants, their affiliates,
successors, transferees, assignees, and other officers, directors,
partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons
acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them,
from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the
conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from further
overpricing.   The suit also seeks costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of
trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair,
unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices and for
violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws
protection and unfair competition statutes.

Defendants control the United States market for generic Glyburide,
an anti-diabetic drug of the sulfonylurea class indicated to treat
Type 2 diabetes.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health
insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to
covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative
services and manages health care services for its members.

Aurobindo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 6
Wheeling Road, Dayton, New Jersey. Aurobindo has an ongoing
partnership with Citron Pharma LLC, whereby Aurobindo manufactures
generic glyburide, which Citron Pharma LLC then sells under its
trade dress.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage
sells Glyburide throughout the United States. Heritage is a
subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune, India.
Jeffrey A. Glazer sat as CEO of Heritage while Jason T. Malek was
Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations and later President
of Heritage.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales,
Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Lance Bordelon, Esq.
      Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
      365 Canal St., Ste. 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


AUTOLIV INC: Awaits Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a February 2017
settlement agreement it entered into with plaintiffs in three
antitrust class action lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada.  Specifically, the
Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were
named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust
class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015.
Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported
classes -- direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of
the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and
equipment dealers -- who purchased occupant safety systems or
components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases
or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through
purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered
into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the
three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL.  Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay US$40 million
to the direct purchaser settlement class, US$6 million to the auto
dealer settlement class, and US$19 million to the end-payor
settlement class, for a total of US$65 million.  This amount was
expensed during the second quarter of 2014.

In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the
direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to
approximately US$35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December
2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer
class settlement; and in June 2016, the MDL court granted final
approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of
several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the
MDL court's approval of the Company's end-payor settlement and
several other defendants' settlements that were approved at the
same time.  This appeal will delay the finality of the Company's
settlement with the end-payor class.

In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its
affiliated entities) have opted-out of the pending end-payor class
settlements, including the Company's settlement.  The class
settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members
who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any
purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise
included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.

In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that
opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company
and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class
settlement.  The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration
or ultimate outcome of this matter.

In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability,
reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve
certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S.
antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser
class settlement described above.  The total amount of these
additional settlements was US$81 million.  Autoliv expensed during
the first quarter of 2015 approximately US$77 million as a result
of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had
been accrued in 2014.

In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the truck and equipment dealers class for an amount that is
not material to the Company's results of operations.  In November
2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the settlement and
on February 3, 2017, the MDL court entered a final judgment
dismissing the case against the Company.

The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in
Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January
18, 2013; M.  Serge Asselin v.  Autoliv, Inc.  et al., filed in
the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v.  Autoliv,
Inc.  et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on
July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v.
Autoliv ASP, Inc.  et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the
Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May
14, 2014).  The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative
classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety
systems.

In February 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a
nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the
Company's results of operations.  The settlement is subject to
court approvals following notice to the class members.  Once
approved, this national settlement will include the claims of the
putative members of the fourth class action.  The Company accrued
amounts for the period ended December 31, 2016 in connection with
these claims.

Autoliv, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
and supplies automotive safety systems to the automotive industry
worldwide.  It operates through two segments, Passive Safety and
Electronics.  The Company offers a range of products, including
modules and components for passenger and driver-side airbags,
side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts, steering wheels,
inflator technologies, whiplash protection systems, child seats,
and components; and camera-based vision systems, night driving
assists, automotive radars, brake controls, positioning systems,
electronic control units, and other active safety systems, as well
as passive safety electronic products, such as restraint
electronics and crash sensors.  It primarily serves car
manufacturers.  The Company was founded in 1953 and is
headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.


BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: "Valle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR VALLE, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEAURAYNE BUILDERS LLC,
GALINDO Z CONSTRUCTION LLC, ELDRED ROBERT, JR, and JOSE GALINDO,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00274-JJB-EWD (M.D. La., Apr. 28,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The case is an action by Oscar Valle on behalf of himself and all
others 5 similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime wages. The
Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer by the
Defendants. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was not
paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA). The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in November 2016 and
worked for Defendants for approximately five months. The Plaintiff
worked at two apartment complex renovation projects for Defendants
in Baton Rouge. Defendants' worksites were populated by at least
sixty other laborers. Plaintiff worked as a carpenter and
sheetrocker9. Defendants paid Plaintiff $22.00 per hour. For every
hour that he worked in excess of forty in any particular week he
was still only paid $22.00 per hour.

Beaurayne Builders is in single-family housing construction
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Has Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BENORE LOGISTIC
SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-13717-AJT-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon Magistrate Judge David R. Grand entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify collective action and issue notice to the
class pursuant to the a Fair Labor Standards Act, as follows:

   - Proposed Putative Class:

     Plaintiffs' proposed verbiage is acceptable and preferable
     to the one proposed by Defendant as Defendant's utilizes a
     legal term that class members may not readily understand.

   - Case Caption on the Notice:

     Plaintiffs' proposal to omit the case caption from the
     Notice is acceptable. The Court notes that the case caption
     is included on the Consent to Sue Form, and the Notice
     references that it has been "authorized" by the Court.

   - Rights of Class Members Who Do Not Join the Action:

     The parties are to edit the Notice as agreed on the record.

   - Obligations of Class Members to Participate in
     Discovery/Trial. The parties are to edit the Notice as
     agreed on the record. To the extent Defendant argues that
     there should be a reference to the potential need for class
     members to come to Detroit to testify in Court, the Court
     rejects that argument. The likelihood of class members being
     required to testify live in Detroit is low, whereas the
     likely chilling effect of Defendant's proposed verbiage is
     significant.

   - Obligations of Class Members to Pay Costs:

     The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the likelihood of
     costs being assessed against opt-in class members is low,
     whereas the likely chilling effect of Defendant's proposed
     verbiage is significant. Thus, Defendant's request to
     include this proposed language is denied.

   - Opt-In Period:

     The parties agreed to a 45-day opt-in period.

   - Method of Transmitting the Notice:

     While Defendant may have occasionally communicated with some
     employees via their outside e-mail accounts, it contends
     that it does not maintain a database of current or former
     employees' outside e-mail addresses. Accordingly, the Court
     will not order the Notice to be sent via e-mail. The Notice
     shall therefore be sent by first class U.S. Mail only.

   - Reminder Notecard:

     A reminder note card is not necessary in this case. The
     proposed Notice is readily understandable, and relates to
     matters which the recipients will understand to be important
     -- their potential receipt of money for unpaid overtime.
     Therefore, those who are interested in pursuing such relief
     are likely to act on the Notice. A reminder note card, on
     the other hand, could be construed by the recipient as the
     Court encouraging their participation in this action. Thus,
     Plaintiffs' request to allow a reminder note card is denied.

   - Format of Employee Information:

     Defendant agreed to request the relevant information from
     Paychex (and/or other payroll services) in a manipulable
     format, and provide it to Plaintiffs in whatever format it
     is received. If Paychex (and/or other payroll services) are
     unable to accommodate this request, then Defendant shall
     provide the relevant information in whatever form it is
     ordinarily maintained. In any case, the production shall
     include employee identification numbers (whether internal or
     one utilized by the payroll company). Defendant shall have
     until April 27, 2017, to provide this information.

   - Employee Identifying Information.

     The parties agreed that, at least for the time being, it
     will be sufficient for Defendant to provide the last four
     digits of the employees' social security numbers of those
     putative class members who have Notices returned without a
     forwarding address.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MkWWW1YV


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Responds to Suit Over Fees Welfare Recipients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver Sun reports the B.C. government says it has done nothing
wrong by redirecting money from the income-assistance cheques of
recovering heroin addicts to pay private methadone-dispensing
clinics for treatment.

In documents filed in B.C. Supreme Court in March, the provincial
government says private clinics can charge extra for counselling
services not provided by a doctor, and that such fees can be paid
for out of a beneficiary's monthly income or disability allowance.

Laura Shaver is in the methadone-maintenance program and sued the
province in November 2015 in what could become a class-action
suit.

Shaver's notice of claim says she was forced to sign a government-
drafted agreement at the Yale Medical Centre in Vancouver because
she needed treatment for a heroin addiction and there was no room
at a public facility.

The fee agreement is CAD60, which is reduced by about CAD42
through a government-provided supplement, leaving the remaining
CAD18 to be drawn from her monthly support allowance.

The government's response to the civil claim says it didn't force
Shaver to attend the private clinic, which the province says
operates separately from government. [GN]


BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Davis" Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
NATASHA DAVIS, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOKSTONE
COMPANY, INC., a New Hampshire corporation, and DOES 1-100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659372 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 27, 2017), seeks relief on behalf of herself and the members
of the putative class as a result of employment policies,
practices and procedures, which violate the California Labor Code,
and the orders and standards promulgated by the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission,
and Division of Labor Standards, and which have resulted in the
failure of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members
of the putative class all wages due to them.

The Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff and members of
the putative class with timely meal and rest breaks; failed to
provide one day's rest in seven; failed to pay all final wages
in a timely fashion; and failed to provide proper wage statements
in violations of the California Labor Code

In addition, Plaintiff and members of the putative class seek
relief and damages for Defendant's violation of the California's
unfair competition laws, including the equitable remedies of
declaratory relief, disgorgement, accounting, and restitution.

Brookstone Company operates as a specialty retailer primarily in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports that a safety
attendant for a Texas-based company engaged in oil drilling
services alleges the company violated state labor codes.

Harold Jones filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on April 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against CertifiedSafety Inc. alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor
codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has been
employed by the defendant since 2011. The plaintiff holds
Certifiedsafety Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks to the plaintiff,
failed to pay minimum or overtime wages, failed to reimburse
employees for business expenditures, failed to provide accurate
wage statements and failed to timely pay wages upon termination.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid wages,
injunctive relief, liquidated damages, restitution, actual
damages, punitive damages, all legal fees and any other relief as
this court deems just. He is represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell
-- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com  --  Nicole N. Coon --
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com  --  Keenan L. Klein --
kklein@schneiderwallace.com -- and David C. Leimbach --
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP in Emeryville.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-02229-DMR [GN]


CHEN OSAKA: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay, Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
Lian Hui Qi, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chen Osaka, Inc. d/b/a Osaka
Japanese Restaurant, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00188, (E.D.
Ky., April 26, 2017), seeks restitution for the tips she was not
permitted to retain, as well as the minimum wage base pay that she
did not receive, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other damages to which they may
be entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chen Osaka, Inc. operates as Osaka Japanese Restaurant located at
3805 Dylan Place Suite 130 Lexington, Kentucky 40514 where
Plaintiff worked as a waitress from March 16, 2016 to April 4,
2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


CLASSIC HARBOR: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Harbor Line
LLC. The case is entitled as Edwin Zayas, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Classic
Harbor Line LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03097-RA
(S.D.N.Y., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Ronnie Abrams.

Classic Harbor, a builder, owner and operator of modern yet
classically inspired yachts, offers private charters, sailing
trips and sightseeing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783 9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


CONNECTICUT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Ometrius Perez, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. George Jepsen,
in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of
Connecticut, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00614-VLB
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a prisoners class; and

   2. appointing class counsel.

The Connecticut Department of Corrections currently has in its
custody approximately 16,000 prisoners. The Plaintiff estimates
that the Prisoners Class of similarly situated persons far exceeds
50 prisoners.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ct0SjhCJ

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COPEL: Appeal on BRL105,010 Payable to Tradener Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - Copel is awaiting judgment on
its appeal regarding a BRL105,010 liability to Tradener Ltda.,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Class actions and civil public actions were filed in which
illegalities and annulments relating to the execution of the
electric power purchase agreement entered into between the Company
and Tradener are pointed out.  Class action No. 588/2006 has
already been rendered final and unappeasable, and the ruling
recognized as valid commissions payable by the Company to
Tradener.

In the civil public action No. 0000219-78.2003.8.16.0004, filed by
the Prosecution Office, a decision has also been rendered ruling
on the absence of irregularities in the electric power purchase
agreement.  Therefore, Tradener brought recovery lawsuits, seeking
to receive its commissions.

In case record 0005550-26.2012.8.16.0004, the Company was ordered
to pay the commission fees due to Tradener in a final and
unappealable decision rendered on June 28, 2016.  In compliance
with judgment, on November 7, 2016, the Company settled the
obligation, in the amount of BRL57,116, resulting in the
extinction of the proceeding.

In case record 0005990.22.2012.8.16.0004, in the judgment rendered
on January 27, 2014, the Company was ordered to pay the amount of
BRL105,010, which is the value updated by the (INPC/IBGE) from the
maturity of the commissions payable to Tradener under the purchase
agreement entered into with Celesc, plus default interest of 1%
per month, as of the date of notification (October 31, 2012), as
well as attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an appeal against this decision, however, on
November 8, 2016, by majority votes, the Court dismissed the
appeal.  From this decision, Copel filed an appeal which is
pending judgment.

Companhia Paranaense de Energia - Copel engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to industrial,
residential, commercial, rural, and other customers primarily in
the State of Parana, Brazil.  It was founded in 1954 and is
headquartered in Curitiba, Brazil.


COVELLI FAMILY: "Leleux" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Leleux, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. The Covelli Family Limited Partnership, Covelli
Family Limited Partnership II, Covelli Family Limited Partnership
III, d/b/a Panera Bread, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00747 (M.D.
Fla., April 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime with damages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Covelli is the largest franchisee of Panera Breads bakery
products, sandwiches and salads in the country that includes Dairy
Queen and O'Charley's stores. Covelli operates nearly 100
locations in Florida alone. Plaintiff worked at their Seminole
County as a Catering Coordinator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Tel: (404) 965-8811
     Facsimile: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Kaziev" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Kaziev and Ester Aronova, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Credit Control
Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services, the Defendant,
Case No. 610151/2016 was removed on April 27, 2017 from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02522 to the
proceeding.

Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services,
provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 376 6433
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490
          E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Lerman" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a
Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. ______ was
removed on April 27, 2017, from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-02511 to the proceeding.

Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services,
provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY
          WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 376 6433
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490
          E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Shields" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Shields, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a
Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 621045/2016
was removed on April 27, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State
of New York County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-02521 to the proceeding.

Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services,
provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 376 6433
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490
          E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdivieso Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LUIS A. VALDIVIESO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CUSHMAN
& WAKEFIELD INC., the Defendant, Case No 8:17-cv-00118-SDM-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify an Improper
COBRA Election Notice Class:

   "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health
   Plan who were sent the COBRA notice by Defendant, during the
   applicable five-year statute of limitations period as a result
   of a qualifying event".

The Plaintiff moves for certification at this early juncture to
ensure compliance with Local Rule 4.04(b), which requires
Plaintiff seek class certification within 90 days from the filing
of the initial Complaint. Following the mandatory case management
conference, the Court's Case Management and Scheduling order was
entered on March 15, 2017. Thirteen days later Plaintiff
propounded class-wide written discovery on Defendant, both in the
form of interrogatories, requests for production, and also
provided a corporate representative deposition with designated
topics. Defendant's responses are not yet due, nor has a date been
set for the deposition of Defendant's corporate representative.
Thus, Plaintiff requests permission to supplement this Motion with
discovery obtained from Defendant once it becomes due and is
provided. In sum, Plaintiff moves for certification to ensure
compliance with Local Rule 4.04(b). Once class discovery is
obtained, and with the Court's permission, Plaintiff will file an
amended motion with greater detail and evidentiary support.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com
                  mk@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS
          201 S Westland Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 254 1777
          Facsimile: (813) 254 3999
          E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Merry E. Lindberg, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401

               - and -

          Todd S. Aidman, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 3360


DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Not Required to be Unbiased bet. Candidates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Luperon at Law Newz reports that a class-action lawsuit by
Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National
Committee is getting pretty quotable. Plaintiffs accuse the
defendants of being biased on behalf of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But one DNC
lawyer's argument actually tries to justify the party's right to
be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another,
according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they
could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom. That's
what the attorney reportedly said in a Florida federal court:

"We could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that,
Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke
cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was
done. But they could have. And that would have also been their
right.

The same lawyer also argued that there is "no contractual
obligation" to prevent advantage or disadvantage between
candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language
in the DNC charter is not "self-defining." The court would be
dragged into a political matter, and wouldn't be able to
constitutionally offer redress for the claims.

The DNC did not respond to comment by press time, but we will
update when they do.

Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck, both Sanders supporters, sued
the DNC in June 2016 over the alleged bias for Clinton at the
expense of their preferred candidate, an Independent U.S. Senator
who ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Article 5, Session 4 of the DNC's charter says that the National
Chairperson "shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as
between the Presidential candidates and campaigns," and shall make
sure officers and staff also play fair during the nomination
process.

Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned from her post in July
2016 after emails obtained by WikiLeaks suggested that she and
other DNC officials were dismissive, and even antagonistic against
the Sanders campaign. [GN]


DENVER, CO: Homeless Plaintiffs' Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Meltzer at Deverite reports that a group of homeless men
suing the city of Denver over how it handled their belongings
during a series of homeless sweeps last year have been granted
class action status. That means the case can be used to determine
whether the city's policies violate the rights of homeless people
as a group, not just whether these particular people had their
rights violated.

The class action status applies to injunctive relief -- that is,
to any rulings that would force the city to change or suspend its
policies -- but not to damages. Those postcards you get in the
mail telling you you're part of a class and are entitled to USD10
because of some corporate wrong-doing? There won't be any
equivalent to homeless people from the city, even if the
plaintiffs prevail.

And, in a remarkable passage of the ruling, U.S. District Court
Judge William Martinez told attorney Jason Flores-Williams, who is
representing the plaintiffs, that while he admires his passion, he
really needs to find some co-counsel.

Flores-Williams can be a bit flamboyant and lean heavily on
rhetoric, as he did when urging jurors in the homeless camping
trial to acquit the defendants in spite of the evidence.
Class action lawsuits are a little unusual in that they require
the judge to decide if the lawyer can actually pull off such a
complicated case. And Martinez had his doubts about Flores-
Williams.

The bad: Flores-Williams cited case law that had been overturned
and used rhetoric instead of legal arguments to refute the city's
position, particularly when the city had clear case law on its
side.

The good: Flores-Williams is dedicated to his clients and has
succeeded in keeping his clients involved despite the challenging
circumstances of their personal lives.

"The Court does not fault Mr. Flores-Williams for believing so
strongly in the righteousness of his clients' cause," Martinez
wrote in the ruling on the class certification. "Much good and
important work has been done by lawyers with such deep, authentic
commitment. But the Court is genuinely concerned that Mr. Flores-
Williams will ultimately do his clients a disservice by failing to
take seriously Denver's opposing arguments -- or, more
fundamentally, losing sight of the fact that lawsuits are decided
based on the facts in evidence and legal authorities, and not on
rhetoric."

Martinez said Flores-Williams "has already shown substantial and
commendable dedication to the undoubtedly difficult task of
organizing a potential class of homeless persons. He has developed
and demonstrated experience in an area where most lawyers
(including most plaintiffs' civil rights lawyers) have none."
But Martinez also expressed concerns that Flores-Williams doesn't
have the financial resources to see the case through. Those cases
that had been overturned would have been flagged if Flores-
Williams were using one of several common but expensive databases,
and the judge wondered if Flores-Williams was relying on free
resources to do his research.

He also said Flores-Williams needs to do more to put himself in
the city's position -- for his clients' sake.

"A lawyer likely has no more dangerous blind spot than
an inability to see the case from the opposing point of view -- a
paradigmatic example of 'confirmation bias' if there ever was
one," Martinez wrote. "A lawyer who cannot imagine losing the case
stands a good chance of losing the case. Such a lawyer tends to do
what Mr. Flores-Williams does, namely, ignore or quickly pass over
the opposing party's specific arguments and instead lean on
rhetoric intended to shame the opposing party for choosing to
oppose."

If Flores-Williams were representing any other group of people,
Martinez probably wouldn't appoint him class counsel, he said.
Instead, he did appoint him but "strongly encouraged" him to find
co-counsel. Flores-Williams said he plans to do that.

As for the class certification, Denver tried to argue in court
filings that there was no centralized policy of "sweeps," and each
instance of enforcement occurred under different circumstances for
different reasons. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to litigate
how a policy might infringe on the rights of a group of people.
Martinez called this "simply wrong."

"But, says Denver (citing much of its own evidence), every one of
the alleged Sweeps took place under differing circumstances, at
the direction of differing authorities, and for different reasons
-- so there is no common question that can generate a common
answer," Martinez wrote. "Denver is simply wrong on this point."
Martinez said that denying the class certification would amount to
agreeing with all of Denver's factual assertions before the case
is even heard. And the class certification is not supposed to be
about the merits of the case, per se.

The lawsuit, a civil rights case in federal court, argues that the
city has violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits
unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, the Eighth
Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the
Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the
law and due process, by taking the personal belongings of homeless
people without a warrant.

Flores-Williams said he does take the class certification as a
victory because it shows that homeless people can band together to
defend their interests and rights in court.

"It recognizes that there is this policy of the city of Denver
that affects of thousands of persons and now we are going to have
the opportunity to prove what a lot of us have known, which is
that this policy of sweeps is unjust, immoral and
unconstitutional," he said.

In a statement, the City Attorney's Office focused on the fact
that class certification does not speak to the facts of the case.
"Today's ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the
Plaintiffs' claims, which the city has shown to be unsupported,"
the city said in a statement. "The city remains confident in its
legal position in the case, that its clean-up efforts were
consistent with due process and that it will eventually prevail on
the merits."

City officials reiterated their long-standing position that there
is a strong public interest in keeping sidewalks and other areas
free of encumbrances and that law enforcement interactions with
homeless people help connect people to services.

"The city and county of Denver spends nearly USD50 million a year
on direct and indirect homeless services," the statement said. "In
the last several years, the city has increased direct services,
including overnight and day shelter services as well as increased
access to housing for all people. Our focus is on connecting
people who are on the streets to the individualized assistance
needed to help them stabilize their lives and move forward. The
city's practice is to first try and connect people to services and
treatment, and if that doesn't work, people are given notice,
usually multiple times, before any enforcement action is taken.
These are complex challenges, and we strive to be as compassionate
as possible while also ensuring safety and public health for all
Denver residents." [GN]


DIRECT ENERGY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Richards" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gary W. Richards filed an appeal from a District Court's
ruling and judgment, both dated March 31, 2017, in the lawsuit
styled Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-
1724, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19,
2017, the Hon. Victor A. Bolden entered an order denying class
certification and denying summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Richards v. Direct Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 17-1003, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Gary W. Richards, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Direct Energy Services, LLC, is represented by:

          Hutson Brit Smelley, Esq.
          EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
          First City Tower
          1001 Fannin Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 333-5984
          E-mail: hutson.smelley@emhllp.com


DNC SERVICES: Court Hears Arguments on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Papple at Inquisitr reports that the past week marks another
step for the class action suit against the DNC and Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz.  Senior Judge William J. Zloch heard oral
arguments pertaining to the DNC's Motion to Dismiss request. The
DNC was trying to argue that the class action lawsuit against them
"fails to allege any claims upon which relief may be granted as a
matter of law."

So, for over three and a half hours, Judge Zloch heard oral
arguments from both sides as to whether or not the case should
even be allowed to move forward. Jared Beck, representing the
plaintiffs called the courtroom discussions "serious" and
"intense" and relayed to the public that the judge came prepared.
Beck said that the senior judge did not actually issue a ruling
from the bench on whether or not the class action lawsuit against
the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will move forward, but he
indicated that the senior judge would issue a written ruling
within a reasonable period of time. That time frame is not
currently known. Beck relayed on Twitter that he expects the
transcripts from the almost four-hour-long hearing to be available
for the public to read on April 28.

The class action suit is known as Wilding et al. v. DNC Services
Corp. and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman-Schultz class action and is
case number 16-cv-61511-WJZ. The lawsuit is being handled by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge
William J. Zloch is a senior federal judge for the United States
District Court serving the Southern District of Florida. Zloch
joined the federal court after being nominated by President Ronald
Reagan and assumed senior status this past January. In an
interview with Sun Sentinel, Zloch reportedly declined to discuss
his own political opinions, but he did praise Supreme Court of
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative. Since taking the
bench, Zloch has generally been considered "a conservative judge
with a reputation for giving stiff sentences," according to Sun
Sentinel.

Bernie Sanders' former primary supporters make up a majority of
the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against the DNC.

Beck was also interviewed for a Real Progressives live interview.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the leaders within the
Democratic Party, including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
disproportionately elevated Hillary Clinton during the 2016
Democratic presidential nominating elections. It alleges that the
DNC gave preferential treatment to Clinton over Sen. Bernie
Sanders while presenting itself as a neutral political
organization. The class action lawsuit alleges that the DNC
violated its own rules on neutrality. The lawsuit was filed in the
summer of 2016, which was over a month before the DNC emails were
leaked by WikiLeaks. The emails seemed to show actions taken by
some leaders within the organization to reduce Sanders' popularity
and elevate Clinton's campaign starting before the first primary
or caucus vote was ever cast.

WikiLeaks presented very strong evidence to support the
plaintiffs' claims. For example, the leaked emails even revealed
that DNC officials knew that chairs hadn't been thrown at the
Nevada Convention by Bernie Sanders delegates, but the DNC still
reportedly tried to seed a Ralston article claiming that it had
happened, because important nominating elections were happening
that week and every liberal vote mattered.

The Observer explained the DNC's defense in another compelling
editorial by Michael Sainato.

"So far in court, the DNC's lawyers haven't refuted that the
primaries were rigged, but in their motion to dismiss, they argued
that some Sanders supporters cited in the class action lawsuit
posted on social media during the primaries that the Democratic
Party was favoring Clinton. The lawyers have also argued that
neutrality is just a political promise that the DNC should not be
bound to keeping."

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Jared Beck and
Elizabeth Lee. They intend to argue that Wasserman-Schultz and the
DNC staff overtly violated the DNC's own rules. Article four,
section five of the DNC Charter states, "The Chairperson shall
exercise impartiality and evenhandedness between the Presidential
candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for
ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic
National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during
the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

Whether or not the plaintiff's lawyers will be able to argue the
case against the DNC will depend on how the judge rules on the
Motion to Dismiss. Let us know in the comments below whether or
not you think the judge should hear the case against the DNC. [GN]


DR PEPPER: Lawyers Say Consumers Fail to Support False Ad Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf at Law360 reports Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. urged
a California federal judge on April 27 to toss a putative class
action brought by consumers accusing the beverage maker of falsely
advertising that its Canada Dry ginger ale contains ginger, saying
the consumers fail to support their claims.

Dr Pepper said in its motion to dismiss that the consumers wrongly
inferred labels saying the product is "made with real ginger"
meant the drink contains a "detectable amount" of real ginger, and
consequently based their lawsuit on laboratory tests disproving a
claim that Dr Pepper says it never made.

"Plaintiffs' entire theory of falsity rests on a single-sentence
conclusion that some never-identified 'independent laboratory'
tested some unspecified beverage, in a never-disclosed way at a
never-alleged time, and told someone (counsel?) that he/she/it
could not 'detect' whatever amount of ginger plaintiffs
individually expected," Dr Pepper argues.

The consumers claim they overpaid for the beverage based on labels
and commercials that state the product is "made from real ginger,"
which the consumers wrongly believed indicated the products
contained a "detectable amount" of ginger, Dr Pepper argues.

The entire suit centers around the consumers' belief that saying
Canada Dry ginger ale is "made from real ginger" is misleading,
but fails to prove the product is not in fact "made from real
ginger" and should therefore be thrown out, Dr Pepper claims.

"Defendants represented, truthfully, that Canada Dry ginger ale is
made from real ginger, i.e., that ginger is used in the creation
of the product (specifically, in creation of the 'natural flavor'
that is disclosed on the label as an ingredient)," the motion
says.

The consumers are unlikely to repurchase the drinks after
admitting they originally bought the products under a false
pretense, giving them no basis for injunctive and declaratory
relief, Dr Pepper argues. The consumers' claim that they would
repurchase the drink if it were reformulated is "errant
speculation about potential product changes (not a 'reasonable
likelihood'), and in any event, makes no sense," the motion says.

Additionally, the consumers fail to include other important
details in the complaint, such as the amount they paid for the
product and specifics about when and how much of the product they
purchased, Dr Pepper says.

The consumers are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution, compensatory damages, statutory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Earlier this month, a California federal judge kept alive a
similar putative class action against Dr Pepper that alleges a
group of consumers would not have purchased Canada Dry ginger ale
had they known it didn't contain real ginger.

"Canada Dry Ginger Ale has 100% natural flavors, including natural
flavor made from real ginger. We stand by the claims we make on
our products and believe this copycat lawsuit is without merit,"
Dr Pepper Snapple representative Chris Barnes said in an email.

Counsel for the consumers and Dr Pepper did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

Dr Pepper is represented by Jonathan A. Shapiro --
jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com -- Van H. Beckwith --
van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- and Jessica E. Underwood --
Jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP.

The consumers are represented by Barbara A. Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- and Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The suit is Arash Hashemi et al. v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc
et al., case number 4:17-cv-02341 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. [GN]


ERIK FREESE: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Northern District of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erik Freese. The
case is titled as Joshua W. Lewis, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Erik Freese, in
his official capacity only, and Victoria Calabrese, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-50129 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip G. Reinhard.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Molina" Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escallate LLC. The
case is captioned as Araceli Molina, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Escallate LLC, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00999-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr.

Escallate LLC is a collection agency located in North Canton,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


EUREKA, CA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cobine"
--------------------------------------------
Hunter Cresswell at Times Standard reports that U.S. District
Court Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White
issued an order April 25 granting motions to dismiss three of four
claims for relief in Cobine v. City of Eureka which centers around
the May 2016 Palco Marsh evictions.

The attorney that filed the claim will now possibly seek damages
from the city through a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the
evicted people.

"We're seeking damages for basically violating the Eighth
Amendment rights of the 100-plus people that were wrongfully
evicted," attorney Peter Martin said. " ... I don't think we've
agreed on an amount yet."

Eureka City Attorney Cyndy Day-Wilson, Esq. --
cityattorney@ci.eureka.ca.gov -- said in an email that Martin
previously told this to the city.

"The city believes that plaintiffs will have a difficult uphill
legal battle to obtain class certification," she said of the next
step need to pursue the class-action suit.

White denied the city's motion to dismiss a claim that the
plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights were violated and granted the
city's motion to dismiss claims that the plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment rights to privacy and right to due process were
violated. The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment and the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

Martin, a Eureka-based attorney, filed the suit on behalf of 11
individuals living in the Palco Marsh behind the Bayshore Mall in
Eureka ahead of the eviction. They are Stacy Cobine, Nanette Dean,
Christina Ruble, Lloyd Parker, Gerrianne Schulze, Sarah Hood,
Aaron Kangas, Lynette Vera, Aubrey Short, Marie Anntonette Kinder
and John Travis. At least two of the plaintiffs lived at the city-
sanctioned nighttime sleeping areas following the expulsion.
Martin said he had yet to get in touch with all the plaintiffs to
notify them of the decision.

"I was generally pleased with the decision," he said. "Our Eighth
Amendment claim, which is really the heart of the case, the judge
agreed with."

"Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing public camping in a city
without adequate shelter space to accommodate the city's homeless
population constitutes the criminalization of homelessness itself,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment," White's ruling states. "
... However, without a developed factual record and based solely
on the representations made in the complaint which at this
procedural posture must be taken as true, the court finds that a
determination on the viability of an Eighth Amendment challenge to
Eureka city ordinance is premature."

White further states, "It does not appear from the allegations in
the current complaint that a state action is responsible for the
alleged privacy intrusions compelled by the specific restrictions
and conditions enforced by the alternative shelters offered to
plaintiffs."

Eureka city attorney Cyndy Day-Wilson in an email said the city
filed the motion to dismiss in September 2016.
"The city is pleased with the court's ruling," she said.
Martin said this was Eureka's second attempt to dismiss the Eighth
Amendment claim.

"I think the next step is filing a motion of class certification,"
he said.

Getting a court to approve that motion would make it a class-
action lawsuit, Martin said.

"That's our next step in moving forward," he said. [GN]


EXPRESS COURIER: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM and ADAM MANSKE,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the PLAINTIFFS, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., the
DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier
   International, Inc. (Express), as a driver, courier, or owner-
   operator in Arkansas any time after February 11, 2013, (b)
   never subcontracted with anyone, or otherwise never hired
   anyone, to perform any of his or her work for Express, and (c)
   contracted directly with Express under Express's standard
   Owner-Operator Agreement".

The Plaintiffs, former delivery drivers (also known as "couriers"
and "Owner-Operators") for Defendant Express Courier
International, Inc., brought this suit individually and on behalf
of all other current and certain former delivery drivers who
worked for Defendant, who are similarly situated, in order to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiff also
brought this action to recover the same relief under the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
          4375 N. Vantage Dr., Ste. 405
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 582 5711
          Facsimile: (479) 587 1426
          E-mail: KKobbeman@cwlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Butcher, Esq.
          Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
          Emily A. Quillen, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN,
          LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Telephone: (202) 551 9030
          Facsimile: (202) 296 9433
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com
                  asmedstad@scopelitis.com
                  equillen@scopelitis.com


EXTERIOR DESIGNS: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVARRO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EXTERIOR DESIGNS & LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC659659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages (including double minimum
wages), liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages
unlawfully unpaid, interest and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to California Labor Code.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' violation of
California law, Employees have suffered damages. As a result of
Defendants' violations of the minimum wage by failing to record
and pay minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated
California Labor Code by inaccurately stating gross wages earned,
total hours worked, deductions, net wages, gross wages, and other
issues as described above. Defendants also violated California
Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.  From at least four-years prior to
the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present.

Exterior Designs provides services from plan development, with
attention to detail with hands on approach.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hugo E. Gamez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ
          1999 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 442 0623
          Facsimile: (310) 693 2538
          E-mail: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com


FASHION NOVA: "Rosillo" Suit Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN ROSILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FASHION NOVA, INC.; a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC659644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to
recover premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Labor Code and
California Code of Regulations.

For at least four years prior to the filing of the action and
continuing to the present, the Defendants have had an alleged
consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees or former employees within the State
of California 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on
which the employees worked more than five hours in a work day and
a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
employees worked in excess of ten hours in a work day, and failing
to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as
required by California wage and hour laws; failing to provide rest
periods of at least ten minutes per four hours worked or major
fraction, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided
rest periods as required by California wage and hour laws; and
failing to pay full amount of wages upon termination and/or
resignation.

Fashion Nova is a top online fashion store for women.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 0600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhpur, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


FLINT, MI: MDEQ Defendants Appeal Ruling in "Nappier" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane
Shekter Smith, Bradley Wurfel and Daniel Wyant filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Tamara Nappier v.
Richard Snyder, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00636, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

The appellate case is captioned as Tamara Nappier v. Richard
Snyder, et al., Case No. 17-1401, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Snyder is the Governor of Michigan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 13,
2017, Judge Gordin J. Quist remanded the case.  The Plaintiff
filed the putative class action case in the Michigan Court of
Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon, Eden
Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert Scott (State defendants), Stephen
Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and
Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald
Ambrose.

As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water
source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River.
In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion-
control treatments required by the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric
chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River
water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter.
Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a
minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the
Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless
assured the public that it was safe to drink.  The Plaintiff
further alleges that, in spite of defendants' assurances, T.K.
experienced an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent
brain damage as a result of drinking water from the Flint River.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent
and/or negligent in participating in, or facilitating, the switch
to Flint River water as the source of the City of Flint's water.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals who
were minors, resided in the City of Flint, and suffered brain
damage as a result of ingesting water supplied from the Flint
River.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next friend of
Takarie Nappier, a minor child, on behalf of Takarie Nappier and a
class of all others similarly situated, Takarie Nappier, is
represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 335-5000
          Facsimile: (248) 335-3346
          E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com

Defendants-Appellants DANIEL WYANT and BRADLEY WURFEL,
individually and in their official capacities, are represented by:

          Michael John Pattwell, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          212 E. Grand River Avenue
          Lansing, MI 48906
          Telephone: (517) 318-3100
          E-mail: mpattwell@clarkhill.com

Defendant-Appellant LIANE SHEKTER SMITH is represented by:

          Thaddeus E. Morgan, Esq.
          FRASER TREBILCOCK DAVIS & DUNLAP PC
          124 W. Allegan Street, Suite 1000
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 482-5800
          E-mail: tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellant STEPHEN BUSCH is represented by:

          Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., Esq.
          KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI PC
          36700 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 646-2073
          E-mail: pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com

Defendants-Appellants PATRICK COOK and MICHAEL PRYSBY are
represented by:

          Charles Edward Barbieri, Esq.
          FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC
          313 S. Washington Square
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 371-8100
          E-mail: CBarbieri@fosterswift.com


FOUGERA PHARMA: Louisiana Health Hits Overpriced Clobetasol
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., Plaintiff v.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo
Co. PLC, Perrigo Company, Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc.,
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01883, (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), seeks, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated indirect purchasers of
generic Clobetasol, to recover treble damages, costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of
clobetasol propionate topical ointment in violation of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

Clobetasol is a high-potency prescription corticosteroid used in
the treatment of various skin disorders including eczema,
psoriasis, dermatitis and vitiligo. It is reportedly one of the
most prescribed dermatological drugs in the United States.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company operates as Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and is a domestic health
insurance corporation licensed to provide health benefits to
covered members, insurance benefits, third party administrative
services and manages health care services for its members.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a
specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company that markets
and sells generic fluocinonide throughout the United States.
Fougera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a
Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in
Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and
bio-similars and is a subsidiary of Defendant Novartis AG.

Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Akorn, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Amityville, New York. It markets and sells Clobetasol throughout
the United States.

Perrigo Company PLC is incorporated under the laws of Ireland with
its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Perrigo's
North American base of operations is located at 515 Eastern
Avenue, Allegan, Michigan 49010, where Perrigo's domestic
subsidiaries are pharmaceuticals manufacturers.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Wockhardt Ltd., an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactures, markets and
sells generic drugs, including Clobetasol, throughout the United
States. Wockhardt maintains manufacturing plants and substantial
operations in the United States, including its wholly-owned
subsidiary Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through which it
sold Clobetasol products to customers in the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Lance Bordelon, Esq.
      Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
      365 Canal St., Ste. 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


FOX RESTAURANT: "Watt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY MICHELLE WATT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOX RESTAURANT VENTURE, LLC,
and FOX NC ACQUISITION, LLC and FOX SC ACQUISITION, LLC, the
Defendants Case No. 2:17-cv-02104-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Apr. 28,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Plaintiff and other current
and former Assistant Managers or Assistant Store Managers, who
worked more than 40 hours in any workweek at any Jimmy John's
store owned by Franchisee, between April 27, 2014, and the date of
judgment in this matter.

Consistent with the Defendants' policy, pattern and/or practice,
Plaintiff and ASMs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without being paid overtime wages, in violation of the
FLSA. The Plaintiff worked an average of 70 hours per workweek.
Plaintiff sometimes worked 75 hours per workweek.

The Defendants are doing business in the investors industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
          Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          Matthew Herman, Esq.
          10 West State Street, Suite No. 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232 7450
          Facsimile: (630) 232 7452

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977 4005

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419 1025

               - and -

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522 9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522 9007

               - and -

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 2100
          Facsimile: (312) 853 0279

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Jason Conway, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934 9220


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Premium Wages
----------------------------------------------------
MARITER ROLDAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH
AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership; BIO-
MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
RENAL ADVANTAGE INC., a Delaware corporation; FRESENIUS MEDICAL
CAREEUCALYPTUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE GOLDENWEST, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC659479 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. , 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, premium wages for missed meal and
rest periods, penalties, reimbursements, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the Labor Code.

For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing to the present, Defendants have had an alleged
consistent policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees routinely working over eight hours per day or 40 hours
per week without being properly compensated for hours worked in
excess of hours per day or 40 hours per week due to, among other
things, failing to include all forms of remuneration to calculate
the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes to the detriment of
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The Defendants also
failed to provide 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on
which the employees worked more than five hours in a work day and
a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which
employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing
to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as
required by California wage and hour laws.

Fresenius Medical is a health care company focused on delivering
the highest quality care to people with renal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

               - and -

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 South Robertson Blvd., Ste. 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


GARDENS ON THE BAY: "Adler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Manuel Adler a/k/a Ramon Manuel Adler Aday, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gardens on the Bay Owners
Association, Inc., Marta Alvarez, Julie M. Gonzalez, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21544, (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2017), seeks double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for all
overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment.

Gardens of the Bay Owners Association is a homeowners' association
of a condominium complex located at 6484 Indian Creek Drive, Miami
Beach where Adler worked for Defendants as a maintenance worker.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


GENPACT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENPACT
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00538 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YLyT0Ws

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUILLERMO PRADO: "Ledo" Claims Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Ledo, Miguel Ledo, Ricardo Choy Morey and Putative
Plaintiffs v. Guillermo Prado and Maria Prado d/b/a Dona Maria,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02393 (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages for unpaid overtime wages, restitution
of unpaid overtime pay, equitable and injunctive relief under
California Business and Professions Code including but not limited
to equitable accounting of all Plaintiffs work hours and overtime
wages owed, waiting time penalty damages of thirty days wages to
Plaintiffs, damages and penalties for not providing pay
statements, pre-judgment interest of 10% on the unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid salaries and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs of suit pursuant to California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs worked at Defendants' restaurant "Dona Maria," bussing
tables, prepping food to be served, cleaning the restaurant,
washing dishes and cooking.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Dal Bon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
      606 N. 1ST St.
      San Jose, CA 95112
      Tel: (408) 466-5845


HARBOR FREIGHT: Misrepresents Solar Kit Wattage, Morgan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY MORGAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC659641 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Apr. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In the spring and early summer of 2016, Plaintiff purchased three
Thunderbolt Magnum Solar 45 Watt Solar Panel 10 Piece Kits at of
Defendant's Portland Oregon locations. The Plaintiff paid
approximately $140.00 for each of the products. The Plaintiff
relied on the representation that the Solar Panel Kit was capable
of generating 45 watts of electricity. Had Plaintiff known that
the Solar Panel Kit was not capable of generating more than 29
watts of electricity, he would have not purchased it or would not
have paid as much as he did for it. As a result of his reliance on
the wattage misrepresentation, Plaintiff has lost money and
suffered injury in a manner similar to other purchasers of the
Solar Panel Kit.

Harbor Freight sells a line of solar panel kits and
connectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Judge Says Bail System Unfair to Indigent People
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks at the Houston Chronicle reports a federal judge
in Houston on April 28 issued a scathing denouncement of Harris
County's cash bail system, saying it is fundamentally unfair to
detain indigent people arrested for low-level offenses simply
because they can't afford to pay bail.

In a 193-page ruling released on April 28, Chief U.S. District
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal ordered the county to begin releasing
indigent inmates as early as May 15 without posting cash bail
while they are awaiting trial on misdemeanor offenses.

"Liberty is precious to Americans and any deprivation must be
scrutinized," the order states, citing a comment from Texas
Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht.

The ruling -- a temporary action that will stay in place until the
lawsuit is resolved -- will not apply to those charged with
felonies, or those who are being detained on other charges or
holds.

First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard said late April 28
that officials are reviewing the orders.

"No decision has been made at this time concerning an appeal of
the preliminary injunction," he said.

District Attorney Kim Ogg and County Commissioner Rodney Ellis --
both of whom filed statements of support with the court for the
lawsuit -- praised the ruling.

"This is a watershed moment in Harris County criminal-justice
history," Ogg said in a statement late April 28. "From now on,
people can't be held in jail awaiting trial on low-level offenses,
just because they are too poor to make bail. ... We welcome the
ruling and will comply fully with it."

Ellis said he was pleased with the ruling.

"Harris County's bail system is unconstitutionally discriminatory
and morally indefensible -- and we now have a federal court ruling
telling us so," Ellis said in an email. "It's time for us to fix a
broken justice system that favors the privileged and punishes the
poor for being poor."

The ruling came five weeks came after a lengthy, high-profile
hearing in which more than a dozen witnesses took the stand,
including several judges and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.

Monetary bonds have been used for generations across the country
to ensure people arrested by police return for court dates, and
several jurisdictions around the country have begun to rethink how
bail should be set.

The ruling came five weeks came after a lengthy hearing in which
more than a dozen witnesses took the stand, including several
judges and Gonzalez.

The lawsuit was filed last year by two civil rights group -- Texas
Fair Defense Project and Civil Rights Corps -- and local law firm
Susman Godfrey law firm on behalf of Maranda Odonnell, a single
mother who was held for two days on a charge of driving without a
valid license because she couldn't afford the USD2,500 bail.

The suit names top county officials and a string of judges and
hearing officers. Similar lawsuits filed on behalf of two other
people were merged into the case in August.

The ruling notes that the case is "difficult and complex," and is
among many similar cases filed across the country challenging bail
practices.

The order notes that the judge reviewed "many hours of footage"
from 2,300 recordings of misdemeanor probable cause hearings that
were placed into evidence. The ruling cites two videos as being
"illustrative" of the problems face by misdemeanor defendants.

In one case, a man whose criminal history was wrongly calculated
by the hearing officer eventually pleaded guilty to gain release.
In another, the hearing officer laughed and made a "wisecrack"
that he felt better that the man was returning to jail.

The ruling also cites reports showing that of the 50,000 people
arrested in Harris County on Class A or Class B misdemeanors in
2015, fewer than 10 percent were released on unsecured personal
bonds.

She concluded that even if hearing officers were not acting
deliberately, the county had been using money bail as a form of
preventive detention.

Gonzalez, through a spokesman, said his office would immediately
start looking into how to implement the order. The sheriff also
filed court papers indicating he supports an end to costly bail
for indigent defendants.

The ruling drew praise from others pushing for change to the bail
system.

"It's my hope this decision and decisions like it will eradicate
the notion of wealth-based detention from our legal system," said
Alec Karakatsanis, of the Civil Rights Corp.

Neal Manne, a managing partner at Susman Godfrey, which is
donating its services, said the judge recognized the crushing
impact that cash bail can have on poor people.

"We showed in effect the money bail system was being used to
achieve something the Texas Constitution does not permit," Manne
said.

Christina Swarns, head of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund in New York, likewise praised the ruling.

"One's punishment should fit their crime, not their bank account,"
Swarns said. "Harris County's bail practices unlawfully create a
cycle of poverty for those who cannot afford the cost of their
freedom."

Tarsha Jackson, the criminal justice director for the Texas
Organizing Project, urged the county to not challenge the ruling.

"Harris County would do right to accept the judge's ruling and not
appeal. Unfortunately, we expect an appeal," Jackson said.

The judge indicated on April 28 she would rule on the legality of
the current system before July 1.

Harris County has already spent more than USD2 million fighting
the lawsuit, and recently hired an additional attorney to help
with appeals.

Soard said the county had retained veteran D.C. appellate lawyer
Charles Cooper to represent the interests of 15 county criminal
court of law judges who oppose the lawsuit.

Cooper will advise whether the judges should appeal the ruling.
The remaining court of law judge testified at the injunction
hearing that although he is a defendant in the lawsuit, he
supports changing the way bail is issued.

The remaining defendants for the county have appellate counsel
from the firms who will review the question of an appeal, he said.
[GN]


HD SUPPLY: Court Wants Settlement Approval Bid Revised
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jonathan Weisberg, the Plaintiff v. HD
Supply, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08248-FMO-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement and certification of
settlement class.

No later than May 22, 2017, the amended motion for preliminary
approval of class action shall be filed.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (424) 285 6006

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander H. Cote, Esq.
          SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
          One Bunker Hill
          601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025
          Telephone: (213) 613 4660
          Facsimile: (213) 613 4656


HODGSON MILL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Wright at Madison St. Clair Record reports that a U.S.
District Court has denied a request by Hodgson Mill Inc. to
dismiss a lawsuit filed by an Illinois woman alleging that the
grain and baking products company falsely advertised its products
as having all-natural ingredients.

Shannah Burton filed the original complaint on behalf of herself
and others with the St. Clair County Circuit Court in February
2016, alleging that the company's Hodgson Mill buckwheat pancake
mix that she purchased, which claimed to contain all-natural
ingredients, misled her and others, thus violating the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The action was later removed to federal court. Hodgson Mill made
the request in light of the number of class members, which could
easily exceed 100 persons, and because the amount sought by the
plaintiff exceeds USD5 million. Burton's lawyers did not contest
the motion.

According to the complaint, Burton claims the product she
purchased that was labeled "all natural" contained the synthetic
ingredient monocalcium phosphate, among other non-natural
ingredients. She further noted that had she known the mix was not
all-natural as she assumed by the labeling, she wouldn't have
purchased the mix.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among
other things, that Burton could not sue for harm from products she
does not plan to buy from the company in the future, as Burton was
seeking injunctive relief. The count seeking injunctive relief
was, in fact, the only one of 12 arguments to dismiss that was
granted by the court.

The defendant also argues that the "plaintiff's claims fail
because no reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the
product packaging bearing the 'all natural' labeling" and that
"the presence of a complete ingredients list on the packaging
defeats any claim of labeling misrepresentation."

The defendant further argues that the company's product guarantee,
which offers a refund if a customer is not satisfied, defeats
Burton's claim, and that the case should be dismissed until the
Food and Drug Administration announces a uniform definition of the
term "all natural."

In response, Burton's attorneys said they would file an amended
complaint naming each class member, along with the particular
product purchased by each individual.

On the other grounds for dismissal cited by the defendant,
District Court Judge Michael J. Reagan ruled that the case should
proceed, noting that many of the issues cited by the defendant
should proceed to a jury trial.

"This court finds that the crux of this issue is a reasonable
person's interpretation of the various labels and representations
on a given product -- thus, this question is best left for the
jury," Reagan wrote in his April 6 ruling. [GN]


HOWARD HUGHES: Picasso Seeks to Block Vote On Share Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------
James Picasso, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of The Howard Hughes Corporation, Plaintiff,
v. William Ackman, Adam Flatto, Jeffrey Furber, Allen Model, R.
Scot Sellers, Steven Shepsman, Burton Tansky, Mary Ann Tighe and
David Weinreb, Defendants, Case 2017-0304 (Del. Ch., April 20,
2017) seeks to enjoin, preliminarily, any vote on CEO Weinreb's
attempt to purchase shares.  The lawsuit asserts a violation of
the Securities and Exchange Act, and breach of fiduciary duties.
It seeks an award of attorneys, accountants and experts' fees and
such other and further relief as is just and equitable.

Howard Hughes Corp. owns, manages and develops commercial,
residential and mixed-use real estate throughout the United
States. Howard Hughes' properties include master planned
communities, operating properties, development opportunities and
other unique assets spanning fourteen states from New York to
Hawaii.

Hughes Corp. CEO David Weinreb is soliciting stockholder approval
for the issuance of a warrant that will grant him the right to
purchase up to a maximum of 2.5 million shares in exchange for $50
million. Plaintiff, a stockholder, seeks to enjoin the stockholder
vote on this move unless and until the Board determines and
discloses the exercise price, value and number of shares to be
issued.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLINOIS: "Koss" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALMA KOSS; WANDA WENTE, by and through
her next friend Virginia Hartman; MARY SMALL, by and through her
next friend Brian Small; LESSIE HARRIS, by and through her next
friend Opal Acklin; and BERTA CHRISTMAN; individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity as the Director of
the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; and
JAMES T. DIMAS, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
Illinois Department of Human Services, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02762 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order certifying two classes:

LTC Medical Pending Class:

   "all individuals who on or before after February 1, 2015, have
   applied to receive long-term care Medicaid benefits from the
   State of Illinois, and have not received a final eligibility
   determination or a notice of an application in non-disability
   cases or 90 days in disability cases";

LTC Admit Pending Class:

   "all individuals who on or about after February 1, 2015 have
   been determined eligible to receive long-term care Medicaid
   benefits from the State of Illinois, but are still waiting to
   be deemed "admitted" to a long-term care facility".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert H. Farley, Jr.
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (630) 369 0103
          E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com


ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Class Action Over Prison Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------
The State Journal-Register reports a lawsuit against the Illinois
Department of Corrections alleging inadequate health care in state
prisons may cover all inmates with serious medical needs in every
prison facility, a judge ruled.

The April 28 decision by U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso means
thousands of inmates could be affected by the class-action
lawsuit, which claims medical and dental care provided by the
Corrections Department doesn't meet minimum constitutional
standards. It also could require the state to make changes at more
than two dozen prison facilities if the court ultimately finds in
favor of the inmates.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which
filed the long-standing lawsuit on behalf of several inmates,
applauded the ruling.

"The system of providing health care to prisoners in Illinois is
broken and must be fixed," said staff attorney Camille Bennett.
"Until today, advocates looking to fix this broken system have
been forced to seek redress for one person at a time. Allowing
this action to move forward on behalf of the entire class of
prisoners means that the solutions must be systemic."

A 2015 report by court-approved researchers following visits to
eight Illinois prisons found treatment delays, poor record
keeping, haphazard follow-up care and other serious problems. The
405-page report concluded that the level of care may have cut
short the lives of some inmates.

The Corrections Department, which oversees about 49,000 inmates,
argued the report provided an incomplete picture of the
"comprehensive medical system in place" in Illinois facilities.
Researchers reviewed records from a sample of 63 prisoner deaths
over several years and said they found "significant lapses" in
care in 60 percent of those cases.

In one case outlined in the report, a 48-year-old prisoner pleaded
for medical help after he began coughing up blood. But it took six
months for physicians at the Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg
to locate a softball-size tumor in his chest, the report stated.
He died four months later.

Researchers stated that "the blatant disregard for this patient's
obvious symptoms . . . . is stunning."

Lawyers for the state opposed class-action status, arguing in
court filings that the inmates who sued received proper medical
care. They also stated there would be no "objective,
administratively feasible way to determine which inmates have
serious medical or dental needs" and that the department doesn't
keep a list of inmates who would meet the criteria.

Corrections Department spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said on April 29
that the agency cannot comment on pending litigation and had
nothing to add beyond the court filings.

The case is next scheduled to be in federal court in Chicago on
May 16. [GN]


INFOMART INC: Faces "Mills" Suit in N.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infomart, Inc. The
case is captioned as Robert L. Mills, II, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Infomart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00048-GMG (N.D.
W.Va., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge Gina M. Groh.

InfoMart is doing business in background screening services,
providing businesses the information they need to make well-
informed hiring decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IRWIN SIMON: "Barnes" Hits Company Financials, Fiscal Governance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Barnes, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Irwin D. Simon, Richard C.
Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M.
O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte,
Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02501, (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2017),
seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result of the
Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, an order to
the Director Defendants to convene and hold an annual meeting of
Hain Celestial stockholders, appropriate equitable relief, costs
and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, expenses and such
other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty
and good faith.

Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake
Success, New York. It manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
organic and natural products. Plaintiff alleges internal control
failures and deficiencies, woeful compensation and corporate
governance practices in Hain Celestrial as well as constant
restatement of its financial statements, numerous SEC comment
letters and resignations of key executives.

Irwin D. Simon is the founder of Hain Celestial. Simon has been
President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hain
Celestial since the Company's formation in May 1993. Richard C.
Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M.
O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte,
Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner are
members of the board of directors of Hain Celestial. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
     733 Third Avenue, Floor 15
     New York, NY 10107
     Telephone: (212) 810-2430
     E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

             - and -

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Craig W. Smith, Esq.
     Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
     Scott F. Templeton, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
            csmith@robbinsarroyo.com
            ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com
            stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com


JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Faces "Whatley" Suit in E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zena Stephens. The
case is entitled as John Mark Whatley, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zena Stephens, Sheriff, Jefferson
County; FNU Kelly, Jefferson County Jail Administer; FNU Malvo,
Captain, Jefferson County Administer; All Female Officers,
Assigned to Dorms between August 4th, 2016 and present; and FNU
Torros, Officer, JCCF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00176-RC-
KFG (E.D. Tex., Apr. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Ron Clark.

Jefferson County is a county located in the Coastal Plain or Gulf
Prairie region of Southeast Texas in the United States. The Neches
River forms its northeast boundary.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JOHNSON & SON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.C. Johnson & Son,
Inc. The case is captioned as David Machlan, an individually, on
behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., and KAS
Direct, LLC, doing business as Babyganics, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02442 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 28, 2017).

S. C. Johnson & Son is an American multinational privately held
manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer
chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin. It has operations in 72
countries and its brands are sold in over 110.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KANDI TECH: "Tavrovsky" Sues Over Share Drop, Faulty Financials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Tavrovsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.,
Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu and Cheng Wang, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03049, (S.D. N.Y., April 26, 2017), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles,
products, parts, and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of
China and internationally. Its EV parts comprise battery packs,
body parts, drive motors, controllers, air conditioning units, and
other auto parts.

Defendants failed to disclose that the company's revenues were
unsustainable and artificially inflated by faulty accounting where
certain areas in its financial statements required adjustment and
that the company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting. On November 14, 2016, Kandi announced the abrupt
resignation of Cheng Wang, the Company's Chief Financial Officer.
On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.40, or over 10%, to
close at $3.50 on November 14, 2016.

Plaintiff claims to have acquired Kandi securities at artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      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
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (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
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bga.com


KELLY SERVICES: Sued Over Employment-Related Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan DeClemente at Inside Arm reports While most people think of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as regulating
telephone solicitations and junk faxes, a recent putative class
action sought to expand the TCPA's reach to a new frontier --
employment related communications.  In Dolemba v. Kelly Services,
Inc., plaintiff brought a putative class action against the
defendant staffing company for alleged violations of the TCPA and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA") arising from a single
phone call and voice message left on plaintiff's cellular phone.

Specifically, plaintiff alleged that she previously applied for
employment with defendant in March 2007 and indicated her interest
in office related positions, such as accounts payable and accounts
receivable.   Plaintiff filled out an employment application,
provided her cellular phone number, and authorized the defendant
"to collect, use, store, transfer, and purge the personal
information that [she] provided for employment-related purposes."

Plaintiff was never offered employment by or through defendant and
she never received any communications from defendant between the
end of 2007 and February 2016.  On February 26, 2016, plaintiff
received a call from defendant through an Automated Telephone
Dialing System ("ATDS").  Since she did not answer the call,
defendant left a voice message soliciting individuals for
employment as machine operators in certain areas.  Thereafter,
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant for
violations of the TCPA and the ICFA arising from this
communication to her cellular phone.

The defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims and to strike
the class allegations.   Defendant argued that plaintiff consented
to receive the subject calls regarding employment opportunities
from defendant and therefore, plaintiff could not sustain her TCPA
claims.  Plaintiff did not dispute that she provided her cellular
number to defendant, but argued: (i) her consent expired long
before she received the call from defendant in 2016; and (ii) the
defendant's call exceeded the scope of any consent she provided.

The Court agreed with the defendant and found that plaintiff had
"pleaded herself out of court by attaching her employment
application, which indicates she consented to receiving calls from
[defendant] for employment-related purposes." The Court further
held there were no allegations concerning plaintiff's revocation
of her consent and consent "does not expire at some point in time
on its own."  The Court also disregarded plaintiff's contention,
made upon information and belief, that the defendant treats
applications as outdated after some period of time.  It held that
these allegations cannot be construed as revocation by "reasonable
means," as silence or inaction cannot be an effective means of
revoking one's consent.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's contention that her consent
was only limited to communications regarding the office-type
positions identified in her application.  The Court found that the
consent provided allowed defendant to "use her personal
information for 'employment-related purposes'" and defendant's
communications fell within the "broad consent" provided.  The
Court ultimately dismissed her TCPA claim with prejudice finding
that any further amendment would be futile.

The Court likewise dismissed plaintiff's ICFA claim.  It held that
plaintiff's receipt of "one prerecorded message does not rise to
the level of an oppressive practice" under the ICFA and her
alleged damages of "loss of time and. . . battery life" were so
negligible they were unquantifiable.  The Court also rejected
plaintiff's attempt to support her ICFA by alleging defendant's
communication violated Illinois' Automatic Telephone Dialers Act
("ITA").  Specifically, the Court held that the defendant's
communications did not fall within the purview of the ITA's
definition of a "recorded message" because it did not solicit the
sale of goods or services and provided information about a job
opportunity.

While this case represents a "win" for defendants, it also
highlights a new area of potential risk for employers who
communicate with applicants and/or employees through the use of an
ATDS or prerecorded messages.  Employers should closely monitor
these emerging risks and take steps to ensure their communication
policies and procedures with their applicants and/or employees
comply with the TCPA's requirements.  [GN]


KIMPTON HOTEL: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that in an April 13, 2017, decision in Walters v.
Kimpton Hotel, a California federal judge rejected the bid of
hotel chain Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC, to dismiss a
proposed class action arising from a data breach last year.  Judge
Vince Chhabria found that the named plaintiff sufficiently alleged
imminent harm to establish standing notwithstanding the absence of
allegations that his personal information had been misused.

Background of the Lawsuit

In August 2016, Kimpton Hotel disclosed that malware had been
installed on its servers from February 16, 2016 to July 7, 2016,
and mailed notification letters to those guests who used their
payment cards at a front desk during that period.  Plaintiff Lee
Walters was a guest at a Kimpton Hotel on May 29, 2016.  Walters
alleged that, following his stay at the hotel, his payment card
information was stolen.  Walters further alleged that, after
learning of the breach, he expended time and effort to monitor his
credit, and that he faced increased risk of identity theft due to
the server breach.

The Decision

Judge Chhabria found that a plaintiff does not need to "actually
suffer the misuse of his data or an unauthorized charge before he
has an injury for standing purposes," and that Walters'
allegations of imminent harm were sufficient to confer standing to
survive Kimpton's motion to dismiss.  Judge Chhabria adopted the
standing approach applied by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in
Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. and Lewert v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro.

In Galaria, the Sixth Circuit held that allegations of a
continuing, increased risk of fraud and identify theft were more
than just speculative allegations of injury, emphasizing that
there is "no need for speculation where Plaintiffs allege that
their data has already been stolen and is now in the hands of ill-
intentioned criminals."  Similarly, in P.F. Chang's, the Seventh
Circuit explained that "it is plausible to infer a substantial
risk of harm from the data breach, because a primary incentive for
hackers is sooner or later to make fraudulent charges or assume
those consumers' identities."

Additionally, Walters' allegations of purchasing credit-monitoring
services and other out-of-pocket expenses were actual damages
sufficient to allow claims of breach of implied contract,
negligence, and a violation of California's unfair competition law
to survive.  The breach of implied contract claim was based on
allegations that Kimpton's privacy policy, which states that the
company is committed to protecting customer personal data, created
an enforceable promise to customers in that it was a voluntary
duty and constituted valid consideration.

Takeaways

It is important to note that a court at the motion to dismiss
stage must accept allegations of imminent harm as true, and it is
far from clear whether Walters will be able to prove injury-in-
fact going forward.  Even so, this decision is yet another
reminder that companies can no longer assume that consumer-
initiated lawsuits will be dismissed where no customer information
has yet been misused, and they must prepare for legal attacks from
all sides -- regulators, shareholders, and consumers -- even as
they work to resolve the fallout from a cyberattack.  A great
starting point for all companies is a simple and straightforward
incident response plan that anticipates the inevitable cyber
breach.  Such a plan can provide a framework for integrating a
response amongst the company's management, IT, legal, external
communications, and outside experts, such as legal counsel and
cyber forensic investigators. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Case Settlement Fails to Win Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Edgar Garcia, the Plaintiff v. County of Los
Angeles, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03549-FMO-VBK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an
order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
certification of settlement class and for preliminary approval of
settlement.

The Court said, "No later than May 18, 2017, the amended motion
for preliminary approval of class action shall be filed".

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


MARSHALL SQUARE: Mediation to Settle Claims Over 2015 Fire Fails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbigail Lennon at Augusta Chronicle reports that another
mediation attempt to settle claims against the owners of a
Columbia County retirement home by former residents regarding a
2015 fire that killed one person and led to the displacement of
dozens has failed, according to the lawyer representing a number
of plaintiffs.

With the failed mediation, a trial on the lawsuits against the
owners of Marshall Square Retirement Community will proceed May 22
in Columbia County. Augusta attorney Jack Long said the mediation
included 18 plaintiffs and multiple defendants.

The mediation comes after a hearing in March in which Superior
Court Judge Carl Brown granted a request for more information
about the fan motor of an air conditioner/heat pump suspected of
causing the June 2, 2015 fire from its manufacturer -- Goodman Co.
The judge also urged parties to resolve the issue in mediation,
with a May 22 trial looming should negotiations fail.

Long said that April 28's mediation was a failure in his opinion.
Should the trial proceed, a judge will hear a property damage case
by a former resident.

A series of lawsuits were filed after the fire at the retirement
community destroyed the homes of about 80 residents, caused the
death of 91-year-old Dorothy Carpenter and trapped 82-year-old
Rhetta Cadle in her condo for seven hours. The residents remained
in their homes after the fire alarm sounded in the middle of the
night because the owners and staff instructed residents to
"shelter in place."

Elderly residents of a dozen apartments destroyed in the fire have
settled their claims against the complex's owners.

A class-action lawsuit filed in Columbia County Superior Court on
behalf of Charles and Margaret Moye and all other persons
similarly situated was settled at a pretrial conference in
December. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The
plaintiffs' cause of the action was for property damage. [GN]


MATCH GROUP: Hit With Deceptive Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in article for
Lexology, wrote that a putative deceptive advertising class action
lawsuit was filed against Dallas-based online dating company Match
Group, Inc. ("Match") in connection with certain premium paid
features available on Match's OkCupid platform.

What is the nature of the claims against Match?

OkCupid's A-List Feature

Match's OkCupid service offers users both free accounts and
optional, paid features. Those who sign up for OkCupid's "A-List"
service and pay USD10, USD15 or USD20 per month (depending on the
length of subscription) receive a variety of premium perks,
including ad-free content, additional search filters and the
ability to see a full list of everyone who has "liked" them.

Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit

In February, Illinois resident Chad Perkins paid to access
OkCupid's A-List service. However, according to court records, his
"likes" list included individuals whose OkCupid profiles had since
been deleted. When Perkins contacted a Match customer service
agent, he was informed that the inclusion of deleted profiles "was
a bug" and that Match is "working on a fix so this doesn't happen
going forward."

On April 20, 2017, Perkins commenced the subject class action
lawsuit against Match in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Case No. 17-cv-2988) on behalf of all
OkCupid A-List users whose lists of "likes" included deleted user
profiles. The complaint alleges that Match violated Illinois
State's deceptive advertising statute by marketing "A-List
memberships to Plaintiff and the Class under the false pretense
that more OkCupid users 'liked' them than the number, if any, who
actually had."

Perkins' complaint further claims that Match has operated OkCupid
in violation of the Illinois Dating Referral Services Act, which
requires dating referral services to have written contracts with
their customers that contain certain statutory requirements and
prohibitions.

Protect Yourself from a Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit

As the above-referenced case illustrates, companies that offer
online paid premium services can routinely come under scrutiny
from class action plaintiffs, as well as federal and state
authorities. Accordingly, it is critically important that such
businesses work closely with knowledgeable marketing counsel to
ensure that they steer clear of regulatory pitfalls. [GN]


MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Laptops Not Upgradeable, Thornton Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY THORNTON and CARL JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICRO-STAR
INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.; MSI COMPUTER CORP.; and DOES 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03231 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 28, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief to benefit the public, including a
corrective advertising campaign, requiring Defendants to make full
disgorgement and restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained
from Plaintiffs and the Class, and all other relief permitted
under Bus. & Prof. Code.

Carl Jones resides in Santa Clara County, California. Mr. Jones
purchased an MSI GT80 series laptop computer online through
Amazon.com for approximately $3,000 in or about January 2016. The
Plaintiffs purchased these products for personal use and not for
purposes of resale or distribution. Upon viewing website
advertisements and/or publicly available information for these
laptops as well as third party reviewers' websites and for (such
as forum.notebookreview.com) repeating the specifications provided
by Defendants, Plaintiffs purchased the laptops in question. A
material factor in their deciding to purchase these laptop
computers was the represented capability of these laptops to be
upgraded to one or more later generations of NVIDIA GPUs. When the
new 1000 series of GTX GPUs produced by NVIDIA came on the market
in 2016, they decided to upgrade their laptops. Plaintiffs
subsequently learned that they could not do so, due to the
material misrepresented or undisclosed fact that these laptops
were not in fact upgradeable to the next generation of NVIDIA
GPUs. In the Fall of 2016, Plaintiffs or their representatives
contacted Defendants' representatives about the ability to return
their laptops, but were told that there was no refund option.
Because Defendants refused to offer Plaintiffs a full refund when
they made such a request, Plaintiffs now own laptops for which
they overpaid. Plaintiffs would not have purchased these laptops
at the prices they did had the true facts been timely disclosed by
Defendants. Plaintiffs must purchase another computer for more
money to obtain the promised upgrade capability, as compared to
several hundred dollars to purchase an upgraded NVIDIA GPU, to
obtain the benefit of their bargain.
Plaintiffs have also spent months and considerable time and
resources attempting to resolve these issues without the need to
seek court intervention, without success. Plaintiffs
have therefore suffered a loss of money or property and suffered
damage as a result of Defendants' illegal business acts and
practices.

Micro-star operates interactive website. MSI Computer is engaged
in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and
distributing computers, including the GT series of laptop
computers at issue here. Defendants develop and ship their
products, including these laptop computers, to purchasers,
resellers and distributors in and from California, maintain a
direct sales force in California, sell their products through
retail outlets in California, and create the specifications,
advertisements and reviewers' guides for their products in and
disseminates them from California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 698 7880
          Facsimile: (310) 698 7452
          E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 308 5034
          Facsimile: (855) 274 1888
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com


MILWAUKEE BUCKS: Settles Cheerleader Pay Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Today's TMJ reports a former Milwaukee Bucks cheerleader who
claimed in a lawsuit that she and her colleagues were underpaid
has reached a settlement with the team but the organization
maintains it did nothing wrong.

The settlement agreement calls for the Bucks to pay USD10,000 to
Lauren Herington, who filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in
2015. The Bucks will pay USD115,000 for her attorneys' fees and
set aside another USD125,000 that can be divided among other
cheerleaders who make a claim.

The lawsuit said dancers were not properly compensated for games,
team functions, and photo shoots because of a flat-rate pay
system. At the time, a spokesman for the Bucks said the lawsuit
presented a false picture of how the team operates.

Both sides agreed settling now would avoid costly litigation. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Genoveva Lopez, Guadalupe Salazar and Judith Zarate
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit
entitled Guadalupe Salazar, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02096-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 28,
2017, District Judge Richard Seeborg granted McDonald's summary
judgment for a second time in his latest ruling, saying McDonald's
cannot be held liable for workplace violations because it doesn't
meet the definition of an employer under California's labor code.

Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate sued
McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014,
claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's
miscalculated their wages through a flawed payroll system.

The appellate case is captioned as Guadalupe Salazar, et al. v.
McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 17-15673, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 8, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 6, 2017;

   -- Appellants Genoveva Lopez, Guadalupe Salazar and Judith
      Zarate's opening brief is due on July 17, 2017;

   -- Appellees Bobby O. Haynes Sr. and Carol R. Haynes Family
      Limited Partnership, McDonald's Corp., McDonald's
      Restaurants of California, Inc. and McDonald's USA, LLC's
      answering brief is due on August 15, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants GUADALUPE SALAZAR, GENOVEVA LOPEZ and JUDITH
ZARATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Barbara Jane Chisholm, Esq.
          Matthew John Murray, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8264
          E-mail: bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com
                  mmurray@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com
                  mrubin@altber.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com

Defendants-Appellees MCDONALD'S CORP., MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, a
limited liability company, and MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation, are represented by:

          Fred W. Alvarez, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1755 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 739-3939
          Facsimile: (650) 739-3900
          E-mail: falvarez@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 782-3939
          Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
          E-mail: lcdinardo@jonesday.com
                  emcree@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kelsey Alissa Israel-Trummel, Esq.
          Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5831
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: kitrummel@jonesday.com
                  cnasser@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Matthew Willis Lampe, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281-1047
          Telephone: (212) 326-8338
          Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
          E-mail: mwlampe@jonesday.com

Defendant-Appellee BOBBY O. HAYNES SR. AND CAROL R. HAYNES FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, erroneously sued as Bobby O. Haynes and
Carole R. Haynes Family Limited Partnership, DBA McDonald's, is
represented by:

          Regina Alvinette Petty, Esq.
          FISHER PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: rpetty@laborlawyers.com


MYLAN INC: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injectable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty
L.P., Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02813, (D.N.J.,
April 25, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit
and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of
epinephrine-injecting devices in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act as well as various
state consumer protection laws.

Defendants produce, market and sell the EpiPen, a self-injecting
device that delivers epinephrine, a synthetic form of adrenaline
used to relax muscles around airways and tightening blood vessels
to maintain respiratory and cardiovascular function during
allergies.

Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Pfizer, through its wholly owned subsidiaries King and Meridian,
is exclusive supplier of EpiPens to Mylan. King manufacturers the
epinephrine for the EpiPen, and Meridian (who holds the EpiPen
auto-injector patents) manufactures the EpiPen injector device
itself.

Defendants allegedly engage in anticompetitive and illegal
exclusionary conspiracy to maintain monopoly over said product and
has made them billions of dollars at the expense of consumers.

Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of
business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1
Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased
clobetasol propionate topical ointment directly from one or more
Defendants at excessive prices.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 722-7053
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      550 Broad Street, Suite 920
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 639-9100
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

             - and -

      Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
      77 Water Street, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700
      Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Deepe Appeals S.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Peter Deppe filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit entitled Peter Deppe v. NCAA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00528-TWP-
DKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant violated the Sherman Act by unlawfully
agreeing to limit the number of Division I football scholarships
that a member institution can grant in any year, and that the NCAA
and its member institutions have ensured that student-athletes in
the Class receive tens of millions less for their labor for member
institutions than they would receive, and the member institutions
would pay, in a competitive market.

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association is an
unincorporated association that acts as the governing body of
college sports.

The appellate case is captioned as Peter Deppe v. NCAA, Case No.
17-1711, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before May 15, 2017, for Peter
Deppe.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PETER DEPPE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-0000
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is
represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 S. Main Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Asks Court to Remove 2 Players From Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy at Law360 reports the National Hockey League on April
27 asked a Minnesota federal judge to cut two retired players from
a proposed class action alleging the league didn't tell players
about the risks of concussions, arguing that the men's claims are
time-barred.

Gary Leeman, who played until 1997, and Bernie Nicholls, who left
the NHL two years later, knew, or should've known about their
alleged brain injuries by 2010 at the latest, the league said in a
motion for summary judgment. Their claims are governed by a three-
year statute of limitations, and they filed their suits  --  since
consolidated into multidistrict litigation  --  after 2013, the
NHL said.

Leeman, a right wing who spent most of his career with the Toronto
Maple Leafs, was playing for them in 1988 when he was hit with the
"shot that changed [his] life." That shot, a slapshot by hockey
Hall of Famer Al MacInnis, fractured his skull and gave him a
concussion.

Leeman's testimony and medical records show that all of the
symptoms that underlie his claims in the instant suit were
immediately apparent at the time of the injury and there's no
other undetected injury that could pause the statute of
limitation, the NHL said.

Even if the slapshot had caused a separate, undetected injury,
Leeman's claims would've surfaced by early 2010, by which time
he'd spoken to two neurologists, had done his own research,
concluded that concussions had caused him long-term injury and
filed a workers' compensation suit against several former teams,
but not the NHL itself, the NHL contends.

Nicholls, a center who played most of his career with the Los
Angeles Kings, has said he began experiencing symptoms of
neurological problems shortly after retiring in 1999. He filed a
workers' compensation claim against the San Jose Sharks, his last
team, in 2009, based on the same symptoms at issue in the instant
suit, the NHL said.

As part of his workers' compensation suit, Nicholls testified in
March 2010 that he was aware of the long-term neurological risks
of concussions. Also in connection with those proceedings, the
center's doctor provided a report in April 2010 that said head
injuries sustained in the NHL caused Nicholls' neurological
problems.

The league acknowledged that the court had previously denied its
dismissal motion, holding that the clock shouldn't start ticking
on players' claims until they knew or should've known that head
trauma could pose an increased risk of neurological disorders.

But that order doesn't apply to Leeman or Nicholls, the NHL said,
because both of them knew about the alleged risks of head injuries
and concussions by early 2010 at the latest.

The players could not be reached for comment on April 28.

The NHL is represented by Daniel J. Connolly --
Daniel.connolly@faegrebd.com -- Joseph M. Price --
joseph.price@faegrebd.com -- Linda S. Svitak and Aaron D. Van Oort
-- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, John
H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Jessica D. Miller --
jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Geoffrey M. Wyatt --
Geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- James A. Keyte --
james.keyte@skadden.com -- and Matthew M. Martino --
matthew.martino@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP and Joseph Baumgarten and Adam M. Lupion of Proskauer
Rose LLP.

Leeman and Nicholls are represented by Silverman Thompson Slutkin
& White.

The cases are Leeman et al. v. National Hockey League, case number
0:14-cv-03233, and In re: National Hockey League Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02551, both in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN]


NATIONAL IMAGING: "Mauthe" Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Imaging
Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01916, (E.D. Pa.,
April 26, 2017), seeks statutory damages, trebling of statutory
damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and applicable regulations of the Federal Communications
Commission.

Plaintiff has a private medical practice in Center Valley,
Pennsylvania. He claims to have received unsolicited faxed ads
about Defendant's radiology benefits management services available
through their website.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Shenkan, Esq.
      SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
      P.O. Box 7255
      New Castle, PA 16107
      Tel: (248) 562-1320
      Fax: (888) 769-1774
      Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

             - and -

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: phil@classlawyers.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HOLLY ATTIA, ROSHANAK BASTI, NILOOFAR
ESHAGHBEIGL, MICHELLE GIRARD, ELISE KELLEY, KIM MARCONI, ISABEL
ROMERO, DAVID TOLBERT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP,
INC. a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00504-DOC-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 3, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in
Department 9D of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building,
United States Courthouse, 9th Floor, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa
Ana, CA, 92701, for an order as follows:

   1. certifying a class of employees:

      "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line
      department stores in California who were paid a draw versus
      commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial.

   2. certifying subclasses:

      California Labor Code section 226.7 subclass:

      "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line
      department stores in California who were paid a draw versus
      commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and
      who were not separately compensated for rest periods;

      California Labor Code section 226 subclass:

      "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line
      department stores in California who were paid a draw versus
      commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and
      who have been provided a wage statement";

      California Labor Code section 203 subclass

      "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line
      department stores in California who were paid a draw versus
      commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial and
      who have separated their employment"; and

      California Business and Professions Code section 17200
      Subclass:

      "all individuals employed at Defendant's full-line
      department stores in California who were paid a draw versus
      commission from May 1, 2014 through the time of trial who
      were subjected to Defendant's unlawful, unfair, or
      fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor
      Code violations regarding failure to pay for breaks and
      failure to pay final wages";

   3. appointing James Hawkins, APLC as class counsel; and

   4. approving the designation of Plaintiffs Holly Attia,
      Roshanak Basti, Michelle Girard, Elise Kelley, Kim Marconi,
      Isabel Romero, and David Tolbert as class representatives.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  malte@jameshawkinsaplc.com


NEW MEXICO: Judge Allows Wage Law Violations Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Phaedra Haywood at The New Mexican reports a lawsuit accusing the
New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions of failing to enforce
wage laws will go forward, a state judge has ruled, despite a
motion from the agency to dismiss the case.

First District Court Judge David Thomson also extended a temporary
restraining order that prohibits the department from denying
certain types of wage complaints  --  including those claiming
more than CAD10,000 in damages and those more than a year old  --
until the case is settled.

The class-action lawsuit filed in January claims the department
has allowed businesses to get away with paying workers less than
the minimum wage and cheating employees out of overtime pay. The
suit also says the agency has adopted polices that allow it to
dismiss and deny wage-theft claims for reasons that are not
supported by state law  --  such as the amount of money a worker
claims he or she is owed.

The suit was filed jointly by the New Mexico Center on Law and
Poverty, several workers rights groups and Somos Un Pueblo Unido
on behalf of four workers.

One of the workers named in the lawsuit, JosÇ Olivas, claims he is
owed about CAD15,000 for working 65- to 100-hour weeks helping a
man remodel a restaurant in Farmington in 2014.

The Department of Workforce Solutions filed a motion in February
seeking to dismiss the suit, arguing that the court didn't have
the authority to order to change policies made by department
officials.

The judge disagreed in a written order filed April 26.

"Respectfully, the statutory language is clear," Thomson wrote in
his order denying the department's motion to dismiss the case.
"This Court must give effort to statutes as written."

The plaintiffs lauded Thomson's decision, which will allow the
case to proceed.

Marco Nunez, a workers justice coordinator at El Centro de
Igualdad y Derechos, one of the workers rights organizations
involved in the suit, said in an email that the agency's "failure
to enforce New Mexico's wage and hour laws is one more example of
how hard working New Mexicans are getting the short end of the
stick in our state -- but they are fighting back."

"This case is too important to dismiss," Nunez continued,
"particularly given the profound impact wage theft has on New
Mexican working families. We applaud the ruling and look forward
to continuing to expose systemic failures by DWS to enforce New
Mexico wage and hour laws." [GN]


OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Lundgren" Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lundgren, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Financial Corporation,
Ronald M. Faris and Michael R. Bourque Jr., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01918, (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2017), seeks damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a diversified financial services
holding company whose primary businesses are the acquisition,
servicing, and resolution of sub-performing and nonperforming
residential and commercial mortgage loans, as well as the related
development of loan servicing technology and business-to business
e-commerce solutions for the mortgage and real estate industries.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Ocwen serviced loans
using error-riddled information, loaded inaccurate and incomplete
information into its database, illegally foreclosed on homeowners
by modifying loans for troubled borrowers and failed to deliver
required foreclosure protections, failed to credit borrowers'
payments and provide accurate periodic statements detailing the
amount due, failed to conduct escrow analyses and send escrow
statements, mishandled hazard insurance, bungled borrowers'
private mortgage insurance by failing to cancel borrowers' private
mortgage insurance in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay
and deceptively signed up, charged borrowers for add-on products
without their knowledge, failed to assist heirs seeking
foreclosure alternatives, and failed to adequately investigate and
respond to borrower complaints.

Lundgren owns shares of Ocwen Financial Corporation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 600-2817
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: jgoldberq@rosenlegal.com


ONTARIO: Fails to Eliminate Wait List for Support Services
----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Males at The Nugget reports that Christopher Ouellette wants
to live on his own.

"I still want to be independent in my apartment."

But it may be years before that can happen. The 18-year-old is
autistic and developmentally delayed. Ouellette's name is on a
waiting list for supportive housing, but it may be 10 years or
longer before he gets the type of apartment he needs because there
is a waiting list for available spaces in the community.

"The only way to get into a space is to wait for someone to die,"
says Denis Ouellette, Christopher's father."

That's why the Ouellette family has joined a CAD110-million class-
action lawsuit against the Ontario government, alleging the
province has failed to eliminate the years-long wait list for
support services.

Marc Leroux of Timmins launched the suit on behalf of his 19-year-
old daughter, Briana Leroux, who is non-verbal and requires
around-the-clock support.

The statement of claim alleges the Ontario government has ignored
the issue of waiting lists for years and the wait times are often
indeterminate and will last for years, placing families in a
perpetual state of crisis.

It cites a report from 2014 by a legislative committee that
recommended the list be eliminated within 12 months, a
recommendation it says was rejected by the Ontario Ministry of
Community and Social Services.

"We're adding our weight to this," says Linda Thomas-Ouellette,
Christopher's step-mother, who hopes other families in similar
situations get on board.

"It's harder to ignore thousands of people."

The financial assistance Christopher was receiving from the
Ontario government ended when he turned 18 on Oct. 30, 2016

"His needs didn't change because he's 18."

His parents estimate he's lost CAD4,000 a year since.

Christopher is on a waiting list for Passport Funding, a program
that services adults, but it's not clear when he will receive any
money.

In the meantime, Christopher's parents are paying for respite and
community services out of pocket.

According to the ministry website, 13,000 adults with
developmental disabilities were eliminated from the 2014 Passport
wait list.  But media reports say another 11,000 people have
requested support since 2015 and are still waiting.

"Christopher has a right to be independent," Linda says.

She started a petition in January to demand the Ontario government
take action to address the wait lists and, so far she's collected
600 signatures.

"No one I've asked (to sign) has said no.

Anyone wanting more information about the lawsuit can go to
www.kmlaw.ca/waitlistclassaction.  It was filed by lawyers Kirk
Baert and Jody Brown, of Koskie Minsky LLP.

Christopher's parents hope the lawsuit will resolve the delays in
a timely fashion.

"There's been more than enough studies," says Denis.  "They can
easily have things started within the next year or two.

"Like any parent, we want to know that he's settled.  We're not
going to last forever." [GN]


ONTARIO HOCKEY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead at KSN reports that former Ontario Hockey League
players who are suing the league for minimum wage won a major
court decision in Toronto.

Ratcheting up the potential damages that might be awarded to the
players, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell certified
their three-year-old case as a class-action lawsuit and appointed
as representative plaintiffs Sam Berg, who played for the Niagara
IceDogs in 2013, and Daniel Pachis, who played for the Saginaw
Spirit and Oshawa Generals during an OHL career that started in
2007 and ended in the 2009-10 season.

Justice Perell wrote that he certified the case despite the
warnings from the OHL that the "allegedly selfish class action
would bring on the eve of destruction for hockey players."
"The [OHL] did not challenge that there was some basis in fact
that the past and present players of the OHL had a common
experience and a common type of relationship with them," Perell
wrote.

OHL commissioner David Branch declined to comment. He wrote in an
email to TSN that he planned to issue a statement. The league has
20 days to appeal.

OHL players who skated in the league between 2012 and the present
season automatically become plaintiffs in a lawsuit the OHL says
may cost the league as much as CAD30 million.

Typically, there is an opt-out period in class-action lawsuits
when prospective plaintiffs can inform the court, usually by
completing an opt-out form, that they don't wish to participate in
the case, meaning they aren't eligible to receive any portion of a
settlement. Those who opt out would be free to bring their own
individual lawsuits against the league.

Players for the OHL's three U.S.-based teams are exempted from the
class action, Justice Perell wrote in his decision. That means
Pachis, who played in Michigan for Saginaw for two seasons, would
only be eligible for damages related to his time playing with the
Generals during the 2009-10 season.

"It is not a surprise that parts of this suit were certified and
allowed to move forward as a class action given the current state
of the law in Canada on this procedural issue," CHL spokesman Paul
Krotz wrote in an emailed statement. "We are pleased that the
court recognized the preferability that claims against our U.S.
teams should be resolved by the U.S. courts.

"With the certification proceedings behind us in Ontario, this now
gives us the opportunity to focus on the merits of the case."
Justice Perell's decision has no impact on similar proposed class-
action lawsuits filed against the Western Hockey League and Quebec
Major Junior Hockey League.

A judge's decision about certifying the case against the WHL is
expected to be issued sometime over the next month in Calgary.

Justice Perell wrote that the OHL case already has become one
marked by propaganda from both sides.

"Perhaps because of the novelty of their claim and the
extraordinary importance that hockey has to Canadians, Messrs.
Berg and Pachis excessively over-pleaded both their case and also
their certification motion, and they engaged in an emotive public
relations pitch to portray the players that formed the putative
class as exploited workers of avaricious employers," Justice
Perell wrote.

"The [OHL] excessively responded to the certification motion with
an emotive public relations pitch of their own. The [OHL]
portrayed themselves as magnanimous patrons and benefactors of
their hockey players. The Defendants portrayed Messrs. Berg and
Pachis as bitter, self-centered, and ungrateful also-rans, whose
proposed class action would irreparably damage the enterprise that
had been built for the players to advance their careers and their
prospects to play in the professional hockey leagues." [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stradford" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Nettles, William Scott, Lacey Stradford and
Jesse Stroud filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their
lawsuit titled Lacey Stradford, et al. v. Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, Case No. 2-16-cv-02064, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought to represent all persons, who are now and in the
future incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
("DOC") facility with a sex offense classification who have been
approved for parole but who cannot obtain their release from this
incarceration due to the restriction on their placement into a DOC
operated or contracted halfway house until two years prior to
reaching their maximum term.

The appellate case is captioned as Lacey Stradford, et al. v.
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 17-
1773, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LACEY STRADFORD, WILLIAM NETTLES, JESSE
STROUD and WILLIAM SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Donald Driscoll, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
          100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
          Pittsburgh PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 434-6012
          E-mail: ddriscoll@cjplaw.org

               - and -

          Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434-6175
          E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org

Defendant-Appellee SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS is represented by:

          Timothy A. Holmes, I, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
          1920 Technology Parkway
          Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
          Telephone: (717) 728-7763


PERSONIFIED CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS VILLATORO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERSONIFIED
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC659404 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr.
28, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages in the amount of
the unpaid minimum wages for work performed by Plaintiff and
unpaid overtime compensation under Labor Code.

From at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and
continuing to the present, Defendants failed to pay Employees
minimum wages as required under Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Specifically, Employees
were consistently required to work off-the-clock hours under
Defendants' employ, for which they were never paid. Employees'
wages were based upon a forty-hour work week. However, Employees
were required to work post-shift hours, off-the-clock, and in
excess of their scheduled shifts for which they were never paid
wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Su
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  davidk@yeremianlaw.com


PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Shabu Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED SHABU and PARVEZ LATIF, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PETROSSIAN
RESTAURANTS, INC., PETROSSIAN BOUTIQUE, INC., ARMEN PETROSSIAN,
ARNAUD THIEFFRY, and ALEXANDRE PETROSSIAN, the Defendants, Case
No. 507622/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 27, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips,
and spread-of-hours pay permitted by law pursuant to the Fair
labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

The Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers -- servers,
bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and other similarly
situated non-managerial employees -- have worked at the Petrossian
New York Restaurant and the Petrossian Cafe and Boutique, both
located at 182 West 58lh Street, New York, New York 10019.

Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants applied a tip credit
to Tipped Workers' wages and paid Tipped Workers a reduced minimum
wage rate. Defendants however did not satisfy the requirements
under the NYLL or the FLSA by which they could take a tip credit
towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers. In that regard,
Defendants allegedly: (a) failed to provide Plaintiffs and other
Tipped Workers with notification of the tipped minimum wage rate
or tip credit provisions of the NYLL or
the FLSA, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs'
and other Tipped Workers' wages; (b) distributed portions of
Plaintiffs' and other Tipped Workers' tips to workers who are
ineligible to receive tips under the NYLL or FLSA; and (c) failed
to furnish Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers with accurate wage
statements with each payment of wages. As a result, Defendants are
liable to Tipped Workers for the difference between the full
minimum wage rate and the tipped minimum wage rate paid for all
hours worked up to 40 each workweek.

Owned, operated, and controlled by Petrossian Restaurants, Inc.,
Petrossian Boutique, Inc., Armen Petrossian, Amaud Thieffry, and
Alexandre Petrossian, Petrossian restaurants have operated
worldwide for almost a century.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

The Defendants are represented by:

          FOX & ROTHSCHILD LLP
          100 Park Avenue, Ste 1500
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 878 7900


PIZZA HUT: Court to Hear Appeal in Franchisee Suit This Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Furguson at The Sidney Morning Herald reports that pizza
wars, the AUD4.95 pizzas they spawned and the allegedly disastrous
impact on Pizza Hut franchisees, is about to be put on trial in a
case that will put the AUD170 billion franchise sector on edge.

The appeal lodged in the Federal Court of Australia will be heard
next month, and up to 90 per cent of Pizza Hut franchisees are
backing the class action by liquidator Bob Jacobs at Auxilium
Partners.

It comes as the relationship between franchisees and franchisors
has come under the spotlight, and legislative reforms are set to
be introduced that would make franchisors jointly responsible for
workplace abuses if they have significant control or influence on
the franchisee.

Not surprisingly, the Franchise Council of Australia is fighting
to water down the legislation. It will also be keeping an eye on
the latest litigation.

The legal action came about after Jacobs was appointed liquidator
to three entities that held Pizza Hut franchisees after Pizza Hut
franchisor US giant Yum! allegedly requested its franchisee
network slash the cost of pizzas up to 50 per cent in July 2014 in
response to Domino's dropping the price of its pizzas.

A class action ensued in August 2014, alleging unconscionable
conduct, losses and business collapses as a direct consequence of
orders from Yum! to halve pizza prices. [GN]


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lockridge" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is entitled as Shawn Lockridge, Karen Manco,
Michael E. Habel, and Darlene Rivera-Nieves, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02564
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

Professional Claims provides receivable collection and management
services. The Company offers insurance follow-up, credentialing,
and skip tracing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


QUAIN ENTERPRISES: "Buron" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Buron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quain Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60809, (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, equitable tolling of limitations as a result of
Defendant's failure to post requisite notices, liquidated damages
for failure to pay overtime premium, damages representing the
employer's share of Federal Insurance Contributions Tax, Federal
Unemployment Tax, state unemployment insurance and any other
required employment taxes, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorney's fees and expert fees and an award of a service payment
to the Plaintiff and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and operates several Jimmy John's franchised
locations where Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Store Manager at
the Hollywood and Pembroke Pines, Florida Stores.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Michael N. Litrownik
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      Email: jms@outtengolden.com
             mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

             - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com

             - and -

      Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
      Kevin Paul Noll, Esq.
      Peter Lawrence Currie, Esq.
      Robert M. Foote, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NIEL, LLC
      10 West State St., Suite #200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Tel: (630) 232-7450
      Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com
             kpm@fmcolaw.com
             rmf@fmcolaw.com

             - and -

      Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
      MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-2100
      Facsimile: (312) 853-0279
      Email: mcherry@cherry-law.com

             - and -

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      Email: slesser@klafterolsen.com
             frudich@klafterolsen.com
             christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com


QUALCOMM INC: "Carroll" Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Daniel Carroll, Debra Grasl and Amanda Newsome,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00216, (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2017), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 25, 2017 under case No. 5:17-cv-02168.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from unjust enrichment and for violation of the
California state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and
restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and for violation
of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act by maintaining a monopoly
over the modem chipset market by refusing to license and/or impose
onerous restrictions on licenses of its patents to competing
chipset makers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by:

      Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
      David W. Rizk, Esq.
      Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
      Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
      Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
      KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
      633 Battery Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
      Tel: (415) 391-5400
      Fax: (415) 397-7188
      Email: abhansali@keker.com
             drizk@kvn.com
             EMP@kvn.com
             jsessions@keker.com
             rvannest@keker.com


QUALITY DINING: Joseph Appeals E.D. Penn. Ruling to Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephanie Joseph and Ryan Rutherford filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Stephanie Joseph, et
al. v. Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 5-16-cv-01907, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought by the Plaintiffs on April 22, 2016, against Quality
Dining, which operates 48 Chili's restaurants as franchisees.  The
nature of suit is stated as civil rights jobs.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Joseph, et al. v.
Quality Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1741, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHANIE JOSEPH and RYAN RUTHERFORD, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, are
represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees QUALITY DINING INC. and GRAYLING CORP. are
represented by:

          Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
          Holly E. Rich, Esq.
          Rachel F. Satinsky, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1601 Cherry Street
          Suite 1400, Three Parkway
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3054
          Facsimile: (267) 402 3131
          E-mail: mhank@littler.com
                  hrich@littler.com
                  rsatinsky@littler.com


QUALITY DINING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cicero" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cynthia Cicero filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Cynthia Cicero v. Quality Dining Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1-16-cv-05806, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
worked at the Defendants' Delran, New Jersey location as a server.
The Plaintiff complained about the tip-credit being implemented,
making wages fall below the minimum.  The lawsuit is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Cicero v. Quality
Dining Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1749, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CYNTHIA CICERO, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twinning Road
          Suite 211, Twinning Office Center
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees QUALITY DINING INC., SOUTHWEST DINING INC.
and GRAYLING CORP. are represented by:

          Holly E. Rich, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street
          Suite 1400, Three Parkway
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3068
          E-mail: ediedrich@littler.com

Defendant-Appellee QUALITY DINING INC. is represented by:

          Rachel F. Satinsky, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street
          Suite 1400, Three Parkway
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          E-mail: rsatinsky@littler.com


RBS HOLDINGS: BBSW Manipulation Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
An Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (BBSW) class action
case filed against RBS Holdings N.V. units, among other financial
companies, is still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 20-F
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In August 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain RBS Group companies (including RBS N.V.) and a
number of other financial institutions.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to manipulate
the BBSW and asserts claims under the U.S. antitrust laws, the
Commodity Exchange Act, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act), and the common law.

This matter is subject to a motion to dismiss.

RBS Holdings N.V. provides a range of banking products and
financial services primarily in Europe and Asia.  The company was
founded in 1825 and is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.  RBS
Holdings N.V. is a subsidiary of RFS Holdings B.V.


RBS HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK on Forex Manipulation Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. is awaiting court approval of a January 2017
agreement to settle two alleged class actions on foreign currency
exchange manipulation filed in Quebec and Ontario, the Company
disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In September 2015, certain members of RBS Group (including RBS
N.V.), as well as a number of other financial institutions, were
named as defendants in two purported class actions filed in
Ontario and Quebec on behalf of persons in Canada who entered into
foreign exchange transactions or who invested in funds that
entered into foreign exchange transactions.  The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants violated the Canadian Competition Act by
conspiring to manipulate the prices of currency trades.

In January 2017, RBS Group reached an agreement in principle to
settle these matters for approximately CAD 13 million, subject to
settlement documentation and court approval.

Certain other foreign exchange transaction related claims have
been or may be threatened against RBS Group in other
jurisdictions.  RBS Group cannot predict whether any of these
claims will be pursued, but expects that several may.

RBS Holdings N.V. provides a range of banking products and
financial services primarily in Europe and Asia.  The company was
founded in 1825 and is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.  RBS
Holdings N.V. is a subsidiary of RFS Holdings B.V.


RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Rent Dispute Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Paula L. Blair, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
Rent-A-Center West, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. HG 17852522, (Cal. Super., March 13, 2017), was removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 25, 2017, under Case No. 3:17-cv-02335.

The complaint asserts violations of the Karnette Rental-Purchase
Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act as well as
unjust enrichment, usury and unfair competition under the
California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff alleges that
she rented a video game system from the Defendants with a listed
cash price of $476.10 and made a total payment of $1,299.48.
However, Plaintiff alleges that the retail value of the video game
system is really just between $254 to $279.

Plaintiff rents out televisions, computers and appliances through
its over 100 stores in California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      Treat Towers
      1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
      Walnut Creek, CA 94597
      Telephone: (925) 932-2468
      Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
      Email: giskander@littler.com


RITE AID: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit Over Flu Vaccine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wylie at The National Law Review reports that a New York
U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant
Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation in a putative Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class action, holding that calls reminding
customers about the flu vaccine were "health related" and
therefore Rite Aid was not required to obtain prior express
written consent before making the calls. Though the opinion was
filed under seal on March 30, 2017, it was made public.

In Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 14-cv-9701, plaintiff
Robert Zani alleged that Rite Aid violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227, by sending prerecorded flu shot reminder notices to
consumers' cell phones without prior express written consent. Zani
had previously received a flu shot at a Rite Aid, and at the time
he received this shot he signed a vaccine form and provided his
cell phone number. Zani had also signed several written notices
agreeing to be contacted by Rite Aid "about refill reminders . . .
or health related benefits and services." Based on this undisputed
evidence, Rite Aid argued, inter alia, that the reminder calls
fell under the "Health Care Rule," 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(2), adopted
under the TCPA in 2013. Under that rule, calls from health care
providers that deliver a "health care message" are exempt from
written consent requirements for prerecorded and autodialed calls
made to cell phones. It further argued that Zani had consented to
receiving the calls by providing his cell phone number to Rite Aid
in connection with his previous flu shot.

The court agreed with Rite Aid and found that the reminder calls
"delivered a health care message." Analyzing the statutory and
regulatory text and guidance, including the guidance on "health
care message" calls contained in the FCC's 2015 Order, the court
found three factors material to whether a call conveys a message
within the scope of the Health Care Rule: (1) whether the call
concerns a product or service that is health related, which would
include administration of medication; (2) whether the call is made
to a patient with whom the health care provider has an established
health care relationship; and (3) whether the call concerns the
individual health care needs of the patient recipient. The court
further found that all three factors were present in the
undisputed facts of the case. These factors were sufficient,
though not necessary, to a finding that the call delivered a
health care message and was subject to the Health Care Rule.

Because the court found that the requirements for the Health Care
Rule were met, Rite Aid was exempt from the TCPA's written consent
requirements. Since it was exempt, Zani's argument that the call
constituted "marketing" was irrelevant, because the Health Care
Rule applies to any message, whether marketing or not, that
otherwise is "health care related" as defined in the rule. Since
it was undisputed that Rite Aid had Zani's prior consent of before
making the call, the court granted summary judgment and denied
Zani's motion for class certification as moot.

Given that there are few judicial opinions interpreting the text
and scope of the Health Care Rule, this decision gives some much-
needed clarity on the application of the exemption. [GN]


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Coroners Sold Land Containing Gravesites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Hurt at The Press Enterprise reports that local
authorities are once again investigating a Corona pauper's
graveyard where allegations have again emerged that land
containing gravesites has been sold and desecrated.

On April 28, Riverside County District Attorney's office spokesman
John Hall confirmed that an investigation is underway at Corona
Sunnyslope Cemetery. No arrests have been made or charges filed
two days after DA investigators, Corona police and the coroner's
office were seen digging in the dirt at the cemetery's lower-
level, fenced-off potter's field.

"Please do not be alarmed at PD activity near Sunnyslope
Cemetery," Corona Police tweeted April 26, adding that they were
assisting the Riverside County DA's office with a search warrant.

Land once part of the potter's field was sold in the 1980s, nine
decades after Sunnyslope opened in 1892 as a nonprofit graveyard.

A 1994 investigation by the state and Riverside County Coroner's
Office failed to find proof of families' claims that potter's
field land holding their relatives' remains had been sold and
built on, covered with massive storage units on one side and a
nursery and apartments on the other.

In October 2015, 11 people represented by attorney Scott Schutzman
--  schutzy@msn.com -- of the Law Offices of Scott E. Schutzman
filed a class-action suit charging cemetery operators with selling
land containing graves to the Islamic Society of Corona-Norco,
which later buried at least 17 people there. Schutzman said then
that more than 600 people were buried in the pauper's graveyard.

A photo taken on April 26 by Riverside County Historic
Commissioner Don Williamson, who's led historic tours at the
cemetery for years, shows investigators working on land sold to
the mosque.

The District Attorney's Real Estate Fraud Task Force is conducting
an investigation, confirmed Hall, who wouldn't answer questions
about whether remains had been found in land that was sold.

In October 2014, a Riverside County Grand Jury began investigating
after cemetery operators used a tractor to grade the potter's
field before selling land that could hold 400 plots to the mosque.

A single granite tombstone and two crosses lying in the dirt were
all that remained of dozens of crosses and tombstones in a
cemetery once maintained by high school classes and Boy Scouts,
including Corona Councilman Eugene Montanez.

In July 2016, County Assessor Peter Aldana said Sunnyslope had
been mistakenly classified as government-owned non-taxable
property since 1978 and a Riverside County grand jury
investigation found cemetery operators, whose nonprofit status was
suspended by the state in 2007, hadn't paid property taxes or
business license fees for years.

Schutzman filed a motion April 15 to expand the class-action suit
to include other families, including mosque members. The
cemetery's attorney notified him on April 28 of plans to ask for a
stay in the case in Riverside Superior Court on May 1.

Cemetery officials could not be reached for comment. [GN]




TESLA: Suit Says Autopilot Car Dangerously Defective
----------------------------------------------------
Linda Robertson at Miami Herald reports that the next time you
find yourself driving near a Tesla, give a wide berth to the
amazing car of the future.

It is still very much of the present.

A Davie lawyer, frustrated and alarmed by an autopilot with a mind
of its own on his new USD108,000 Tesla, is one of the lead
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the automaker
claiming he was one of 50,000 customers who was sold a
"dangerously defective" car that veered, lurched, slammed on the
brakes for no reason or failed to slow when approaching other
vehicles.

John Kelner loved the Tesla S 90D electric sedan after a test
drive to Jupiter and back, and he looked forward to using its
Enhanced Autopilot system when he purchased it in December. But
operating the car when the software is activated has been an
unpredictable, frightening experience, he says.

Something we don't need on the mean streets of South Florida:
Self-driving cars that are even more incompetent than our
infamously bad human drivers.

"Rather than deliver safe and advanced autopilot features, Tesla
has delivered software that causes vehicles to behave
erratically," according to the suit -- the first to focus on self-
driving car technology. "Contrary to what Tesla represented to
them, buyers of affected vehicles have become beta testers of
half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if
engaged."

Kelner is represented by automotive class action firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, which sued Volkswagen AG in the Dieselgate
case.

Tesla did not fulfill its marketing promise to deliver the
"safest, most exhilarating sedan on the road" designed to make
highway driving "stress-free" and sold cars with inoperable or
nonexistent features "which are standard on many cars costing less
than half the cost of a new Tesla," the suit said.

Tesla responded by saying its upgraded features were to be
activated by drivers over a staggered roll-out period.

"This lawsuit is a disingenuous attempt to secure attorney's fees
posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the
fact that the suit misrepresents many facts," Tesla said in a
statement. "Many of the features this suit claims are
'unavailable' are in fact available, with more updates coming
every month. We have always been transparent about the fact that
Enhanced Autopilot software is a product that would roll out
incrementally over time, and that features would continue to be
introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory
approval... The inaccurate and sensationalistic view of our
technology put forth by this group is exactly the kind of
misinformation that threatens to harm consumer safety."

But Kelner claimed nothing worked from the minute he drove home
from the dealership, not the Enhanced Autopilot system for which
he paid USD5,000 extra nor the hyped Standard Safety Features.
There was no Traffic Aware Cruise Control, no autosteer, no
Automatic Emergency Braking, no auto-sensing wipers, no side-
collision warnings, no automatic high-beam headlights. After two
updates in February and March, he and other Tesla owners are still
having problems, placing "drivers and occupants of Tesla vehicles
at risk of serious injury or death," said the April 19 lawsuit.
One owner said the autopilot reacts to highway overpasses by
applying the brakes but doesn't brake for cars stopped in front of
it at stoplights.

A federal investigation of a 2016 fatal crash in Florida involving
a Tesla Model S on autopilot concluded the car had no safety
defects. The car was going 74 mph when it drove under an 18-wheel
tractor-trailer hauling blueberries and making a left turn across
U.S. 27 near Williston. Driver Joshua Brown of Canton, Ohio  --
who took no evasive action and did not apply his brakes  --  was
killed when the roof was torn off. The truck driver told police he
heard a Harry Potter movie playing in the car. Tesla said its
sensors didn't detect the white truck against a bright sky and the
high ride height of the truck caused the car to pass underneath
it.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also
investigated dozens of other Tesla crashes and did not find "any
incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed." In
many cases, "driver behavior factors" were to blame. Drivers were
distracted, driving too fast for conditions or confused about the
system's responsibility.

Tesla's genius chief and electric car pioneer Elon Musk says there
are fewer crashes per miles driven on autopilot than in miles
driven by humans, and experts agree that someday completely self-
driving vehicles will make our roads safer.

"Yes, driverless cars are going to have accidents, but they're
going to have fewer accidents than humans," Hod Lipson, a
professor of mechanical engineering at Columbia University, told
the Los Angeles Times. "And unlike humans, driverless cars are
going to keep getting better, halving the number of accidents per
mile every so many months. The sooner we get on that exponential
trajectory, the better."

The NHTSA noted a 40 percent drop in crashes after an automatic
steering feature was included in the Teslas. But its January
report cautioned that autopilot systems are not meant to replace
human drivers with robots. Drivers must be continually and fully
attentive with hands on the wheel even when self-driving features
are engaged, and automakers must design cars "with the inattentive
driver in mind," as well as provide better education on the
limitations of the cars, the report said.

Autonomous self-driving cars are on the way. Apple, Google, Uber,
Ford, Toyota, General Motors, Volkswagen and Tesla were among the
companies that asked the state of California to amend its policies
on the development and testing of self-driving cars. They're all
engaged in a furious technological race, with some projecting 2020
or 2021 for the cars' debut. These smart navigators could
precipitate a transformation for metropolises like Miami, where
choked roadways and aggressive driving habits negatively impact
our mental health and blood pressure.

Flying cars could be next, although the fantasy of this vision
from "The Jetsons," "Blade Runner," "Back to the Future" and "Star
Wars" hasn't made much practical progress due to considerable
obstacles, including the limits of the air traffic control system.
Silicon Valley startups (including Larry Page's Kitty Hawk),
aerospace firm Airbus and the government of Dubai are among those
testing models today. A Slovakian company has a proposal for
personal flying machine that would cost USD1.3 million. Uber's
"Urban Air Mobility" concept includes on-demand flying taxis. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Randa Jacobs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co.,
Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00272-DJH
(W.D. Ken., Apr. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
David J. Hale.

Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. (SEA), is a recognized innovation leader in consumer
electronics design and technology. A wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SEA delivers a broad range of
digital consumer electronics, mobile products and wearables,
wireless infrastructure, IT and home appliance products. Samsung
is the market leader for HDTVs in the U.S and one of America's
fastest growing home appliance brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Friend, Esq.
          Robert W. Bishop, Esq.
          Tyler Z. Korus, Esq.
          BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
          6520 Glenridge Park, Suite 6
          Louisville, KY 40222-9998
          Telephone: (502) 425 2600
          E-mail: louisvillelaw22@gmail.com
                  firm@bishoplegal.net
                  tyler@bishoplegal.net


SAN PIETRO: Faces "Carchi" Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Pietro
Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Jose Carchi, Marco Vasquez,
Flavio Caisaguano, Jesus Castillo, Luiz Romero de Jesus, Manuel
Maneiro Wilian Argudo, Freddy Vazquez, Sergio Llanos, and Charles
Aliaga, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. San Pietro Restaurant Inc., doing business as
San Pietro Restaurant, Sistina Restaurant Inc., doing business as
Sistina, Gerardo Bruno, Giuseppe Bruno, and Cosimo Bruno, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03160 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

San Pietro Restaurant was founded in 1992. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Firemen's Fund Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark S. Light and Michael
Barnes, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00875 (N.D. Tex., March 28,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 20, 2017, under Case No. 1:17-cv-
02845.

Signet engages in the retail sale of diamond jewelry and watches
in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the
Republic of Ireland and the Channel Islands.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund allege that they
purchased Signet common stock at artificially inflated prices.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax)
      Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

             - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
      Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
             sburkholz@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Paul R. Genender, Esq.
      WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
      200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 746-7700
      Fax: (214) 746-7777
      Email: paul.genender@weil.com


SPOKANE, WA: "Trevino" Suit v. Social Health Service Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Ferguson. The
case is titled as Francis Anthony Trevino, Individually and on
behalf of those persons similarly situated Petitioners, the
Plaintiff, v. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington;
Triplet, Judge for Spokane County, Superior Court of Spokane
County; Department of Social Health Services; and Incorporated ACC
and DOC; Case No. 2:17-cv-00153-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Apr. 27, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.

Spokane County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Washington. As of the 2010 census the population was 471,221,
making it the fourth-most populous county in Washington state.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SRM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hill" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRM ENTERPRISES,
LLC. The case is titled as NAFEESA HILL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, the Plaintiff, v. SRM ENTERPRISES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01927-MAK (E.D. Pa., Apr. 27,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark A. Kearney.

SRM Enterprises is in the Business Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884 2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


SYRACUSE, NY: Winston Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of N.D.N.Y. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston filed an appeal from a District Court
order dated March 30, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Winston v. City
of Syracuse, Case No. 16-cv-235, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the lawsuit against the Defendants for alleged violation
of the Civil Rights Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Winston v. City of Syracuse,
Case No. 17-1017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jacqueline Winston, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

      Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
      LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
      472 South Salina Street
      Syracuse, NY 13202
      Telephone: (315) 703-6579
      Facsimile: (315) 475-2706
      E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org

Defendants-Appellees City of Syracuse and Deborah Somers, in her
official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, are represented
by:

          John A. Sickinger, Esq.
          CITY OF SYRACUSE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
          300 City Hall
          233 East Washington Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 448-8400
          E-mail: jsickinger@syrgov.net


TACONIC: Judge Denies Dismissal of Water Pollution Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Lyons at Times Union reports a state Supreme Court justice
has upheld a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Petersburgh
residents against a company blamed for polluting local water
supplies with a toxic manufacturing chemical.

In declining to dismiss the case against Taconic, a plastics
company, Justice Patrick J. McGrath cited a recent decision in
U.S. District Court in a similar case involving a federal class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of dozens of residents in Hoosick
Falls. In both cases, the legal arguments center on whether people
who have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood have suffered an
injury. The issue is expected to eventually be decided by the
state Court of Appeals.

The cases also claim that property values have been diminished by
the companies blamed for polluting water supplies and, possibly,
soil in and around Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh. In Hoosick
Falls, a McCaffrey Street plant operated by Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics has been a focus of the contamination in that
community. The plant is a short distance from the village's well
fields.

McGrath said the underlying legal arguments in the claims were
addressed in a lengthy decision in February by U.S. District
Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, who struck down arguments to
dismiss the case that were filed by attorneys for Saint-Gobain and
Honeywell International, which acquired a company that had
previously operated the manufacturing plant owned by Saint-Gobain
since 1999.

Both lawsuits seek long-term medical monitoring for people who
have elevated levels of the toxic chemical in their blood and may
be at increased risk for diseases such as cancer.

"Judge Kahn points out the 'absurdity' of requiring plaintiffs to
manifest physical symptoms before receiving medical monitoring,
which would defeat the purpose of that remedy," McGrath wrote. "As
aptly noted by Judge Kahn, the entire point of medical monitoring
is to provide testing that would detect a patient's disease before
she manifests an obvious symptomatic illness, thus allowing
earlier treatment that carries a better chance of success."

Stephen G. Schwarz, an attorney for plaintiffs in both class-
action lawsuits, said the Petersburgh case was filed on behalf of
anyone whose private wells have been contaminated with PFOA, or
who have used the town's small public water system, which also was
contaminated.

Schwarz said both class-action lawsuits are filed on behalf of
people who were exposed to PFOA in their water but have not
experienced any adverse health effects or diseases as a result of
the exposure. There are dozens of residents in both communities
who have suffered serious health problems that Schwarz said may be
attributed to PFOA exposure, but those cases will be filed as
individual personal-injury claims, he said.

"Every personal injury case is different," he said.

Taconic is being represented in the state case by Thomas R. Smith,
an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King. The company's primary
business is manufacturing products coated perfluorinated
chemicals, including those that contained PFOA. The lawsuit
alleges PFOA contaminated water supplies in and around Petersburgh
when it was released from the smokestacks of the company's plant
off Route 22.

PFOA exposure has been linked to health problems, including
testicular and kidney cancer and thyroid disease. [GN]


TOWER HILL: MSPA Appeals S.D. Fla. Ct. Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill Prime
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-20459-KMM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The nature of suit is stated as overpayments under the Medicare
Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was originally filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County (Case No. 15-029859-CA-01), and was removed to
the District Court.

Tower Hill Prime Insurance provides Florida homeowners insurance.
The Company is based in Gainesville, Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower
Hill Prime Insurance Company, Case No. 17-11549, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The Appellant's brief is due on or before May 17, 2017;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the Appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's CIP is due on or before May 5, 2017, as to
      Appellee Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited company,
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare
Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida other Florida
Healthcare Plus, is represented by:

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LA LEY CON JOHN H. RUIZ
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (649) 649-6070
          E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com
                  jruiz@lawofficeslaley.com

Defendant-Appellee TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida
Profit Corporation, is represented by:

          Joshua D. Lerner, Esq.
          Nicole Sieb Smith, Esq.
          Caitlin Marie Trowbridge, Esq.
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-5577
          Facsimile: (305) 371-7580
          E-mail: jlerner@rumberger.com
                  nsmith@rumberger.com
                  ctrowbridge@rumberger.com


TSG COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Collections,
LLC. The case is captioned as Galina Gendelberg, GALINA GENDELBERG
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
the Plaintiff, v. TSG Collections, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02541 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

The Defendant is debt collector firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNION LOCAL 237: Discriminates Minority Employees, Wynn Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WYNN, JOHN WILLIAMS, AWILDA GUZMAN, JOSE OTERO, KEVIN
FULTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. UNION LOCAL 237, I.B.T, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03167 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017), seeks
to recover retroactive and prospective lost wage damages,
reimbursable expenses, attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendant through their agents, servants, and/or employees,
violated Plaintiffs' rights as protected under Title VII, and
violated Plaintiffs' rights as protected under the New York City
Human Rights Law, Administrative Code. The Defendant has a policy
and/or practice which disparately impacted Black and other
Minority employees, when it came to the adequacy of their pay; and
their right to receive commensurate pay as Plasterer
Tenders/Plasterer Helpers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee Nuwesra, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street. Suite 1132
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 370 8707
          E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net


UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Vidrio" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Felicia Vidrio and Paul Bradley filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Felicia Vidrio, et al. v.
United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07985-PSG-MRW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Felicia Vidrio, et al. v.
United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55471, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 8, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 4, 2017;

   -- Appellants Paul Bradley and Felicia Vidrio's opening brief
      is due on September 13, 2017;

   -- Appellee United Airlines, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      October 13, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants FELICIA VIDRIO, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and PAUL BRADLEY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
          JACKSON HANSON LLP
          2790 Truxtun Rd.
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523-9001
          Facsimile: (619) 523-9002
          E-mail: hansonlaw@cox.net

Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INC., is represented by:

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert Alan Siegel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6005
          E-mail: rsiegel@omm.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Claims vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases had
taken an appeal from a district court's December 22, 2016 ruling,
which dismissed the claims against a United Technologies
Corporation subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named
as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed
on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third-
party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers
listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in
contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief and monetary damages.  Each violation under the TCPA
provides for US$500 in statutory damages or up to US$1,500 for any
willful violation.

In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern
District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending
TCPA cases have been consolidated, arguing that the third parties
who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not
acting as UTCFS' agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be
vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA.

On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary
judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS.  The
plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017.

United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and
services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.
It was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Farmington,
Connecticut.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Peterson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services,
Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare
Service LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services,
Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Optum, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled
Louis J. Peterson, D.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et
al., Case No. 0:14-cv-02101-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged repeated violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act resulting from
United's systematic failure to make benefit payments that are due
and owing under United Plans.

The appellate case is captioned as Louis J. Peterson, D.C., et al.
v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1744, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before May 16, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on May 26, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Optum, Inc., United HealthCare
      Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United
      Healthcare Service LLC and UnitedHealth Group Inc. is due
      on May 26, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Louis J. Peterson, D.C., on behalf of
Patients E, I, K, L, N, P, Q and R, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and Riverview Health Institute, on its own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Richard Allen Lockridge, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kristen Marttila Marttila, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave, S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  riebekh@locklaw.com
                  kgmarttila@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq.
          John W. Leardi, Esq.
          Paul D. Werner, Esq.
          BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC
          103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-5150
          Facsimile: (609) 799-5180
          E-mail: vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com
                  jwleardi@buttacilaw.com
                  pdwerner@buttacilaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Cowart, Esq.
          Brian Hufford, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 746-8840
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          William K. Meyer, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332-1240
          Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
          E-mail: wmeyer@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
          THE MAUL FIRM, P.C.
          68 Jay Street, Suite 201
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (646) 263-5780
          Facsimile: (866) 488-7936
          E-mail: afmaul@maulfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare
Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United
Healthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare
Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Optum,
Inc., are represented by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq.
          Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
          Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com
                  jhacker@omm.com
                  gjacob@omm.com
                  mwalsh@omm.com

               - and -

          Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-0000
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326 2061
          E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces "Kuykendall" Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TANESHA KUYKENDALL, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICE, LP, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendants, Case No. SC127449 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2017),
seeks to recover civil penalties under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from November 2013 until
September 2016, as a non-exempt security guard. The Plaintiff was
required to execute an On-Duty Meal Period Agreement. This
required Plaintiff to take all meal periods while on duty because,
according to the Agreement, the nature of her work
"prevents [employees] from being relieved of all duty during the
meal period." As evidenced by the express terms of the Agreement,
Plaintiff could not be relieved of all duties because of the
nature of their work. This same rationale prevented employees from
being relieved of all duties during their rest periods as well. As
a result, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiff to
take all duty-free rest periods required by California law.
Moreover, for those shifts for which Defendants did not authorize
or permit all duty-free rest periods required by California law,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff with an hour of premium pay at
the employees' regular rate of pay, as required by Labor Code. As
a result, Plaintiff was deprived of all rest period premium wages
earned. As a further result of Defendants' failure to pay all
earned rest period premium wages, Defendants issued inaccurate
wage statements, and did not pay Plaintiff all wages owed at the
time of her separation from employment with Defendants. The
Defendants committed violations of the Labor Code, and Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order 4.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  skierig@haineslawgroup.com


USCB INC: "Gallups" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gallups, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USCB, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at-
00429, (E.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), seeks actual damages,
statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief
resulting from negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, willful violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

USCB, Inc. is debt collection company who repeatedly called
Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system despite
Plaintiff's express revocation of consent to be called. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sabin" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Marisa J. Sabin and Lisa
Testa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02557 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 28, 2017).

Vital Recovery is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          Sanders Law, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 -7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Settlement in "Magana" Suit Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Susan E. Cox entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Alfredo Magana, the Plaintiff, v. Winters Landscape,
Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.),
granting a joint motion for preliminary approval of the parties'
stipulation and agreement to settle class action claims and for
approval of class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 12, 2017,
no appearance was required on the motion. Parties are to submit
proposed order to the Court.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0mmxtvOi


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene at Law360 reports a recently acquired Allergan PLC unit
is capitalizing on a confusing element of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's marketing process to trick customers into
thinking its fat-freezing system has the agency's approval,
according to a proposed class action in California on April 27.

Carmen Otero and Abbey Lerman say Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc., which
was recently picked up by Allergan in a USD2.5 billion deal, is
marketing its CoolSculpting system as being FDA-cleared, which
would lead most customers to think it's been FDA-approved, a
higher-level categorization, according to their suit in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

The FDA can "clear" a device for sale under a process in which the
company selling the device sends the agency a premarket
notification that explains the product is substantially similar to
something else that's already on the market, according to the
agency. But being "cleared" doesn't mean a product has been
approved, which requires proving to the FDA that a device is safe
and effective, the customers noted.

Zeltiq promises prospective CoolSculpting customers its device has
been FDA-cleared, but it's playing on the average person's likely
confusion over what it means to be "cleared" versus "approved,"
Otero and Lerman said.

"In order to increase revenue and gain an advantage over
competitors, defendants exploit, to their benefit, the lack of
understanding and confusion of FDA terminology by consumers and
employees at the various medical offices, spas and other entities
that administer CoolSculpting treatments," the customers said.

Zeltiq's CoolSculpting system promises to freeze certain fat cells
to induce a natural elimination of them from the body, according
to marketing language posted in the complaint. The company says in
its marketing that CoolSculpting has been cleared by the FDA, but
doesn't explain anywhere on its materials that being FDA-cleared
isn't the same as being approved, according to the suit.

That alleged deception amounts to false advertising even by the
FDA's own standards, the customers said. The FDA instructs
companies whose products have been "cleared" that creating the
impression the product has been approved is misbranding.

Lerman got several CoolSculpting procedures starting in 2015, and
Otero got hers in February of this year, according to the
complaint. Neither user would have paid as much for the service if
they knew the method hadn't undergone the stricter approval
process, they said.

The cost for a typical CoolSculpting personal treatment plan
ranges from USD2,000 to USD4,000 depending on the number of areas
treated, Zeltiq's website says.

Allergan said in February it would acquire Zeltiq in a USD2.47
billion deal, giving the pharmaceutical giant deeper access to the
USD4 billion body contouring industry. A Zeltiq shareholder lodged
a proposed investor class action over the deal in March, court
records show.

The transaction has since closed, according to Zeltiq's website,
which explains that its acquisition by Allergan is complete.

Representatives for Zeltiq and Allergan didn't immediately respond
to requests for comment on April 28.

Otero and Lerman are represented by Lee A. Cirsch --
lee.cirsh@capstonelawyers.com -- Robert K. Friedl --
Robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com --  and Trisha K. Monesi --
trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- of Capstone Law APC.

Counsel information for Zeltiq couldn't be immediately determined.

The case is Carmen Otero et al. v. Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc., case
number BC659192, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. [GN]


* Fin'l Advisers Face Increased Risk of Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Allen at Star Tribune reports John Bogle, Vanguard founder
and the creator of index funds for the masses, said, "Whether
markets are efficient or inefficient, investors as a group must
fall short of the market return by the amount of the costs they
incur."

Jim Christian, a Lakeville financial planner argues that when it
comes to cost of investing, however, the devil is very much in the
details. He points out that there are only three ways to pay for
financial service advice: a flat or hourly fee, as a percent of
assets under management or a commission on the purchase of an
investment and "every adviser should offer all three options."

Bogle's simple math underlies the logic behind the fiduciary rule
issued by the Obama Department of Labor (DOL). The rule sought to
align the way all financial advisers operate when offering
retirement investment advice, eliminating the financial incentive
for some to recommend higher cost investments that, as Bogle and
others would argue, hurt investors. While attempts by industry
groups to block implementation through the courts have failed, the
rule is in limbo while the Trump administration considers changing
or scrapping it altogether. But as I've written in previous
columns, it's already set in motion changes across the financial
advice industry. Jim reached out in response to a recent column
and had a lot to say.

Under existing rules, advisers can recommend a mutual fund for
example, that has higher fees and expenses than an alternative
fund but for which they receive a sales commission, as long as it
is deemed "appropriate" to an investor's situation. Under the
stalled DOL rule, "appropriate" would be replaced by a "best
interest" standard where an adviser would be prohibited from
making a commission-compensated recommendation unless they
disclosed their fee arrangement and the client agreed.

In response, some mutual fund companies are introducing new share
classes that either have no sales charge (clean shares) or a flat
2.5 percent sales charge (T shares) that is viewed as "DOL-
compliant." In addition, many firms are moving away from sales-
oriented, commission-based client relationship to compensation
based on a percent of assets.

"It's a money grab," Christian said, pointing to a recent Wall
Street Journal article describing how large firms such as Merrill
Lynch and J.P. Morgan are moving an asset-based model. This
approach, the Journal points out, allows these large firms to
better compete with smaller independent advisers who provide more
personalized financial planning and advice. More importantly for
investors, an asset-based pay model can be more profitable for an
adviser over time than a commission-based account, both Christian
and the Journal point out. That is particularly true for a smaller
"buy and hold" investors who don't rebalance their portfolios,
according to Morningstar Research.

Christian has a much different take on how the industry should
respond, arguing that "complete transparency" over fees would be a
better approach than herding advisers into one fee structure.
While nothing had prevented advisers from being transparent in the
past, Christian acknowledged that past practices of some brokers,
including excessive trading or "churning" to earn extra
commissions, has tarnished the reputations of financial advisers
generally. Even though the DOL rule is on hold, he said he'll
change the way he offers IRO rollover advice, presenting "a list
of investment alternatives, pros and cons of each option and the
one we recommend." In the past, he would have done this analysis
but not necessarily shared it with clients.

More important to Christian is the increased risk of class-action
litigation he believes advisers face under a common fiduciary
standard. Even complaints resolved in an adviser's favor would
remain on their record, potentially harming their reputations.
While some industry observers have argued the class-action concern
is overblown, they point out the risk of losing arbitration cases
is increased.

Critics of the proposed DOL rule have also argued that moving away
from commissions would leave smaller investors without access to
financial advice, since a percentage fee on a small account would
not justify an adviser's time. Christian said about half his
client accounts pay based on a percent of assets, 45 percent are
commission-based and only 5 percent are hourly. His largest
accounts average more than CAD300,000 and "receive service
commensurate with their fees." He also has a few dozen small
accounts, averaging CAD10,000 that receive "basic" level of
service.

He is concerned that an increased risk of litigation would cause
many advisers to "orphan" these smallest investors. While saying
he is committed to serving all his clients, if compliance risk
increases on small clients he joked: "I'll have to resign and send
them to [Obama's Secretary of Labor] Tom Perez." [GN]


* Foley & Lardner Comments on Challenging Limited Issue Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Leffel, Esq., and Kelsey K. Wong, Esq., at Foley &
Lardner LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that
a class action that aggregates the claims of individual plaintiffs
against a common defendant can promote judicial economy and
maximize efficiency. However, even the pursuit of class
certification can promote abuse. In the words of Judge Henry
Friendly, class actions can at times result in "blackmail
settlements," where even defendants with meritorious defenses feel
compelled to settle based on the enormous threat of liability that
a class action can present. See In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,
51 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henry J. Friendly,
Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973)). In part to avoid
this abuse, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strike a balance
that permits certification of damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3)
only when, among other things, common issues predominate over
individualized issues necessary to resolve the case.

There is, however, a growing trend that impacts this delicate
balance and is changing how many class actions are litigated, and
the tactics and strategies employed by all parties. Plaintiffs,
and some courts, have increasingly pointed to Rule 23(c)(4) to
certify what are called "limited issue" classes. Rule 23(c)(4)
provides that, "when appropriate, an action may be brought or
maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."
Limited issue certification under this Rule seeks to isolate an
issue (or certain issues) for class treatment even if class
members' claim for liability or recovery might ultimately be
adjudicated individually. The separation of individual issues not
capable of class-wide resolution allows a class action to move
forward even when it would not survive examination under the
mandate of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance test -- which requires
common issues in the class action as a whole to predominate over
issues that would require individualized adjudication.

A New Focus On Limited Issue Classes

While the potential for limited issue classes has been around for
a while, it gained increased attention in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which brought teeth back to
Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, many commentators viewed the
case as a real threat to class certification.  As the Court held,
"[w]hat matters to class certification. . . is not the raising of
common 'questions' -- even in droves -- but, rather, the capacity
of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive
the resolution of the litigation."  Some commentators were
concerned that the Dukes decision threatened the very viability of
class actions.

These concerns may have been overstated, but it has caused some
commentators to advocate for limited issue class certification
under Rule 23(c)(4) as a way to promote the continued viability of
class actions. For example, Professor John C. Coffee has said,
"the best hope for survival of the class action in money damages
cases may lie in the expansion of issue class certification under
Rule 23(c)(4)."  Under Professor Coffee's view, partial
certification is a process whereby "the defendant's liability
could be established at the class trial."  Then, "individual
issues, such as reliance, proximate causation, or damages could be
established in separate proceedings."  Other commentators stress
that this approach goes too far, and is inconsistent with federal
law.

Varying Approaches Of The Circuits

Several courts have interpreted Rule 23(c)(4) to permit the
bifurcation of class issues and certain issues that must be
resolved on an individual basis in a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class.
However, courts have disagreed on the proper scope and
interpretation of the Rule.

Until recently, the Fifth Circuit in Castano v. American Tobacco
rejected the use of Rule 23(c)(4) to overcome (b)(3)'s
predominance requirement: "Severing the defendants' conduct from
reliance under rule 23(c)(4) does not save the class action. A
district court cannot manufacture predominance through the nimble
use of subdivision (c)(4). The proper interpretation of the
interaction between subdivisions (b)(3) and (c)(4) is that . . .
(c)(4) is a housekeeping rule that allows courts to sever the
common issues for a class trial."  Notably, the Fifth Circuit's
more recent decision in In re Deepwater Horizon, has been cited as
a retreat from Castano and evidence of a more expansive approach,
stating that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement can still be
met if the proceedings are structured to establish "liability on a
class-wide basis, with separate hearings to determine -- if
liability is established -- the damages of individual class
members."  Of course, separating the damages inquiry alone for
individualized treatment is distinct from having mini-trials on
issues of, for example, reliance or causation.

Other circuits have been more supportive of limited issue class
certification, although circuits have different approaches to
determine when it is appropriate to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) class
action that could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). The Second
Circuit held in In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases that "a
court may employ subsection (c)(4) to certify a class as to
liability regardless of whether the claim as a whole satisfies
Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement."  The Second Circuit
employed a material advancement standard, determining whether
issue certification would "reduce the range of issues in dispute
and promote judicial economy."  The Third Circuit applies factors
set forth in the American Legal Institute's Principles of the Law
of Aggregate Litigation to determine whether certification of an
issue class is proper. Courts are instructed to consider factors
such as "the type of claim and issue in question; the overall
complexity of the case; the efficiencies to be gained by granting
partial certification; the substantive law underlying the claim,"
and more. Finally, the Seventh Circuit held that if a proposed
class action contains "genuinely common issues, issues identical
across all the claimants . . . the accuracy of the resolution of
which is unlikely to be enhanced by repeated proceedings, then it
makes good sense, especially when the class is large, to resolve
those issues in one fell swoop while leaving the remaining,
claimant-specific issues to individual follow-on proceedings."

Potential Statutory and Rules Changes Regarding Limited Issue
Classes

The liberal interpretation of Rule 23(c)(4) in some circuits has
been recognized as a concern by some scholars and congressional
leaders alike. On March 9, 2017, the House of Representatives
passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
("FCALA"). Now pending Senate approval, FCALA proposes various
amendments to the judicial procedures that apply to federal court
actions. Notably, FCALA would preclude courts from certifying
particular issue class actions unless the entirety of the cause of
action from which the particular issues arise satisfies Rule 23
requirements. An additional provision requiring that "each
proposed class member suffer the same type and scope of injury" as
the named plaintiff would result in substantially fewer certified
issue classes as well.

In stark contrast to the approach advocated by supporters of
FCALA, the Rule 23 Subcommittee to the Advisory Committee on Civil
Rules recently considered amendments that would make it far easier
to certify a limited issue class. Perhaps recognizing the apparent
conflict between the predominance requirement and limited issue
certification, the Rule 23 Subcommittee contemplated an amendment
that would eliminate the predominance requirement to obtain issue
class certification under Rule 23(c)(4), making it easier to
certify issue classes. The Subcommittee ultimately removed issue
classes from consideration for rule changes, citing an evolving
consensus in various circuits for Rule 23(c)(4) treatment "when
appropriate."  However, the proposed amendment by the Subcommittee
parallels proposals by some practitioners and academics in support
of a more expansive use of issue certification.

Moving Forward

Passage of FCALA would certainly change the landscape for issue
class certification and provide clarity, shifting the focus back
to the commonality and predominance of common issues in class
actions over individual issues. Even if legislation does not pass,
there may be changes in how courts interpret Rule 23 to permit
limited issue certification and in how defendants approach class
actions in this new era.

First, as noted above, some commentators have argued against
broadening limited issue certifications. Based on the
Constitution, Rules Enabling Act, and historical practice,
Professor Mark A. Perry has advocated an approach that would
permit limited issue certification solely for liability and
remedies since "Rule 23(c)(4) does not authorize certification or
exclusion of more discrete claim elements or defenses."  Under
this approach, Professor Coffee's proposed expansion to encompass
claim elements (such as causation or reliance) and defenses (such
as knowledge and consent) would be precluded by the courts.
Defendants may want to follow this approach in challenging the use
of limited issue certification in their cases.

Second, regardless of what is permitted to be included in a
limited issue certification, defendants may change tactics and
strategies to counter plaintiffs' counsel's evolving positions.
There was a time (recognized by Judge Friendly) that even the
threat of class certification could cause a defendant with a
meritorious claim to settle rather than risk overwhelming
liability. However, defendants may find that, even if a class is
certified, if issues such as reliance, causation, or injury, are
left for individualized adjudication, they may have reason to
battle well beyond class certification. For example, perhaps a
limited issue class will be certified, but a defendant may have
strong arguments on the underlying merits, or plaintiffs may have
serious problems with proving that a significant portions of the
class relied on a representation. In those circumstances, it may
be worth pushing plaintiffs to really prove their case for each
class member. At a minimum, in those circumstances, plaintiffs'
counsel will still have a significant amount of work to do to
truly "prevail" in any meaningful way, which can impact case
strategy and settlement.

As the Senate debates FCALA, and the courts continue to consider
how best to utilize limited issue certifications, we will keep you
updated on interesting developments. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Foster Wheeler Summary Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Geraldine Hilt appeals the district court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Foster Wheeler,
LLC.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated
and remanded the case.

The Ninth Circuit held that taking the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, Charles Ay's expert opinion (along with
other evidence presented by Plaintiff) was sufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Robert Hilt was
exposed to asbestos fibers from insulation supplied by Foster
Wheeler.  The district court erred in discounting Ay's expert
testimony on the ground that he lacked personal knowledge of the
ships, boilers, or insulation at issue, the Ninth Circuit said.
An expert may render an opinion based "on facts or data . . . that
the expert has been made aware of," Fed. R. Evid. 703, and may
render an opinion that is "not based on firsthand knowledge or
observation," the Ninth Circuit pointed out.

Ay's opinion that the boilers on the U.S.S. Bradley and U.S.S.
Constellation were manufactured by Foster Wheeler, that the
insulation supplied by Foster Wheeler for those boilers contained
asbestos, and that at least some of the original asbestos-
containing insulation was present in those boilers at the time
Hilt was exposed to insulation dust was based on Ay's specialized
knowledge, his extensive experience with asbestos-containing
materials in Naval ships, and facts and data in the record
sufficient to support his opinion, the Ninth Circuit pointed out.
Ay's opinion was neither speculative nor inadmissible under Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Ninth Circuit said.
Therefore, the district court erred in granting Foster Wheeler's
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence and
products-liability claims on the ground that no reasonable jury
could conclude from the evidence that Hilt was exposed to asbestos
from insulation manufactured or supplied by Foster Wheeler, the
Ninth Circuit concluded.

The district court did not determine whether there was a genuine
issue of material fact that Hilt's alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing boiler insulation was a "substantial contributing
factor in causing his injuries," and the Ninth Circuit declined to
address this issue in the first instance.  Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit vacated the order granting summary judgment and remanded
to the district court to consider any remaining grounds in Foster
Wheeler's motion for summary judgment.

The appeals case is GERALDINE HILT, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as
Successor-in-Interest to Robert Hill, Deceased, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, FKA Foster Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-17301 (9th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/s78zjS from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Avondale Remanded to State Ct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the case captioned STEPHEN
R. LEGENDRE, ET AL., v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC. ET AL., SECTION I,
Civil Action No. 17-2162 (E.D. La.), to the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans.

For over half a century, asbestos -- prized for its durability and
high-heat resistance -- was widely used in shipyards.  Mary Jane
Wilde's father, husband, and brother worked in shipyards which
meant that they were exposed to asbestos on the job.

Mary Jane, however, never worked in a shipyard.  But that did not
stop her from developing and then ultimately dying from
mesothelioma. Before she passed away, Mary Jane filed suit in
Louisiana state court against the shipyards where her relatives
worked. Her suit alleged that she was exposed to asbestos each
night when her relatives returned home from the shipyard and that
those exposures caused her mesothelioma.

Huntington Ingalls ("Avondale"), a defendant in Mary Jane's
lawsuit, tried to remove her case to this Court on the basis of
federal officer removal jurisdiction.

Judge Africk held that, at best, Avondale demonstrates that the
federal government required Avondale to use asbestos when building
ships.  Under Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, 817 F.3d 457 (2016),
the government's responsibility for the existence of the asbestos
at the shipyard is insufficiently related to the negligence claims
challenging Avondale's discretionary decisions regarding safety
precautions to serve as the basis for federal officer removal.
Therefore, although Avondale has preserved the argument that the
Fifth Circuit's opinions in Savoie and Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship
Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2015), are wrongly decided, the Court
has no choice but to follow Fifth Circuit law as it currently
exists and remand this matter to Louisiana state court.

A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated April 25, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/l7zz1X from Leagle.com.

Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement.

Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett
Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel &
Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement.

Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett
Clement, Roussel & Clement.

Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Roussel
Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel &
Clement.

Ragus J. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Percy J. Legendre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by April Ann McQuillar, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and
Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery Davis, Liskow & Lewis.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented
by Dawn Danna Marullo, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Weatherly Emma
Trotter, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & Walter Scott Brown, Entergy Services,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. District Court Keen to Remand "Abrogast"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland required defendants Georgia-Pacific LLC and
MCIC, Inc., to show cause why the case captioned BARBARA ARBOGAST
et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC et al., Defendants,
Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.), should not be remanded to Maryland
state court.

Judge Bredar held that CSX Transportation, Inc., has shown that no
genuine dispute of material fact exists and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the third-party complaints of
Georgia-Pacific and MCIC for contribution.  Having resolved all
federal claims in the case, the case now returns to its prior
posture -- before third-party complaints were filed -- of being
under consideration for remand to Maryland state court of
Plaintiffs' claims against Georgia-Pacific and MCIC, which are
only supplemental claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 24, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/vAd9S5 from Leagle.com.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick,
Motley Rice LLC & John E. Guerry, III.

Barbara Arbogast as Personal Representative for the Estate of
Charles L. Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew R.
Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. Schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P.
Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P.
Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, Pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Joshua
Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

Greene, Tweed & Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas
Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Louis E. Grenzer,
Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage &
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bobo" Suit Remanded for Damages Recalculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
remanded the appeals case captioned BARBARA BOBO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, MELISSA ANN BOBO, co-personal representative of the
Estate of Barbara Bobo, deceased, SHANNON JEAN COX, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant, No.
15-15271 (11th Cir.), to the district court with instructions for
it to recalculate the damages award in order to exclude from it
any amounts that were written off by Barbara Bobo's providers and
to correct any other errors that may appear to the court when the
parties have a chance to focus exclusively on the medical expenses
component of the damages award.

Mrs. Bobo's husband, James "Neal" Bobo, worked for the TVA for
more than twenty-two years.  While at TVA, he was diagnosed with
asbestos-induced lung cancer and in 1997 died from a heart attack.
Mrs. Bobo was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in
2011.  She underwent thoracentesis, in which a long needle was
used to remove two liters of fluid from the space between the
lining of the outside of her lungs and the wall of her chest.  She
also underwent multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which she referred
to as the "Red Devil," because of the side effects she experienced
from it -- side effects which included, among other things, pain
when drinking fluids and also spitting up raw flesh.  In June 2012
her doctor performed a pleurectomy on Mrs. Bobo, removing one of
her ribs and the pleural lining of one of her lungs.

She died from mesothelioma in 2013.  Before she died, she filed a
lawsuit claiming that TVA's negligence resulted in her being
exposed to "take-home" asbestos when she washed her husband's work
clothes over the years.  After a three-day bench trial, the
district court entered judgment against TVA.

The district court initially awarded the plaintiffs damages of
$3,000,000 for pain and suffering, plus $547,008.93 in medical
expenses, less an offset of $136,176.37, for a total amount of
$3,410,832.56. The court later amended the judgment in light of
post-trial settlements, which resulted in a final total damages
award of $3,391,420.31.  TVA appeals.

The Eleventh Circuit held that TVA not only could foresee injuries
from take-home asbestos exposure, it also created the risk of
injuries to its employees' family members by using insulation
products containing asbestos and failing to take the steps it was
required to take in order to prevent its employees from carrying
asbestos fibers off the premises and into their homes.

The Eleventh Circuit further held, "Public policy concerns also
weigh in favor of imposing a duty on TVA in these circumstances.
TVA not only knew about the danger of take-home asbestos, it also
knew about OSHA regulations that it was required to follow in
order to limit exposure in the workplace and in the homes of its
employees. And it knew of its own internal requirements that, if
followed, would have limited exposure and prevented it from being
carried home on its employees' clothes. TVA was in the best
position to protect people like Mrs. Bobo from take-home asbestos
exposure by complying with the relevant regulations or internal
policies that were designed for that purpose, but it failed to do
so. Recognizing TVA's duty in these circumstances is fully
warranted by considerations of public policy."

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 26, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/dgO60n from Leagle.com.

Anne Laurie McClurkin, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James A. Harris, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evelyn Fletcher Davis, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicole Mapp Hardee, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael A. Vercher, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebekah Keith McKinney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

W. Larkin Radney, IV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lisa White Shirley, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Clifton Wayne Jefferis, for Defendant-Appellant.

Walter Thompson Gilmer, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

Edward C. Meade, for Defendant-Appellant.

Edwin Warren Small, for Defendant-Appellant.

James S. Chase, for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles E. Soechting, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher J. Panatier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jay E. Stuemke, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rachel Perkins, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stacey Leigh Strain, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Misty A. Farris, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey B. Simon, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destructive Testing OK'd in Mesothelioma Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the Motion for
Destructive Testing filed by defendant Pilkington North America,
Inc. (f/k/a Libbey Owens Ford) in the case captioned WILLIAM D.
COLEMAN, v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-
821-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.).

Plaintiffs allege that William D. Coleman died from malignant
mesothelioma on November 8, 2016 "due to or a [sic] consequence of
his exposure to dust and fibers from asbestos and asbestos-
containing materials utilized by" PNA.  On March 17, 2017, PNA
filed the instant Motion for Destructive Testing, seeking an order
allowing it to proceed with destructive testing of Decedent's
pathology materials.  Specifically, PNA seeks "to use a small
portion of Decedent's tissue" for a "fiber burden analysis" that
PNA contends will provide objective evidence "of whether or not
there are asbestos fibers in decedent's pathological tissue."  PNA
explains that "[i]f the tissue is large enough and well preserved,
it can be 'digested' in a manner that eliminates the tissue and
leaves behind any inorganic particles and minerals.  By using this
methodology, a person can identify objective evidence of exposure
to biopersistent materials like asbestos."  PNA therefore seeks an
order from the court granting the Motion for Destructive Testing.

Although Plaintiffs indicated opposition to the Motion for
Destructive Testing during an in-court conference with the parties
on March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the
Motion.  Accordingly, the court considers the Motion for
Destructive Testing to be unopposed.

As proposed by PNA, the destructive testing will use no more than
50% of Decedent's pathology materials and PNA will provide the
results of said testing to Plaintiffs. No party has asserted that
PNA's proposed testing would hinder their ability to present
evidence at trial, nor has any party suggested less prejudicial
alternatives, Magistrate Wilder-Doomes pointed out.  Further, the
magistrate found that PNA has established the relevancy of the
proposed fiber burden analysis.  Especially in light of the fact
that PNA's proposal will not destroy all of the pathology
materials and PNA's expert will provide the results of the
analysis to Plaintiffs, the magistrate found that the testing
should proceed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Accordingly, Magistrate Wilder-Doomes ordered that the pathology
materials of William Coleman, XXX-XX-8396, including slides,
tissues, stains and blocks, and associated reports of William
Coleman, XXX-XX-8396 (including but not limited to:
accession/specimen ##: S15-32945, OC-15-12125, C-15-214324, C-15-
214326, S-15-053034, S-15-091159), be released to PNA's expert for
destructive testing described as a "fiber burden analysis" and
"tissue digestion."

It is further ordered that PNA's expert will use no more than 50%
of the Pathology Materials and that PNA will provide the results
of PNA's expert's destructive analysis to Plaintiffs no later than
ninety (90) days from the date of service of said materials to
PNA.

A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated April 25, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/bncMoU from Leagle.com.

Pamela Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Esq.
     WATERS & KRAUS, LLP
     3141 Hood Street, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: 214.357.6244
     Fax: 214.357.7252

Jody Coleman Nolte, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester-
Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Susan
M. Rogge, Esq. -- srogge@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso Usdin
Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC, H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq. --
mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman &
Sarver LLC & Kimberly R. Silas, Esq. -- ksilas@barrassousdin.com -
- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C..

Safety National Casualty Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chris James LeBlanc, Esq. -- cleblanc@wbwplaw.com -- Watson,
Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP & William Eugene Scott, III, Esq. --
wscott@wbwplaw.com -- Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard &
Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Pilkington North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Culp, Esq. -- mculp@rdm.law -- Rasmussen Willis Dickey Moore, pro
hac vice, Matthew S. Jensen, Esq. -- mjensen@rdm.law -- Rasmussen
Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, pro hac vice, and

     Jane H. Barney, Esq.
     J.H. BARNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     2561 Citi Place Court
     Suite 750-161
     Baton Rouge, LA 70808
     Phone: 225-235-9016

Bedivere Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel M.
Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor Wellons
Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam D. deMahy & Angela Jacketti O'Brien,
Louisiana Department of Justice - Office of Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Verdict vs. Millar Companies Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick, Plaintiffs, commenced
an action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Nicholas from
his exposure to asbestos.  Lorraine abandoned her loss of
consortium claim at the ensuing trial.  Defendants Charles Millar
& Son Co., et al., appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury
verdict finding that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from
products supplied by the Millar defendants, that they failed to
exercise reasonable care by not providing a warning about the
hazards of exposure to asbestos with respect to their products,
and that their failure to warn was a substantial contributing
factor in causing plaintiff's injuries.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, held that contrary to the contention of the Millar
defendants, the evidence is sufficient to establish that asbestos
in products they supplied was a substantial factor in causing or
contributing to plaintiff's injuries.  The Appellate Division held
that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences
that could lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the
jury based upon the evidence presented at trial.  The Appellate
Division pointed out that the Plaintiff testified that he was
exposed to asbestos dust from asbestos boards and cement supplied
by the Millar defendants that were used in the heat treat area of
a pneumatic-tool making plant.  The hypothetical question that
plaintiff asked his expert was based on plaintiff's testimony or
was otherwise "fairly inferable from the evidence."

The Appellate Division pointed out that with respect to specific
causation, the Court of Appeals held in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp.
(7 N.Y.3d 434, 448, rearg denied 8 N.Y.3d 828) that the expert
opinion must set forth that the plaintiff "was exposed to
sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the [injuries]."  However,
as the Court of Appeals later wrote, "Parker explains that precise
quantification' or a dose-response relationship' or an exact
numerical value' is not required to make a showing of specific
causation."  There simply "must be evidence from which the
factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels
of [the] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the
plaintiff claims to have suffered.'"  Here, plaintiff's expert
opined that, if a worker sees asbestos dust, that is a "massive
exposure . . . capable of causing disease."  Contrary to the
Millar defendants' contention, the expert's opinion, considered
along with the rest of her testimony, was sufficient to establish
specific causation, the Appellate Division held.

The Appellate Division rejected the Millar defendants' contention
that Supreme Court abused its discretion in precluding them from
calling certain witnesses. Plaintiff moved in limine to preclude
the testimony of eight of plaintiff's former coworkers on the
ground that the Millar defendants' disclosure of those witnesses
was untimely. The court exercised its sound discretion in limiting
the Millar defendants to calling just two of the witnesses
inasmuch as the testimony of the remaining coworkers would be
cumulative.  The court also properly denied the motion of the
Millar defendants for leave to renew or reargue their opposition
to the motion in limine inasmuch as they again failed to show that
the testimony of the remaining coworkers would not be cumulative.

The Appellate Division also rejected the Millar defendants'
contention that the jury's apportionment of fault is against the
weight of the evidence.  Indeed, they "did not meet [their] burden
of establishing the equitable shares of fault attributable to
other tortfeasors in order to reduce [their] own liability for
damages" (see Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 28 A.D.3d 255,
256). Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the Millar
defendants' contention that the award of $3 million for future
pain and suffering for one year deviates materially from what is
reasonable compensation.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ordered that the judgment so
appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 28, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/fQTk2Z from Leagle.com.

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, ALBANY (GEORGE F. CARPINELLO, Esq.
-- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-
APPELLANTS.

BELLUCK & FOX, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (SETH A. DYMOND, Esq. -- OF
COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had US$108.5MM Reserve at Feb. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., had US$108.5 million reserve at
December 31, 2016, for potential liability arising from its
asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form S-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in many
asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits.  The
plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica
from multiple sources and typically we are one of approximately 25
or more named defendants.  Our predecessors sometimes
manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue
in these pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the
"Products").  However, neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or
silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury
underlying the lawsuits.  Moreover, the asbestos-containing
components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the
subject Products.

"Although we have never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber or silica, many of the companies that
did engage in such activities or produced such products are no
longer in operation.  This has led to law firms seeking potential
alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an
asbestos or silica related injury.  However, in our opinion, based
on our experience to date, the substantial majority of the
plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which we bear
responsibility.

"We believe that the pending and future asbestos and silica-
related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: our anticipated
insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such
matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the
Products; our opinion, based on our experience to date, that the
vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease
attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or
relating to the Products or for which we otherwise bear
responsibility; various potential defenses available to us with
respect to such matters; and our prior disposition of comparable
matters.

"However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential
insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an
adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability
to collect from our historical insurers or indemnitors, could
cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal proceedings
is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts,
experience and circumstances, we believe that the amounts accrued
on the Company's balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.

"We have accrued liabilities and other liabilities on our
consolidated balance sheet to include a total litigation reserve
of US$108.5 million and US$94.1 million as of December 31, 2016
and 2015 respectively, with respect to potential liability arising
from our asbestos-related litigation (with the increase in reserve
resulting from a change in certain actuarial assumptions used in
our projection of potential liability, without which we believe
the reserve as of December 31, 2016 would have been less than the
December 31, 2015 reserve of US$94.1 million).

"Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as an operating
expense as services are incurred.  We currently expect to continue
to incur significant asbestos-related defense costs.  In the event
of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the
ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity, and defense costs may be material.  However, at this
time, based on presently available information, we view this
possibility as remote.

"We have entered into a series of agreements with certain of the
Company's or the Company's predecessors' legacy insurers and
certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or
reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits filed against us.  We have also pursued
litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where
necessary.  We have an insurance recovery receivable for probable
asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$97.3 million,
which is included on our consolidated balance sheet as of December
31, 2016.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit, we
seek, among other things, to require certain excess insurer
defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to us,
including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with
the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us.

"In October 2011, we reached a settlement with one of the insurer
defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for
approximately the amount of defendant's policies which were
subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case has been proceeding
through the discovery and motions process with the remaining
insurer defendants.

"On January 29, 2016, we prevailed on the first phase of that
discovery and motions process ("Phase I").  Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that we have rights under all
of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to our former
owners rather than to the Company itself.

"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now
rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally
required.  The case has now begun proceeding through the discovery
and motions process regarding the remaining issues in dispute.

"A majority of our expected future recoveries of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of
the Adams County Case.

"The amounts we recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based on our
evaluation of relevant factors with input from a third party
actuarial expert.  Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries
could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results
vary significantly from the assumptions.

"There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the
number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the
resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage
issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not
yet achieved settlements and the solvency risk with respect to our
insurance carriers.

"Other factors that may affect our future liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be
made by state and federal courts and the passage of state or
federal legislation.  We make the necessary adjustments for our
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as
of an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at
https://is.gd/WDyGpd


ASBESTOS ALERT: Arconic, Units Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries are defendant in asbestos-
related lawsuits, 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.

The Company states, "Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries and former
subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational or other exposure to
asbestos.  Arconic, its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries have
numerous insurance policies over many years that provide coverage
for asbestos related claims.  Arconic has significant insurance
coverage and believes that Arconic's reserves are adequate for its
known asbestos exposure related liabilities.  The costs of defense
and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material
to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position
of the Company."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and its subsidiaries
continue to face asbestos-related claims and lawsuits, 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.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by Houston Electric
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-
containing materials.  CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries,
including Houston Electric, are from time to time named, along
with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number
of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims may be
asserted in the future.  Although their ultimate outcome cannot be
predicted at this time, Houston Electric does not expect these
matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/uk89Td


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records US$696MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded an estimated aggregate asbestos liability of
US$696 million at December 31, 2016, 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.

The Company also had an aggregate asbestos insurance receivable of
US$143 million at December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We have retained the firm of Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the field, to assist management in estimating our
asbestos liability in the tort system.  HR&A reviews information
provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim.

"The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is
based on our recent historical experience for claims filed,
settled and dismissed during a base reference period.  Our
experience is then compared to estimates of the number of
individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases determined
based on widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies
augmented with current data inputs.

"Those studies were undertaken in connection with national
analyses of the population of workers believed to have been
exposed to asbestos.  Using that information, HR&A estimates the
number of future claims that would be filed against us and
estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would
be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon
the average settlement costs by disease during the reference
period.

"Our liability estimate is augmented for the costs of defending
asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from us which
is based upon discussions with its defense counsel.  Based on this
information, HR&A compiles an estimate of our asbestos liability
for pending and future claims using a range of reference periods
based on claim experience and covering claims expected to be filed
through the indicated forecast period.

"The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2)
the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the
percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the
aggregate defense costs incurred by us.  These factors are
interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the
liability estimate.  These trend factors have both positive and
negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the
tort system and the related best estimate of our asbestos
liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but
rather change over multi-year periods.

"In our view, the forecast period used to provide the best
estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is
a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the
number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions
where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or
judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood
of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level.
Accordingly, we continue to monitor these trend factors over time
and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period
is appropriate.

"With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2016,
we extended our estimate of the asbestos liability, including the
costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs
relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected
to be filed against us through the generally accepted end point of
such claims in 2059.  Our previous estimate was for asbestos
claims filed or projected to be filed through 2021.  Our estimate
of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through
2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting
from our experience using a range of reference periods for claims
filed, settled and dismissed.

"Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional liability of
US$227 million (an aggregate asbestos liability of US$696 million)
as of December 31, 2016.  Estimation of our exposure for asbestos-
related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there
are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for
our asbestos liabilities.  As of December 31, 2016, we had an
aggregate asbestos insurance receivable of US$143 million.  In
developing this estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and
other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional
factors.

"These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/P5sXEL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Faces 36,052 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself against 36,052 claims related
to asbestos exposure, 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.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2016, we were one of a
number of defendants in cases involving 36,052 pending claims
filed in various state and federal courts that allege injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Of the 36,052 pending claims as of December 31, 2016,
approximately 18,300 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 1,000 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
4,800 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.
The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

"In the fourth quarter of 2016, we updated and extended the
estimate of our asbestos liability and recorded a pre-tax charge
of US$192 million (US$125 million after tax).  Our updated
liability estimate is for pending and reasonably anticipated
asbestos claims through the generally accepted end point of such
claims in 2059.  Due to uncertainties in the tort system, as well
as uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, future
reviews may result in adjustments to our total asbestos-related
liability.  The liability was US$696 million as of December 31,
2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/P5sXEL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Plc, Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves
against lawsuits associated with asbestos exposure, 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.

The Company states, "We and certain subsidiaries are currently
named as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as
co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 32 plaintiffs.  The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58
plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal
amount.  The settlement documents for these lawsuits have been
processed, and the cases have been dismissed.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining lawsuits and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue.  We expect final disposition
of these lawsuits to be immaterial to our financial position,
operating results and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/DY3nza


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself,
among other defendants, against asbestos claims related to its
facilities and older vehicle models, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years.  In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities.  In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

"We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our
policy to defend against them vigorously.  Historically, the
actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any
year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.  It is possible that the number of these claims will
continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos
related claims could become significant in the future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QKDOn3


ASBESTOS ALERT: DOJ, EPA Probe Metaldyne Unit's WI Facility
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. unit is under investigation by
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding its Wisconsin facility, 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.

Metaldyne states, "The Company's subsidiary, Grede Wisconsin
Subsidiaries LLC ("Grede Wisconsin"), is currently under
investigation by the U.S.  Department of Justice and the
Environmental Protection Agency for alleged Clean Air Act
violations and alleged obstruction of justice relating to the
January 2012 removal of debris from the roof of a heat treat oven
that was purported to contain asbestos at Grede Wisconsin's now
closed facility in Berlin, Wisconsin.

"The United States Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin,
indicated to our attorneys handling this matter that the
government intends to imminently seek an indictment relating to
this matter.  If an indictment is brought, the Company intends to
defend against this matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/0uB5Vn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Ups A&E IBNR Reserves by US$3.5MM in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. increased asbestos and environmental
Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) loss and settlement expense
reserves by US$3.5 million in 2016, 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.

The increase was primarily reflected in the other liability line
of business, according to the Company.

The Company states, "The increase was in response to an indicated
increase in the ultimate asbestos liability produced by internal
payout decay models.  Management also notes that A.M. Best
increased the industry's estimated ultimate liability by US$15
billion during 2016.  Newly reported asbestos claims have
decreased slightly for the last two calendar years.  Asbestos and
environmental reserves constitute less than 3 percent of the
property and casualty insurance segment's total direct reserves.

"The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental-related
claims associated with the insurance business written by the
parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business
assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary.  With
regard to the assumed reinsurance business, however, all asbestos
and environmental exposures related to 1980 and prior accident
years are retained by Employers Mutual.

"Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims.  These
uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility
varies widely by state and claims often emerge long after a policy
has expired, which makes assignment of damages to the appropriate
party and to the time period covered by a particular policy
difficult.  In establishing reserves for these types of claims,
management monitors the relevant facts concerning each claim, the
current status of the legal environment, social and political
conditions, and the claim history and trends within the Company
and the industry.

"The property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure to
asbestos and environmental claims arising primarily from the other
liability line of business.  These exposures are closely monitored
by management, and IBNR loss reserves have been established to
cover estimated ultimate losses.  The loss and settlement expense
reserves associated with asbestos claims have been increased each
year for the last several years due to continued reporting of new
claims at a rate not previously anticipated, as well as updated
internal ultimate loss and settlement expense evaluations.  In
2016, the loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos claims
were strengthened approximately US$3.5 million.

"Toxic tort claims include those where the claimant seeks
compensation for harm allegedly caused by exposure to a toxic
substance or a substance that increases the risk of contracting a
serious disease, such as cancer.  Typically the injury is caused
by latent effects of direct or indirect exposure to a substance or
combination of substances through absorption, contact, ingestion,
inhalation, implantation or injection.  Examples of toxic tort
claims include injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos,
silica, mold, drugs, carbon monoxide, chemicals and lead.

"Since 1989, the pool participants have included an asbestos
exclusion in liability policies issued for most lines of business.
The exclusion prohibits liability coverage for "bodily injury",
"personal injury" or "property damage" (including any associated
clean-up obligations) arising out of the installation, existence,
removal or disposal of asbestos or any substance containing
asbestos fibers.  Therefore, the pool participants' current
asbestos exposures are primarily limited to commercial policies
issued prior to 1989.  At present, the pool participants are
defending approximately 1,856 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits,
some of which involve multiple plaintiffs.  Claims activity
associated with eight policyholders dominates the pool
participants' asbestos claims, representing an aggregate 1,812
lawsuits with 2,074 claimants.  Most of the lawsuits are subject
to express reservation of rights based upon the lack of an injury
within the applicable policy periods, because many asbestos
lawsuits do not specifically allege dates of asbestos exposure or
dates of injury.  The pool participants' policyholders named as
defendants in these asbestos lawsuits are typically peripheral
defendants who have little or no exposure and are often dismissed
from asbestos litigation with nominal or no payment (i.e., small
contractors, supply companies, and a furnace manufacturer).

"Prior to 2008, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims had
been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an
exposure to any asbestos-containing products associated with the
pool participants' current and former policyholders.  However,
paid losses and settlement expenses have increased significantly
since 2008 as a result of claims attributed to one former
policyholder.  During the period 2009 through 2016, the Company's
share of paid losses and settlement expenses attributed to this
former policyholder, a furnace manufacturer, was US$11.2 million
(mostly settlement expenses).  The asbestos exposure associated
with this former policyholder has increased in recent years, and
this trend may possibly continue into the future with increased
per plaintiff settlements.  Settlement expense payments associated
with this former policyholder have increased significantly since
2008 and have been a driver behind recently implemented reserve
increases.  The primary cause of this increase in paid settlement
expenses is the retention of a national coordinating counsel in
2008 due to this former policyholder's exposure in numerous
jurisdictions.  The national coordinating counsel has provided,
and continues to provide, significant services in the areas of
document review, discovery, deposition and trial preparation.
Approximately 728 asbestos exposure claims associated with this
former policyholder remain open.  Whenever possible, the pool
participants have participated in cost sharing agreements with
other insurance companies to reduce overall expenses.

"The Company's exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
through assumed reinsurance is very limited due to the fact that
the Company's reinsurance subsidiary entered into the reinsurance
marketplace in the early 1980's, after much attention had already
been brought to these issues.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company carried asbestos and
environmental reserves for direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business totaling US$13.3 million, which represents
1.9 percent of total loss and settlement expense reserves.  The
asbestos and environmental reserves include US$5.4 million of case
loss reserves, US$4.8 million of IBNR loss reserves and US$3.1
million of bulk settlement expense reserves.  Ceded reinsurance on
these reserves totaled US$335,000.  Loss and settlement expense
reserves were increased in 2016 because of deterioration in the
implied survival ratio."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2q9ai36


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gorman-Rupp Company and a subsidiary continue to face
asbestos-related lawsuits, 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.

The Company states, "For more than fifteen years, numerous
business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as
well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, have
been targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by
various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result
of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products.

"Since 2001, the Company and one of its subsidiaries, Patterson
Pump Company, have been involved in this mass-scaled litigation,
typically as one of many co-defendants in a particular proceeding.
The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and/or
Patterson Pump Company have been vague, general and speculative.
Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed without advancing
beyond the early stage of discovery, some as a result of nominal
monetary settlements recommended for payment by the Company's
insurers.

"The claims and related legal expenses generally have been covered
by the Company's insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and
limitations.  Accordingly, this series of lawsuits has not,
cumulatively or individually, had a material adverse impact on the
Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition, nor is it expected to have any such impact in
the future, based on the current knowledge of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qhrvqj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,711 Asbestos, Silica Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. faces 3,711 asbestos- and silica-related product
liability cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 27, 2017.

The Company said, "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various
unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of
operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including 3,711 asbestos and silica-related cases),
employment and commercial matters.  We and our subsidiaries also
become involved from time to time in proceedings relating to
environmental matters and litigation arising outside the ordinary
course of business."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
http://bit.ly/2q9hBb7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Inc. Still Defends in Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Inc. remains a defendant in various lawsuits including
proceedings related to asbestos products, 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.

Hexion states, "The Company is involved in various other product
liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal injury,
property damage and other legal proceedings, including actions
that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made
or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos.
The Company believes it has adequate reserves and that it is not
reasonably possible that a loss exceeding amounts already reserved
would be material.  Furthermore, the Company has insurance to
cover claims of these types."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qib4dd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at Feb. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related legal proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended February 3, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a party to litigation in the ordinary
course of business.  Litigation occasionally involves claims for
punitive, as well as compensatory, damages arising out of the use
of our products.  Although we are self-insured to some extent, we
maintain insurance against certain product liability losses.

"We are also subject to litigation and administrative and judicial
proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the
discharge of hazardous substances into the environment.  Some of
these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury,
remedial investigations or clean-up, and other costs and damages."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
http://bit.ly/2oM6anE


ASBESTOS ALERT: Northwest Pipe Accrues $0.2MM for Plant VCP
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company has an accrual of at least US$0.2 million
for future remediation costs related to environmental issues of
its Houston, Texas plant, 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.

Northwest Pipe states, "In connection with the Company's sale of
its OCTG business, a Limited Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment was conducted at the Houston, Texas plant and completed
in March 2014, which revealed the presence of VOCs in the
groundwater and certain metals in the soil.

"In June 2014, the Company was accepted into the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") Voluntary Cleanup Program
("VCP") to address these issues and obtain a Certificate of
Completion ("COC") from TCEQ.  The cost of any potential
assessment and cleanup will not be covered by insurance.  However,
any costs incurred will be reimbursed by the purchaser of the OCTG
business if the purchaser exercises its option to purchase the
property under certain circumstances after the COC is obtained.

"The proposed remediation approach includes a municipal setting
designation ordinance, approved by the City of Houston City
Council in January 2017, to prevent consumption of shallow
groundwater from beneath the property, thereby eliminating the
need for more costly remediation measures.

"In October 2016, the TCEQ notified the Company that a neighboring
facility has asbestos contamination in its soil.  In a December
2016 meeting with TCEQ, the Company was notified that it will need
to assess asbestos contamination before the TCEQ will proceed with
a COC.

"The Company expects to provide a sampling work plan in first
quarter of 2017 and collect samples soon after the work plan is
approved.  The Company currently estimates that the future costs
associated with the VCP will be between US$0.1 million and US$1.7
million.

"As of December 31, 2016, the Company has a US$0.2 million accrual
for remediation costs based on the low-end estimate of future
costs using a probability-weighted analysis of remediation
approaches, and estimates that completion of the VCP process will
occur between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of
2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qi9vvU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Face 58 PI Suits at Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still defending themselves against 58
pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits at January 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products
as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as
building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an
inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event
that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or
may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in
economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated
environmental, health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in
design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product,
negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In
particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979.

"Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2017, approximately 977
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been brought and we
vigorously defend against them. Of these, 884 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 29 are on deferred or inactive court
dockets, 58 are pending and only 6 have been settled, which
settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition
or operating results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
http://bit.ly/2qbmpQ9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Claims against MYR Group Inc., including asbestos-related ones
concerning a divested subsidiary of its predecessor, have not had
a material impact to the Company as of March 9, 2017, 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.

The Company states, "We are routinely subject to other civil
claims, litigation and arbitration, and regulatory investigations
arising in the ordinary course of our past and present businesses
as well as in respect of our divested businesses. Some of these
include claims related to our services and operations, and
asbestos-related claims concerning operations of a divested
subsidiary of our predecessor.

"We believe that we have strong defenses to these claims as well
as insurance coverage that will contribute to any settlement or
liability in the event any asbestos-related claim is not resolved
in our favor.

"These claims have not had a material impact on us to date, and we
believe the likelihood that a future material adverse outcome will
result from these claims is remote.  However, if facts and
circumstances change in the future, we cannot be certain that an
adverse outcome of one or more of these claims would not have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qbdRIS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. ("OSG") remains a party to a
variety of lawsuits including proceedings related to asbestos,
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.

Overseas Shipholding states, "The Company is a party, as plaintiff
or defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business
for monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries
(including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic
materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to
claims arising under charter parties.  A substantial majority of
such personal injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty
claims against the Company are covered by insurance (subject to
deductibles not material in amount).  Each of the claims involves
an amount which, in the opinion of management, are not expected to
be material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oPdyQ2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 103
cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, 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.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 103
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 199 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the six
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.
In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and
punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth and fifth cases, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three and six separate causes of action,
respectively and US$5.0 million compensatory for the fifth and
seventh cause of actions, respectively.  In the sixth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of US$10.0 million for five counts, and US$5.0 million
for a sixth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.

"Among the factors management considered in reaching this
conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed
from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly
filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the
plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship
to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the
plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any
injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged
exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against
multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are
not attributed to individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not
believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are
meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the
amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the
plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2ozumPf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Facing Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., is still facing asbestos-related
product liability lawsuits against multiple defendants, 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.

Manitex states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits.  In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a
former owner of the product line in question.  In the remaining
cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any
exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.  The Company
is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it
will not incur any material liability with respect to these to
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qb6vp1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Energy Fuels' Mill Still Pending in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related proceeding involving Energy Fuels Inc.'s White
Mesa Mill remains pending in Texas, 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.

Energy Fuel states, "In November 2012, the Company was served with
a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from
the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure
to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by
being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the
White Mesa Mill.  The Company does not consider this claim to have
any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially
affect our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

"In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance
challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters
relating to this claim.  No other activity involving the Company
on this matter has occurred since that date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qbdtdq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPA17 Records $17.7-Mil. ARO at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Property Associates 17-Global Incorporated, or
CPA(R):17-Global, has recorded asset retirement obligations of
US$17.7 million at December 31, 2016 for the removal of asbestos
and environmental waste related to several of its investments, the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We have recorded asset retirement obligations
for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste in connection
with certain of our investments.  We estimated the fair value of
the asset retirement obligations based on the estimated economic
lives of the properties and the estimated removal costs provided
by the inspectors.  The liability was discounted using the
weighted-average interest rate on the associated fixed-rate
mortgage loans at the time the liability was incurred.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2qiBV97


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. continues to face around 1,200
claims for allege exposure to asbestos at December 31, 2016,
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.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations.  We have never been a
manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products.  Over
the past several decades and through December 31, 2016, we have
been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
involving approximately 6,000 plaintiffs and, of those claims,
approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 4,800 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

"Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2016, the
claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have
been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of
approximately two thousand dollars per claim.  We review each case
on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of
loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related
expenses, if any.

"While we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings,
especially in one specific venue, we do not believe the increase
or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse
effect on our future results of operations, financial position or
cash flow, and at December 31, 2016, we had approximately US$9.2
million accrued for liability and related expenses.

"With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable
estimate of liability, if any.  While we continue to pursue
recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through
insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are
unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to
recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Q65bbr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had US$303.6MM Loss Reserves at Dec 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$303.6
million, or 95.2%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for
assumed business, at December 31, 2016, 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.

Everest states, "The Company intensively manages its asbestos and
environmental ("A&E") exposures through a dedicated, centrally
managed claim staff with experienced claim and legal professionals
who specialize in the handling of such exposures.  They actively
manage each individual insured and reinsured account, responding
to claim developments with evaluations of the involved exposures
and adjustment of reserves as appropriate.  Specific or general
claim developments that may have material implications for the
Company are regularly communicated to senior management,
actuarial, legal and financial areas.  Senior management and claim
management personnel meet at least quarterly to review the
Company's overall reserve positions and make changes, if
appropriate.  The Company continually reviews its internal
processing, communications and analytics, seeking to enhance the
management of its A&E exposures, in particular in regard to
changes in asbestos claims and litigation.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company's gross reserves for A&E claims
represented 4.3% of its total reserves.  The Company's A&E
liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and
Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business.  Liabilities related to
Mt. McKinley's direct business, which had been ceded to Bermuda Re
previously, were retroceded to an affiliate of Clearwater
Insurance Company in July 2015, concurrent with the sale of Mt.
McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company.  There are significant
uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential
losses from A&E claims and ultimate values cannot be estimated
using traditional reserving techniques.

"The difficulty in estimating our reserves is significantly more
challenging as it relates to reserving for potential A&E
liabilities.  At year-end 2016, 4.3% of our gross reserves were
comprised of A&E reserves.  A&E liabilities are especially hard to
estimate for many reasons, including the long delays between
exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property
damage, difficulty in identifying the source of the asbestos or
environmental contamination, long reporting delays and difficulty
in properly allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental
damage.  Legal tactics and judicial and legislative developments
affecting the scope of insurers' liability, which can be difficult
to predict, also contribute to uncertainties in estimating
reserves for A&E liabilities.

"Incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) increased by
6.6% to US$3,064.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015
compared to US$2,875.9 million for the year ended December 31,
2014, primarily due to an increase in current year attritional
losses of US$210.8 million resulting primarily from the impact of
the increase in premiums earned, a US$60.0 million loss from the
explosion at the Chinese port of Tianjin and numerous weather-
related losses that did not meet our US$10.0 million catastrophe
threshold, partially offset by US$19.5 million of more favorable
prior year attritional loss development.  The US$31.6 million of
favorable prior years' attritional loss development is comprised
of US$183.7 million of favorable development in the reinsurance
segments, partially offset by US$152.1 million of development in
the insurance segment.  The US$183.7 million of favorable
development related primarily to casualty and property treaty
business and was net of US$38.4 million of development in asbestos
reserves.  The development in the insurance segment largely
related to run-off umbrella program and construction liability
business.  The current year catastrophe losses of US$87.2 million.
The US$83.9 million of current year catastrophe losses for the
year ended December 31, 2014 related to the Japan snowstorm
(US$27.8 million), the 2014 Chilean earthquake (US$20.7 million),
Hurricane Odile (US$20.5 million) and the Brisbane hailstorm
(US$14.9 million).  The US$33.4 million of favorable development
on prior years' catastrophes related primarily to the 2013 German
hail storms, European floods, Typhoon Fitow and U.S, storms.

"We continue to receive claims under expired insurance and
reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages relating
to or resulting from environmental pollution and hazardous
substances, including asbestos.  Environmental claims typically
assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of
environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property
damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the
land, air or water.  Asbestos claims typically assert liability
for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage
resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos.

"Our reserves include an estimate of our ultimate liability for
A&E claims.  Our A&E liabilities emanate from Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business.  Liabilities related to Mt. McKinley's
direct business, which had been ceded to Bermuda Re previously,
were retroceded to an affiliate of Clearwater Insurance Company in
July, 2015, concurrent with the sale of Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company.

"There are significant uncertainties surrounding our estimates of
our potential losses from A&E claims. Among the uncertainties are:
(a) potentially long waiting periods between exposure and
manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage; (b)
difficulty in identifying sources of asbestos or environmental
contamination; (c) difficulty in properly allocating
responsibility and/or liability for asbestos or environmental
damage; (d) changes in underlying laws and judicial interpretation
of those laws; (e) the potential for an asbestos or environmental
claim to involve many insurance providers over many policy
periods; (f) questions concerning interpretation and application
of insurance and reinsurance coverage; and (g) uncertainty
regarding the number and identity of insureds with potential
asbestos or environmental exposure.

"Due to the uncertainties, the ultimate losses attributable to
A&E, and particularly asbestos, may be subject to more variability
than are non-A&E reserves and such variation could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
and/or cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
A MetLife, Inc. unit, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC),
continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits
generally focusing on activities from 1920's to 1950's, 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.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

"The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases.

"The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is
uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC.

"MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its
asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending
litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups
of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos.

"MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no
special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture,
produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly
injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of
MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs'
injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to
filing suit has expired.

"During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have
granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial
courts have denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no assurance that
MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future.
While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to
continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos
exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos
exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years
further in the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a
future point after which losses cease to be probable and
reasonably estimable.  It is reasonably possible that the
Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially
greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that
future charges to income may be necessary.  While the potential
future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or
annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information
currently known by management, management does not believe any
such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's
financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the U.S., assessing relevant trends impacting
asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can
affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim
basis.  These variables include bankruptcies of other companies
involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial
developments, the number of pending claims involving serious
disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other
defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending.

"In 2014, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos-
related claims to US$690 million.  Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
December 31, 2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/0fygbv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $89.6MM Gross Reserve at Dec31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation had gross reserve of
US$89.6 million (net reserve of US$76.7 million) for asbestos
claims at December 31, 2016, 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.

The Company states, "Old Republic's reserve estimates also include
provisions for indemnity and settlement costs for various
asbestosis and environmental impairment ("A&E") claims that have
been filed in the normal course of business against a number of
its insurance subsidiaries.  Many such claims relate to policies
issued prior to 1985, including many issued during a short period
between 1981 and 1982 pursuant to an agency agreement canceled in
1982.

"Over the years, the Company's property and liability insurance
subsidiaries have typically issued general liability insurance
policies with face amounts ranging between US$1.0 million and
US$2.0 million and rarely exceeding US$10.0 million.  Such
policies have, in turn, been subject to reinsurance cessions which
have typically reduced the subsidiaries' net retentions to US$.5
million or less as to each claim.

"Old Republic's exposure to A&E claims cannot, however, be
calculated by conventional insurance reserving methods for a
variety of reasons, including: a) the absence of statistically
valid data inasmuch as such claims typically involve long
reporting delays and very often uncertainty as to the number and
identity of insureds against whom such claims have arisen or will
arise; and b) the litigation history of such or similar claims for
insurance industry members which has produced inconsistent court
decisions with regard to such questions as to when an alleged loss
occurred, which policies provide coverage, how a loss is to be
allocated among potentially responsible insureds and/or their
insurance carriers, how policy coverage exclusions are to be
interpreted, what types of environmental impairment or toxic tort
claims are covered, when the insurer's duty to defend is
triggered, how policy limits are to be calculated, and whether
clean-up costs constitute property damage.

"Over time, the Executive Branch and/or the Congress of the United
States have proposed or considered changes in the legislation and
rules affecting the determination of liability for environmental
and asbestosis claims.  As of December 31, 2016, however, there is
no solid evidence to suggest that possible future changes might
mitigate or reduce some or all of these claim exposures.

"Because of the issues and uncertainties, estimation of reserves
for losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses for A&E claims
in particular is much more difficult or impossible to quantify
with a high degree of precision.  Accordingly, no representation
can be made that the Company's reserves for such claims and
related costs will not prove to be overstated or understated in
the future.

"At December 31, 2016 and 2015, Old Republic's aggregate indemnity
and loss adjustment expense reserves specifically identified with
A&E exposures amounted to approximately US$121.2 million and
US$130.9 million gross, respectively, and US$97.1 million and
US$100.6 million net of reinsurance, respectively.  Based on
average annual claims payments during the five most recent
calendar years, such reserves represented a paid loss survival
ratio of 4.3 years (gross) and 6.3 years (net of reinsurance) as
of December 31, 2016 and 4.7 years (gross) and 6.2 years (net of
reinsurance) as of December 31, 2015.

"Fluctuations in this ratio between years can be caused by the
inconsistent pay out patterns associated with these types of
claims.  For the five years ended December 31, 2016, incurred A&E
claim and related loss settlement costs have averaged .4% of
average annual General Insurance Group claims and related
settlement costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/pphj3n


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Claims at Dec31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against an inactive subsidiary of Quaker
Chemical Corporation remain pending, 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.

The Company states, "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that
was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.
The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than proceeds received from insurance
settlements.

"The overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary.  Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately US$2.2 million (excluding
costs of defense).

"Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.  These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary
and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense
costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the
subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up
to the aggregate limits of their policies.

"A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary
insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have
been exhausted.  The subsidiary challenged the applicability of
these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary.

"In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and
2007 for US$15.0 million and US$20.0 million, respectively.  The
proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used
to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation.

"In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance
carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under
which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with
asbestos bodily injury claims.  The agreement continues until
terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing
a minimum of two years prior written notice.

"As of December 31, 2016, no notice of termination has been given
under this agreement.  At the end of the term of the agreement,
the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this
insurer regarding the application of the policy limits.  The
Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary
policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the
subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary
may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund
established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's
primary insurers.  Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims
may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Efm2fW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Faces 636 PI Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation continues to defend itself against 636
asbestos-related personal injury cases at December 31, 2016,
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.

TriMas states, "As of December 31, 2016, the Company was a party
to 636 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,339 claimants
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of the
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.  The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought.  The large majority of claims do not specify
the amount sought.  Of the 5,339 claims pending at December 31,
2016, 76 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those
stating the statutory minimum or maximum).  At December 31, 2016,
of the 76 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no
claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages.

"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately US$8.3 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.  Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses.  Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
that there will be a period within the next six to 18 months,
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and
following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage,
during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oi4a3E


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., remains a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits filed against multiple parties, 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.

The Company states, "Like other companies in recent years, the
Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and
in the past may have been integrated into or sold with a very
limited number of the Company's products. The Company is
vigorously defending itself against these claims. Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the
Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues
will have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations, either from a cash flow
perspective or on the financial statements as a whole. This belief
is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or
substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products
manufactured or sold by the Company and that most of the cases
have been voluntarily dismissed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/60a222


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had US$1.7-Bil. Reserve at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Limited had US$1.7 billion gross reserve (net of US$1.1
billion) for asbestos exposure at December 31, 2016, 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.

The Company states, "Included in our liabilities for losses and
loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities).  The A&E
liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily-
injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs
associated with hazardous waste sites.  The estimation of our A&E
liabilities is particularly sensitive to future changes in the
legal, social, and economic environment.  We have not assumed any
such future changes in setting the value of our A&E liabilities,
which include provisions for both reported and IBNR claims.

"There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating
the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these
variables may directly impact the predicted outcome.  We believe
the most significant variables relating to our A&E liabilities
include the current legal environment; specific settlements that
may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions
regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency
of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to
allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts)
and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in
a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability
of a policyholder to claim the right to unaggregated coverage;
whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be
accessed given the policyholder's claim trends and liability
situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and, the potential
liability of peripheral defendants.  Based on the policies, the
facts, the law, and a careful analysis of the impact that these
factors will likely have on any given account, we estimate the
potential liability for indemnity, policyholder defense costs, and
coverage litigation expense.

"The results in asbestos cases announced by other carriers or
defendants may well have little or no relevance to us because
coverage exposures are highly dependent upon the specific facts of
individual coverage and resolution status of disputes among
carriers, policyholders, and claimants.

"Chubb's exposure to A&E claims principally arises out of
liabilities acquired when it purchased Westchester Specialty in
1998, CIGNA's P&C business in 1999, and Chubb Corp in 2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Bm20dJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Face PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) and its
affiliates continue to face asbestos-related claims for alleged
bodily injuries, 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.

The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company
and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.  Most of these claims
have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad
Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product
sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any
interest in RFPC.

"Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.  We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.  Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated.

"It is management's belief that the potential range of loss for
asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably
determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including:
(1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos
litigation in particular.  Despite this uncertainty, and although
the results of the Company's operations and cash flows for any
given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the
Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the
Company's overall financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.  In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec's
and RFPC's history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos-
related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to
establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC's product;
and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any
identifiable injury or compensable loss.

"More specifically, as to RFPC, management's belief that any
losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also
based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  To date, RFPC's
insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these
actions.  The overall number of new claims being filed against
RFPC has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new
claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant
period of time to resolve.  As to Wabtec and its divisions,
Management's belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a
material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal
liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the
former owners of Wabtec's assets retained asbestos liabilities for
the products at issue.  To date, Wabtec has been able to
successfully defend itself on this basis, including two
arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which
confirmed Wabtec's position that it did not assume any asbestos
liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets.
Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in
connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have
not been material, and the Company has no information that would
suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable
future."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port to Rid of Asbestos in Hillcrest Properties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ramirez, writing for Corpus Christi Caller-Times, reported
that The Port of Corpus Christi will spend $600,000 to get rid of
asbestos from Hillcrest properties they acquire as part of the
state's Harbor Bridge replacement project.

Port commissioners were updated on the $930 million project and on
efforts to relocate residents who are expected to affected by the
construction.

Commissioners approved a series of measures related to the
relocation program, including purchase orders with two area
landfills -- US Ecology and the Republic Services El Centro.  The
two facilities, each located in Robstown, are the only such
facilities in the area that are licensed by the state to dispose
of asbestos.

Many of the homes in this largely minority Northside enclave were
built in the 1950s or 1960s, when asbestos was commonplace in home
design for both insulation and protection against fire.

Some asbestos products, mainly sprays, were banned in 1973 under
the EPA's Clean Air Act.  In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule
under Section 6 of Toxic Substances Control Act banning most
asbestos-containing products, but it was overturned in 1991 by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Each landfill will receive $300,000 to dispose of the material as
part the agreement, according to port documents.  Sean
Strawbridge, deputy executive director and chief operating officer
for the port, said the funds were included in the $20 million
package the port authorized a year ago to finance property
purchases and to relocate qualified residents.

The Texas Department of Transportation broke ground for the
project in August.  Under the relocation plan, Hillcrest
homeowners can be moved to a "comparable home," if they qualify.

Homeowners who give up their property as part of the relocation
program would get market value, but Hillcrest resident Ron Navarro
argued that wasn't enough.  Property in Hillcrest is changing
hands for less money under this program than elsewhere in the
city, he said.

Navarro said it's likely properties in Hillcrest will be set aside
for industrial use after the port acquires them. Homeowners, he
told commissioners, should be compensated at industrial rates.

"If that's going to be commercial real estate, then the people
need to be paid for commercial real estate," Navarro said.

Construction of the replacement span is underway on port property,
on the north side of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Darrell
Chambers, the design build coordinator for Flatiron-Dragdos, said
construction is on pace to last roughly five years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School District Faces $628,000 Fines
------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Helston, writing for Vernon Infonews.ca, reported that a
fine of more than $628,000 has been leveled against the Vernon
School District in connection with renovation work done on a
leased building that contained asbestos.

WorkSafe B.C. has fined the school district a total of $628,034
for not taking proper safety precautions, not providing and
maintaining a safe workplace, and a lack of due diligence to
prevent the circumstances, according to a media release from the
school district.

The penalty follows a $75,000 fine in 2016 for similar issues
after the district failed to properly identify material that may
contain asbestos.

The school district will be fighting the fine.

"The District believes that it advanced sound arguments why no
penalty was warranted and that it took all reasonable steps to
comply with its asbestos hazard mitigation obligations.  The
District is disappointed in what it considers to be an excessive
penalty and will be working with our lawyers and asking for a
review of the penalty," states the release.

In an interview, Superintendent Joe Rogers says the fine, if it is
not successfully reduced or withdrawn, could have an impact on
education.  The fine would be paid out of the district's
$1-million contingency fund, and while it won't affect staff and
programs this year, it could in the future depending on how
quickly the board wants to replenish the fund.

"We build it (contingency fund) back up through surpluses.  If we
don't have surpluses in the future it may affect programs," Rogers
says.  "Certainly if we have to absorb the fine, it is concerning.
It potentially could be six or more teachers, or dozens of
secretaries. It depends on (what) WorkSafe will do and if we have
surpluses to replenish that fund."

The penalty has to do with renovation work at the Open Door
Learning Centre on 30 Street in downtown Vernon.  On May 4, 2016,
a worker became concerned about what appeared to be pre-1990
building materials which could contain asbestos, but work didn't
stop immediately.

Rogers says the district takes worker safety very seriously and
has developed an asbestos management program and asbestos exposure
control plan, has retained a qualified person to conduct asbestos
surveys, hazard assessments and prepare inventories of all
asbestos containing materials in all district buildings, and has
undertaken comprehensive asbestos training with its maintenance
workers.

At the time of the second violation, the plan did not include
specific asbestos management policies for leased buildings, such
as the one it was renting for the Open Door Learning Program.
Rogers says the district believed, at the time, that the building
had been renovated in the past and did not contain any asbestos-
containing material.

"Certainly after this we will be demanding from the building owner
a full disclosure, and in this case . . . when we look back, we
should have received a full disclosure from the building owner
explaining what had been done," Rogers says.

During renovations, there were four or five maintenance workers on
site.  Rogers is not aware of any of them suffering adverse health
effects.  No students or teachers were exposed.

As part of its appeal, the school district will be arguing the
penalty should be imposed as a worksite violation, not based on
the total payroll.

"They fined us on all 850 employees, that's why the fine is so
high," Rogers says.

If the penalty was calculated based on the immediate worksite
affected, Rogers says the fine would be closer to $1,250.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Resident Fears Asbestos in Dumped Rubbish
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catrin Owen, writing for Aukland Now, reported that An Auckland
fly-tipper has dumped a Flexi Bin full of potentially hazardous
material near where children play.

The Flexi Bin bag, filled with household rubbish and broken tiles,
was dumped morning at the end of Rika Rd in Pt England.

An Auckland resident, who only wanted to be known as Casper, said
he was concerned about the safety of children because he believed
the skip bag contained asbestos.

A local resident fears the rubbish may include asbestos.

"A neighbour heard a truck backing up thinking it was collecting
all the rubbish bins but it raced off."

The resident put in calls to Flexi Bin and Auckland Council.

"Flexi Bin said it wasn't their problem and there was no urgency
from council.

"I was more concerned about the kids but the council seemed quite
dismissive," he said.

The resident called the Fire Service to report the illegal
dumping.

Fire Northern Communications shift manager Daniel Nicholson said
the Mt Wellington station was called to the scene of the illegal
dumping.

"It was a bin full of rubbish and what appeared to be asbestos
roof tiles."

He said there would need to be further testing to confirm whether
it did contain asbestos.

Asbestos is New Zealand's number one killer in the workplace with
around 170 people dying each year from related diseases.

Asbestos waste must be disposed of at a local or territorial
authority landfill authorised to accept asbestos waste.

Casper said the council finally sent out a worker who surveyed the
scene at 11.20am, while a child continued to cycle around the bag.

Casper said stolen cars were often dumped at the end of the road
and occasionally rubbish.

"We try and mow the lawns and keep it clean to make it an
undesirable place to dump the cars," he said.

Auckland Council spokesman Ian Stupple said a staff member
investigated the area and stickered the illegal dumping.

"As illegal dumping might contain hazardous waste, we are
arranging to get this removed as quickly as possible," he said.

Stupple said council would investigate the incident further.

It costs ratepayers more than $1 million annually for the council
to clean up illegal dumping, Stupple said.

The penalty for a successful prosecution in relation to illegal
dumping is up to $30,000.

"We endeavour to investigate every report of illegal dumping and
look for evidence of the offenders, by door knocking, flyer drops
to encourage residents to notify us when they see it happening,
and regularly checking hot spots."

Illegal dumping can be reported to the council on 09 301 0101 with
information including times and dates and descriptions of the
offenders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Faces Jail for Dumping Asbestos Waste
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine King, writing for Newham Recorded, reported that a fly-
tipper from Upminster could be facing jail after he admitted
dumping 36 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated rubble on a street in
Beckton.

Stuart Beattie, 26, dumped the dangerous waste in two separate
spots on Eric Clarke Lane, which resulted in the road being closed
and buses put on diversion.

His reckless action also mean the entrance to children's riding
stables were blocked.

The clear up operation cost the council GBP9,000.

At Thames Magistrates Court he admitted fly-tipping.

Beattie dumped 36 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated rubble on a
street in Beckton.

However the sitting magistrates said their powers of punishment
were insufficient to match the seriousness of the crime so it was
transferred to Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Councillor Pat Murphy, mayoral adviser for environment, said:
"This was a fantastic piece of work by the fly-tip task force,
which has swiftly brought a criminal fly-tipper to book.  Beattie
showed no regard for the safety of Newham residents when he dumped
asbestos-contaminated waste on a public highway.

"His actions also resulted in substantial inconvenience to
residents who found their buses re-routed.

"I am delighted the magistrates recognised the seriousness of the
offences, and we look forward to the crown court taking a
similarly tough stance, and sentence accordingly.

"This case underlines our commitment to investigate, catch and
bring to justice criminals who endanger our residents, and deface
our environment by dumping rubbish in our borough."

Hartford's Wish School to reopen after asbestos removal completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wish School Reopens After Receiving Clearance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Stewart, writing for Fox 61 News, reported that the Wish
School in Hartford re-opened after construction debris in the
building tested positive for asbestos.

The State Department Of Health gave the school final clearance
after conducting additional air quality tests and everything
checked out fine.

According to Hartford school officials, over the school's spring
break, contractors were in the school to remove old lockers when
some insulation was exposed.  In response to the discovery,
contractors from Eagle Environment and officials from the state
Department of Public health developed a removal plan.

Students were out of school for two days.

Two additional days of class will be added to the school's
calendar to make up for the missed days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U of T Rooms Reopen Following Asbestos Leaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cottrill, writing for OHSCanada.com, reported that the
University of Toronto (U of T) has been hit with health and safety
grievances from the union representing its teaching assistants and
contract faculty, following a trio of recent asbestos leaks in the
main campus' Medical Sciences Building.

The leaks resulted from renovation work in the building, part of a
large, campus-wide rehabilitation project funded in part by the
federal and Ontario governments, according to Scott Mabury, U of
T's vice president of university operations.  Part of this project
involves getting rid of all asbestos, he explained.

"The University of Toronto has a policy," said Mabury, "that
whenever we're doing a significant renovation in any space, we
remove asbestos."  The removal is not mandatory, he added, but the
university's choice.

The first leak occurred on Feb. 1, with the second on Feb. 24;
these incidents affected four rooms in the research tower of the
Medical Sciences Building.  "I stress 'four' because we have 1,900
rooms in that building, to give you an idea of the scale," said
Mabury.

The third incident involved the discovery of a 50-year-old wall
sealer, 0.5 per cent of which contained asbestos fibres, in
another room of the research tower.  "None of us had ever seen
this before, and our outside consultants hadn't seen it before,"
Mabury said.

Local 3902 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has
claimed in its grievances that the university risked the health of
its employees by allowing them to work in the building during the
leaks.  The majority of the building's workers were unaware of the
first asbestos leak for about five weeks after its discovery,
according to media reports.

While CUPE Local 3902 did not respond to COHSN's request for
comment, Mabury conceded that there had been insufficient
communication to employees following the first leak.

"In retrospect, it would have been better if we had more broadly
communicated the first incident," he said.  "But one has to
balance that kind of communication with the desire not to
unnecessarily raise concern and alarm."

But the university did inform the joint health and safety
committee of the leaks and take other required actions, such as
frequent air-quality tests.  As of April 17, U of T had conducted
491 air samples outside of the containment zones of the building
since autumn, Mabury indicated.

"We've had outside experts come in and assess all the evidence,
both our procedures and actions, as well as all the data," he
said.  "We believe that the building is as safe now as it was when
it was built."

In addition, the asbestos contractor whose breaches caused the
first two leaks is no longer working in the Medical Sciences
Building.

"That contractor had worked on campus for many, many years, very
successfully, but that led us to not have them work in the
building any further," said Mabury.

Following the CUPE grievances, the university has put additional
procedures and oversight in place and made efforts to communicate
with workers and other stakeholders more effectively, such as in
online updates.

"We will more extensively communicate if this ever happens again,"
said Mabury.  "We've learned from the experience here and applied
this learning not only in this building, but throughout the tri-
campus University of Toronto experience."





                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *