CAR_Public/170512.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 95



                            Headlines

AARP: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Insurance Class Action
AMERICARE INC: Faces "Polyakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Customer Data Breach
AUSTRALIA: Ken Cush Mulls Suit vs. ACT Govt Over Court Orders
ADVANCED PLANNING: Maddens Files Suit Over Carwoola Bushfire

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BANNER HEALTH: New Class Suits Asserting Violations of MHPAEA
BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Said to Plan New FX-Rigging Cases

BILLY MCFARLAND: Third Class Action Filed Over Fyre Festival
BOSTIK INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Runyon" Class Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Approves Class Action Over Fuel Spill
CANADIAN MALARTIC: Court Authorizes Residents' Class Action
CENTENE CORP: Judge Moves Securities Class Action to Missouri

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit
CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Leaking Sunroofs
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Warner Sues over Falsified Checkup Info
CNX GAS: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Decision in "Hale" Suit
CONCENTRA HEALTH: Sued for Clearing Driver Who Caused Bus Crash

CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Classes Certification in "Sellars" Suit
DELTA NATURAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Peoples Natural Merger
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL: Settles Class Suit Over Police Officers' Wages
EDWIN GOULD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cruz" Suit Claims
EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Files Suit Under Cal. Labor Code

EXAR CORPORATION: Marshall Seeks to Enjoin MaxLinear Merger
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fuller Sues Over Background Check
FCA US: Chatom Motor Sues Over EcoDiesel Vehicles
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Fiorentino Sues Over Collection Practices
GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Debt Collection

GREENFIELD CARE: "Clay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GUAM, USA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit to 9th Circuit
HONDA MOTOR: CRV Owners File Suit in Cook County Over Odors
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Arthur Kaye Files Securities Suit
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: June 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

JACK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Dealers' FLSA Suit in Ohio
JC PENNEY: Settles Shareholders' Class Action For $97.5-Mil.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ordered to Pay $110MM to Settle Talc Suit
KBR INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
KBR INC: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

KOHL: Judge Denies Class Certification on Disability Rights Suit
LAKE OSWEGO, OR: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Class Action
LEAPFROG: Judge Not Convinced of Investors' Merger Class Action
LIVE VENTURES: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
LOUISIANA: Class Status for Suit vs. Public Defender Board Sought

LYFT INC: Price Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to Ninth Circuit
LYFT INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit
MCDONALDS: Settlement in Wage Class Suit Gets Tentative OK
MDL 2724: FWK Holdings' Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
MDL 2724: "Castillo" Suit v. Teligent et al. Goes to E.D. Pa.

MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Impax et al. Over Drug Price-Fixing
MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Over Fluocinonide Price Fixing
MDL 2773: "Kreuzer" Suit V. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2773: "Rotman" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2773: "Schwartz" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.

MDLIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Action Over Patient Privacy
MICHIGAN: State Secretary Sued Over Suspension of Drivers Licenses
MINNESOTA: Judge Stays Further Proceedings in Sex Offender Case
MOISES BAKERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Blair-Chick Suit Over Roundup Products

MURRAY: Abandons Farmer Payment Clawback, Class Action Dropped
MURRAY ENERGY: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
NATIONAL MILK: Consumers Await Refunds from Milk Settlement
NELNET INC: Faces "Peterson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
NEW YORK: Food Cart Owners Sue NYPD, DOH for Trashing Equipment

NISSAN: Car Owners Await Dashboard Class Acton Settlement Money
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Dismissal of Panoramic Sunroof Class Action
NOBLE ENERGY: "King" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in St. Louis Heart Center Suit
PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Final Settlement

PCM INC: RM Law Files Shareholders' Class Action
PCM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Class Over Champix(R) Drug Discontinued
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Suit over Autism Therapy Benefits
RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Schopp" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

ROAD TRAFFIC: Outa Contemplates Traffic Fine Class Action
ROBINSON NURSING: Class Status of Wrongful Death Suit Affirmed
SACRAMENTO, CA: Metropolitan Fire Sued over Failure to Pay OT
SAMSUNG: Suit Blames Overheated S3 for Pittsburgh House Fire
SAMURAI INC: "Mardones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA

SANTA ANA: Faces "German" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers Wages
SAVORY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Beck" Suit Says
SBBM GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Seeks Review of Order in "Cyphert" Class Suit
SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Arias" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

SENSAY INC: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Spam Text Messages
SILVERLEAF LAWN: Landscaping Employees File Suit for FLSA Breach
SIMILASAN CORP: Settles Homeopathic Products False Labeling Suit
SPRINGCO METAL: Faces "Benefield" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
SRM ENTERPRISES: Exotic Dancers Sue for Unpaid Wages

STERLING JEWELERS: Settles EEOC's Sex Bias Claims
SUNRISE SENIOR: Judge Gives Initial OK to Class Action Settlement
SUNRUN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Faces Class Action, July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: "Littlejohn" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA

SURFSTITCH: Faces Second Shareholders' Class Action
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Files Securities Class Action
TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Class Status to Inmates' Hep C Suit
U.S. STEEL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
UNITED KINGDOM: Government Faces Class Suit on Air Pollution

US AIRWAYS: Baggage Fee Class Action Suit Reinstated
WARSAW, IN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: Counsel Struggles to Defend Bank Scandal
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "White" Suit Says
Y&D MEAT: Faces "Zepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

* CBA President & CEO Comments on Senate Bill 33
* Class Action Securities Litigation Hits New High in Q1 2017
* "Class Action" Mulled Against Conveyancing Solicitors
* Ethan Preston Speaks Up Against Potential Damage of Bill 985


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Dugger" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Deposition Denied in "Moore"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Live Trial Testimony in "Evans"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Remands Suit vs. Welco for New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PNA Directed to Produce Corporate Rep

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,000 Claims vs. FMC Corp. Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 3,023 Trauma Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Has 103 Asbestos Suits at April 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Reports $3MM Settlement March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1.27BB Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Firstsource Faces Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faces 64 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Faces 16 Asbestos, Tobacco Cases in Md.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Continues to Defend "Parsons" at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Liabilities Could be Significant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,745 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Faces 7,706 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Has $1.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31




                            *********


AARP: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that unable to dodge allegations that it bilked senior citizens
for millions of dollars in health insurance premiums, AARP must
return to federal court to address the charges, the Ninth Circuit
ruled on May 3, reversing and remanding dismissal of the class
action.

The three-judge panel found that lead plaintiff Jerald Friedman
adequately pleaded that that nation's largest senior citizen lobby
"transacts" and "solicits" insurance without a license, and that
it tricked members into thinking that a roughly 5 percent fee it
adds to their insurance bills is a permissible "royalty," though
it actually is an illegal insurance commission.

"Friedman has met the not especially onerous burden imposed at the
pleading stage of alleging facts, making it plausible that AARP
transacts insurance by collecting commissions from its members who
purchase UnitedHealth's Medigap policy," Senior Second Circuit
Judge Barrington Parker Jr. wrote for the panel, sitting by
designation.  "Friedman's complaint should not have been
dismissed."

Mr. Friedman, a Medicare beneficiary, bought supplemental health
insurance through a Medigap policy held by AARP and underwritten
and sold by UnitedHealth, also a defendant.

Mr. Friedman sued AARP and UnitedHealth in January 2014, claiming
that the fee is a commission charged on top of monthly premium
charges, which AARP is not entitled to collect because it is not
licensed to sell insurance in California.  He said the conduct
violates the California Insurance Code and state unfair
competition laws.

AARP and UnitedHealth say the fee is a legal royalty payment made
by UnitedHealth in exchange for using AARP's intellectual
property, such as its logo.

Under a joint venture agreement between AARP and UnitedHealth,
AARP collects insurance premiums from members and remits them to
UnitedHealth.  In exchange, UnitedHealth allows AARP to invest the
payments before remitting them.  AARP deducts 4.95 percent of each
dollar paid by UnitedHealth Medigap enrollees before handing over
the rest of their premiums to UnitedHealth.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson, in the Central District of
California, dismissed the case in October 2014, finding that
Friedman had not adequately alleged that AARP acted as an
unlicensed insurance agent that is paid commissions on insurance
sales.

Judge Pregerson also found that Mr. Friedman failed to allege that
AARP "solicits" insurance, because its website does not allow
prospective insurance buyers to apply for or buy coverage.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, in a 21-page opinion.

AARP and UnitedHealth argued that the fee is not a commission
because UnitedHealth's payment to AARP "is calculated as a
percentage of all premiums paid in connection with the program,
regardless of their source."

But noting that Mr. Friedman alleged that anyone who wants to buy
Medigap coverage from UnitedHealth must buy AARP's plan and make
payments to AARP, the appeals court ruled that there is "no
'source' other than through AARP for the premiums paid to
UnitedHealth for Medigap coverage."

"At the motion to dismiss stage, we conclude that Mr. Friedman has
plausibly alleged this payment to be a 'commission,'" Judge Parker
wrote.

Citing language from AARP's own marketing materials: "This is a
solicitation of insurance," the unanimous panel ruled that
Mr. Friedman's claim should not have been dismissed.

When Judge Pregerson dismissed the case, "The court's primary
rationale was that 'none of those websites permits an individual
to purchase insurance coverage or submit an application for
insurance,'" Judge Parker wrote.  "We are not persuaded, however,
that the ability (or lack of ability) to directly purchase or
apply for insurance is dispositive," Parker wrote. (Citation
omitted.)

"Even if consumers cannot directly apply for or purchase insurance
through AARP, Friedman has plausibly alleged that AARP's marketing
materials are designed to lead its members to contact UnitedHealth
to consummate sales of insurance."

Despite the ruling, AARP attorney Douglas Winter, of the firm
Bryan Cave, was optimistic that AARP will fend off the
allegations.

"While we are still reviewing the decision, we remain confident
that AARP's position will ultimately prevail," he said in an email
on May 4.

Ninth Circuit Judges Morgan Christen and Richard Tallman also sat
on the panel.

Mr. Friedman is represented by Andrew Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com
-- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Francisco, and
UnitedHealth by Brian Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- of O'Melveny &
Myers in Washington.  Neither Messrs. Love nor Boyle could be
reached for comment on May 3. [GN]


AMERICARE INC: Faces "Polyakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yevgeniy Polyakov, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
others similarly-situated v. Americare, Inc., Case No. 507515/2017
(N.Y. Super Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more
than 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Certified Home Health Aide
("CHHA"), providing full time patient care that included more than
20 percent of general household work.

Americare, Inc. operates a home healthcare service company located
at 171 Kings Highway Brooklyn, New York 11223.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
      Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
      JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
      225 Broadway, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 227-5700
      Facsimile: (212) 406-6890


ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Customer Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01529-AT (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2017), was filed
over defendant's failure to secure and safeguard its customers'
credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD"),
and other personally identifiable information (PII) which ARG
collected at the time Plaintiff made a restaurant purchase at ARG,
and for failing to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and other Class members that their Customer Data had
been stolen and precisely what types of information were stolen.

Defendant is a nationally franchised sandwich restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
     John R. Bevis, Esq.
     J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
     THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
     31 Atlanta Street
     Marietta, GA 30060
     Phone: (770) 227-6375
     Fax: (770) 227-6373
     E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
             bevis@barneslawgroup.com
             ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

        - and -

     John Yanchunis, Esq.
     Marisa Glassman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             mglassman@fmihepeople.com

        - and -

     Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Phone: (516) 426-6870
     E-mail:pcwhalen@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     Marion E. Taylor Building
     312 S. Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 587-2007
     E-mail:jasper@jonesward.com

        - and -

     Brian P. Murray, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Ken Cush Mulls Suit vs. ACT Govt Over Court Orders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gorrey, writing for Canberra Times, reports that a Canberra
law firm will investigate a class action against the ACT
government after it claimed more than a dozen offenders who
breached court orders could have been locked up illegally.

Lawyers say detainees serving intensive corrections orders, who
were sent to jail for failing to comply with directions from
Corrective Services officers without proper powers, could sue the
government for wrongful imprisonment under the ACT's Human Rights
Act.

The government has rejected suggestions the offenders were
unlawfully detained after an "administrative oversight" meant
staff supervised orders without the necessary legal authority
between last March and November.

It moved to fix the problem in February, sparking strong criticism
from lawyers over a lack of consultation, while the Opposition
raised concerns it left staff exposed and could lead to "financial
problems" if detainees sought compensation.

Intensive corrections orders, or ICOs, were introduced as an
alternative to periodic detention last March.

They allow offenders to serve their sentences in the community
under strict conditions.

They're ordered by the courts, but administered by Corrective
Services officers, who direct offenders to undergo drug and
alcohol tests, enter rehabilitation or carry out community service
work.

Breaches of those conditions are heard by the Sentence
Administration Board, which can then order offenders to spend a
short stint in custody.

The legal fix was required after the government found out officers
were not delegated the proper powers by the director-general and
certain directions given in that eight-month period were outside
the scope of their authority.

The amendment was applied retrospectively, limiting the ability of
offenders to pursue compensation.

But lawyers from firm Ken Cush and Associates said they would
investigate a class action -- a legal challenge mounted on behalf
of a group -- for offenders they believed had been unlawfully
detained.

Senior associate Sam Tierney, who has represented several ACT
residents for alleged wrongful imprisonment, said residents had a
right to be compensated when their liberty was breached unlawfully
under the territory's human rights laws.

"Detention which arises when proper legal procedures have not been
followed can amount to making a detention unlawful and a right to
be compensated is enlivened."

Mr Tierney said the amount of compensation detainees could be
entitled to would depend on their individual circumstances.

"The Australian legal system has a strong and proud history of
fiercely protecting people's rights against government excesses
including attempts by governments to remove people's rights
retrospectively.

"This is particularly so where those rights arise from failures on
the government's part and directly result in people losing their
right to liberty.

"There are strong arguments that the ACT government's latest
attempt to retrospectively obliterate people's rights in this case
would also not be accepted by the courts."

Government figures showed 29 people were sentenced to ICOs between
March 2 and November 11.

Thirteen of those detainees had their order suspended for a breach
and were sent to prison for three or seven days.

About 55 Corrective Services staff were affected.

ACT Human Rights Commissioner Helen Watchirs said the
retrospective amendment limited the potential for detainees to
claim compensation and the restriction on offenders' liberty would
likely be considered reasonable under law.

"I'm not sure it would be a strong case.  It is possible."

A Justice and Community Safety Directorate spokeswoman said the
legal changes were made to "remedy a formal deficiency".  She
would not be drawn on whether the offenders involved had been
informed of the glitch.

"No offender was wrongfully imprisoned and staff operated under
implied authority in executing the conditions of which offenders
had undertaken in order to serve their custodial sentence in the
community.

She said the government had no plans to provide offenders with ex
gratia payments -- one-off payments made when the government is
prepared to compensate a person, but not admit liability -- as
there was "no proper basis" to do so.

"The Intensive Corrections Orders were suspended by the Sentence
Administration Board because offenders failed to comply with the
conditions imposed as part of the order."

The ACT Law Society and Bar Association raised concerns the
retrospective amendment could have been aimed at heading off
possible claims and meant detainees apparently had no redress.

The society previously expressed its view ICO breaches,
suspensions and cancellations should be dealt with by the
sentencing courts rather than the board, which was a government
administrative authority. [GN]


ADVANCED PLANNING: Maddens Files Suit Over Carwoola Bushfire
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gorey, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that a
Victorian law firm has launched a class action on behalf of those
affected by the Carwoola bushfire on February 17, with the lawyer
leading the case speculating a claim bill of more than $15
million.

Maddens Lawyers issued proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court
against Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd on behalf of
residents and business owners burnt out by the fire.

A tradesman came forward after the blaze to claim it was sparked
by building work on his property.

The man donated $10,000 to one of several Go Fund Me pages set up
in the wake of the disaster.

Madden's senior partner Brendan Pendergast said the proceedings
allege the Carwoola fire ignited on private property in the course
of an Advanced Plumbing employee undertaking work involving the
use of a power-cutting wheel that caused the discharge of sparks.

Mr Pendergast said February 17 was a total fire ban day.

"The conditions on the day were hot, dry and windy.  The use of
steel cutting equipment in these weather conditions, and on a
rural property, carries with it a significant bushfire risk," he
said.

"Our preliminary inquiries indicate that appropriate precautions
were not put in place to eliminate or reduce that risk."

Mr Pendergast said the class action was a secure and low-risk
means for the residents and businesses marred by the fire to claim
funds their insurance policies did not cover.

"Maddens has extensive experience in representing bushfire
victims. We are acutely aware of the emotional and economic impact
a bushfire can have on people," he said.

"We've successfully settled class actions for four different
communities that were burnt out during the Black Saturday
bushfires of February 7, 2009.

"We have also represented hundreds of bushfire victims impacted by
the October 2013 Springwood/Winmalee bushfire and secured millions
of dollars of compensation for losses that occurred as a result of
that fire.

"Quite simply, Carwoola residents have suffered losses that are
not their fault.  They are losses that would not have occurred had
the right procedures been followed.

"There is no reason these residents should sit back and just
accept that this fire occurred, and accept the damage that it did.

"There is every reason for them to ask the question of what they
are due, because it is what they deserve."

Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd have until May 26, 2017 to
file a defence to the proceeding.

The same law firm has also mounted a class action over the
Currandooley fire, which burnt out almost 3400 hectares near
Tarago in January.

Representing 33 individuals owning 22 properties, Mr Pendergast
said the action alleges that Infigen Energy "was aware of the risk
that a bird strike to its high voltage power line could cause a
fire".

"Further, it was aware of previous similar incidents, but failed
to take appropriate steps to address the risk until after the
fire," he said.

The blaze started at Capital Wind Farm off Taylors Creek Road near
Tarago on the morning of January 17. It tore through 3384ha,
fanned by strong winds and fuelled by high heat and dry
conditions.

Infigen has denied any liability.

In a statement, the company said Maddens Lawyers had not provided
any information to support the amount of loss and damage.

"Infigen denies any liability in respect of the alleged loss and
damage and will work with its legal advisers to defend the
proceedings accordingly.  Infigen maintains appropriate
insurance," the company said. [GN]


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased Anadarko securities between February 17, 2016 and
May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/apc.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Anadarko's maintenance and safety protocols in
respect to certain of its vertical wells were inadequate; (2) due
to the foregoing shortcomings, these wells were at an increased
risk of explosion; and (3) consequently, Anadarko's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On April 17, 2017, a deadly explosion killed two individuals and
critically injured another in a recently built home located within
170 feet of an Anadarko. On April 26, 2017, The Denver Post
reported that Anadarko "plans to shut down 3,000 vertical wells in
northeastern Colorado after a fatal home explosion in Firestone
near one of its wells." Following this news, Anadarko stock
dropped USD2.84 per share, or 4.73%, to close at USD57.12 on April
27, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District,
together with the Firestone Police Department and the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation, determined that the fatal home explosion
was due to a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by
Anadarko. Officials said that the gas line was abandoned, but not
disconnected from the wellhead and sealed at both ends.  As a
result, the line only stopped leaking gas after Anadarko shut down
3,000 wells in the region following the explosion. Following this
news, Anadarko stock dropped USD4.54 per share, or 8.07%, to close
at USD51.74 on May 3, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/apcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Anadarko you have until July 3, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko" or
the "Company") (NYSE:APC) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, and docketed under 17-cv-01372, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Anadarko securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Anadarko securities between
February 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation engages in the exploration,
development, production, and marketing of oil and gas properties.
It operates through three segments: Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, Midstream, and Marketing.

The Complaint alleges that 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) Anadarko's maintenance and
safety protocols in respect to certain of its vertical wells were
inadequate; (ii) due to the foregoing shortcomings, these wells
were at an increased risk of explosion; and (iii) that as a result
of the foregoing, Anadarko's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 17, 2017, a deadly explosion killed two individuals and
critically injured another in a recently built home located within
170 feet of an Anadarko well.  On April 26, 2017, post-market, The
Denver Post reported that Anadarko "plans to shut down 3,000
vertical wells in northeastern Colorado" following the April 17
explosion.

On this news, Anadarko's share price fell $2.84, or 4.73%, to
close at $57.12 on April 27, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District,
through a joint effort with the Firestone Police Department and
with the assistance of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation,
concluded that the fatal home explosion on April 17 was linked to
a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by Anadarko.
Officials stated that the gas line had been abandoned, but not
disconnected from the wellhead and sealed at both ends.
Consequently, the line only stopped leaking gas after Anadarko
shut down 3,000 wells in the region following the explosion.

On this news, Anadarko's share price fell $4.54, or 8.07%, to
close at $51.74 on May 3, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


BANNER HEALTH: New Class Suits Asserting Violations of MHPAEA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports Banner Health and the Kaiser
Foundation were recently hit with separate class action lawsuits
challenging their denials of certain mental health care coverage.
In the case against Banner Health, plaintiffs challenge Banner
Health's exclusion of applied behavior analysis therapy from
coverage for autism spectrum disorder as "experimental or
investigational." Plaintiffs allege that the failure to provide
such coverage violates the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act ("MHPAEA"). The case against Kaiser Foundation
challenges the denial of coverage for residential treatment and
hospitalization for eating disorders. Plaintiff alleges that
physicians determined that hospitalization was needed to treat his
severe eating disorder, but he could not get the required
authorization from the Kaiser Foundation and the denial violates
the MHPAEA.[GN]

The cases are Etter v. Banner Health, D. Ariz., No. 2:17-cv-01288
(filed May 1, 2017) and Moura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-02475, (filed May 1, 2017).


BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miller's Furniture of Mercer Company, d/b/a HANEY'S COMFORT LIVING
FURNITURE, a Pennsylvania Corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, WILLIAM PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DJM ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, DONALD
QUIRKE, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00557-LPL
(W.D. Pa., April 28, 2017), alleges that Defendants sent
unauthorized advertisements by facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY underwrites and issues term life
insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Shenkan, Esq.
     SHENKAN INJURY LAWYER LLC
     PO Box 7255
     New Castle, PA 16107
     Phone: 412 716 5800
     Fax: 888 769 1774


BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Said to Plan New FX-Rigging Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Kit Chellel and Jeremy Hodges at Bloomberg report that some of the
world's biggest investors are working with a U.S. law firm to
prepare a fresh wave of litigation against banks accused of
rigging foreign exchange markets.

BlackRock Inc., Pacific Investment Management Co. and hedge fund
BlueCrest Capital Management are working with law firm Quinn
Emanuel to recover losses they blame on the manipulation of
currency benchmarks, according to two people familiar with the
case, who asked not to be identified because nothing has been
filed.

The target banks, including Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc., HSBC
Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Plc and UBS Group AG, have been fined billions of dollars for
conspiring to rig FX benchmarks. The firm, which will probably
file lawsuits in London and New York, is trying to attract
additional investors, the people said.

Quinn Emanuel's clients will likely opt out of an existing New
York class action over currency manipulation that won a total of
about USD2 billion in settlements from HSBC, Barclays, RBS,
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and others in 2015, according to people
with knowledge of the firm's strategy.

Opting out of the class action would allow large investors to seek
higher settlements by pursuing a global strategy that includes the
recovery of losses from London, where a significant portion of
global trades are settled. The existing class action is limited to
transactions that took place in New York.

Opt-Out Fight

The two law firms that are running the existing U.S. lawsuit,
Hausfeld and Scott + Scott, won't give up control of the case
without a fight.

In an April 24 letter e-mailed to U.S. District Judge Lorna
Schofield, lawyers complained that "certain unnamed law firms were
sending false and misleading communications to class members to
persuade them to opt out of the settlements," the judge said in a
court order on May 4. She set a May 12 deadline for the two firms
to make a formal request as to what she should do in response.

Officials at Scott + Scott and Jim Baxter, a spokesman for Quinn
Emanuel in London, declined to immediately comment. A lawyer for
Hausfeld in the U.K. couldn't immediately be reached  to comment.

The Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and
California State Teachers' Retirement System are also considering
signing up to the new action.

"CalSTRS is a member of the FX market manipulation antitrust class
and has been evaluating its options, including potentially using
Quinn Emanuel or another law firm to file an opt-out case, but has
not yet committed to do so," Brian J. Bartow, the California
pension's general counsel, said in a statement. "At the moment,
CalSTRS remains a member of the class."

Other investor groups either declined to comment or didn't return
calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Global Fines

Banks have paid about USD10 billion in fines to global authorities
over the last few years to resolve allegations traders tried to
manipulate key foreign-exchange benchmarks such as the 4 p.m.
WM/Reuters and 1.15 p.m. European Central Bank fixes. The
settlements, some of which included guilty pleas in the U.S., came
after dozens of individuals were suspended or fired over the
behavior.

The latest legal campaign threatens to give new impetus to the
benchmark rigging scandal, and may force banks into paying
significantly higher legal settlements.

Banks including UBS, HSBC and RBS declined to comment. Other
lenders didn't immediately reply to requests for comment on the
lawsuits.

At least five people have also been charged in the U.S., including
three members of a chat room dubbed "the cartel" that was the
focus of the investigation. Some of the men are in talks with the
Justice Department on voluntarily coming to the U.S. to fight the
charges, Bloomberg reported last month. A fourth member of the
group has been cooperating with prosecutors. [GN]


BILLY MCFARLAND: Third Class Action Filed Over Fyre Festival
------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Gaca at Spin reports that a third set of Fyre Festival
attendees have filed a class-action suit against founders Billy
McFarland and Ja Rule, alleging negligence, fraud, and violation
of consumer protection law in their promotion of the luxe Bahamas
destination festival that turned out to be little more than
emergency shelters and cheese sandwiches on a darkened beach.
Pitchfork has the full text of the complaint, which was filed in
New York federal court.

Attendees Matthew Herlihy and Anthony Lauriello each paid USD1,027
for their weekend tickets, including airfare from Miami, according
to their lawsuit. They uploaded an additional USD900 and USD1,000
to their respective festival wristbands, which were supposed to
enable a "cashless" event. Both men say they haven't been able to
access those funds since. Lauriello also claims he was robbed of
his clothes and headphones on the island, "because Defendants
failed to provide any security."

The latest suit also details the "total chaos" of conditions on
the beach: "Upon the arrival of guests to the island of Great
Exuma for the first weekend, the island was lacking basic
amenities, was covered in dirt, and guests had to sleep in tents
with wet blankets," the complaint reads. "There were no communal
bathrooms or showers, but instead only three showers and a porta
potty every 200 yards, which was woefully insufficient for the
large number of festival attendees. The food was unappetizing and
there were no on-site medical services. Additionally, there were
no other basic amenities like soap, sunscreen and shampoo, and no
electricity." [GN]


BOSTIK INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Runyon" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patrick E. Runyon, Terri E. Runyon, Georganne L.
Shuster, Joseph S. Shuster, Everardo Vidrio and Zeferina Vidrio
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled
Patrick Runyon, et al. v. Bostik, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-
02413-RGK-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a California class,
which consists of all owners of single-family homes located in
California in which Leonard's Carpet Service, Inc. installed
ceramic, porcelain, or natural stone floor tiles on concrete
substrates using D-70 as part of original/new construction.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Runyon, et al. v.
Bostik, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80058, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners PATRICK E. RUNYON, as Co-Trustee of The
Patrick E. Runyon and Terri E. Runyon Revocable Trust Dated August
7, 2015, JOSEPH S. SHUSTER, GEORGANNE L. SHUSTER, EVERARDO VIDRIO,
ZEFERINA VIDRIO, and TERRI E. RUNYON, as Co-Trustee of the Patrick
E. Runyon and Terri E. Runyon Revocable Trust Dated August 7,
2015, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
          EPPSTEINER LAW, APC
          5519 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 5129
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (858) 350-1500
          Facsimile: (858) 598-5599
          E-mail: Sme@Eppsteiner.Com

Defendant-Respondent BOSTIK, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Joshua J. Pollack, Esq.
          SCHEIDEMANTLE LAW GROUP P.C.
          35 East Union Street, Suite B
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 371-0334
          Facsimile: (626) 628-1950
          E-mail: jpollack@ScheidemantleLawGroup.com

Defendant-Respondent LEONARD'S CARPET SERVICE, INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Alan J. Droste, Esq.
          KING PARRETT AND DROSTE LLP
          450 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 644-3484
          Facsimile: (949) 644-3993
          E-mail: adroste@kpdlex.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Approves Class Action Over Fuel Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia Supreme Court
judge has approved a class-action lawsuit against the provincial
government over a fuel spill that forced the evacuation of
thousand of residents in the Slocan Valley four years ago.

The law firm representing 2,500 residents says it's the first such
environmental lawsuit certified by the court against the province
of B.C.

The firm, Rosenberg Kosakoski Litigation, says in a statement the
tanker truck that overturned, spilling 35,000 litres of jet fuel
into the Slocan River water system was part of a province-led
refuelling operation for firefighting helicopters.

The action alleges the province caused the disaster because of
operational mismanagement and then failed to adequately respond to
the spill, which resulted millions of dollars in damages to
private property and the ecosystem.

At the time, residents were evacuated and a do-not-use water order
was put into effect as the fuel moved from Lemon Creek into the
Slocan River.

The firm says in the statement that the province contested the
class-action application, pointing blame at its co-defendants
including the firms contracted by the government to execute the
operation.

Calgary-based Executive Flight Centre owned the truck that was on
its way to supply helicopters battling a nearby wildfire when it
overturned into the creek.

The statement says Justice David Masuhara rejected the province's
position, saying everyone should be concerned when the government
fails in its duties to protect the environment and take
responsibility for its mistakes.  [GN]


CANADIAN MALARTIC: Court Authorizes Residents' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazzette reports that a class-action lawsuit brought
forward by residents affected by the Malartic gold mine was
authorized May 5 by Quebec Superior Court.

The Comite citoyens de la zone sud de Malartic notes that the suit
against Canadian Malartic could grow to more than CAD40 million.

The residents living near the largest open sky mine in an
inhabited area in Canada also want to be compensated for damages
related to dust, noise and explosions that they have been exposed
to for many years.

The representative of the class, Louis Trottier, who lives less
than 800 metres from the mine, said he was happy with the ruling,
which "gives me hope that there might still be a bit of justice in
this world."

The decision comes two weeks after the Quebec government
authorized the mining company to enlarge the mine, a project that
will increase its life span by six years, until 2028.

The decision from Judge Robert Dufresne notes that the class
action "seeks damages of CAD9,000 per year per person for all the
nuisances related to dust, noise and blasting since Aug. 1, 2013."

The judge also authorized the inclusion of exemplary damages of
CAD20 million for denying citizens the right "to the enjoyment of
their goods and a quality environment guaranteed by the Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms."

The court excluded, however, the possibility of landowners
claiming real-estate losses in the class-action suit. Those claims
must be done on an individual basis, the judge ruled.

Malartic is 25 kilometres west of Val d'Or in Quebec's Abitibi
region. [GN]


CENTENE CORP: Judge Moves Securities Class Action to Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd at STL Record reports that a putative class-action
lawsuit against a St. Louis health care company that allegedly
failed to release accurate financial information has been moved
from California to Missouri.

According to the suit, Centene Corp. didn't release the correct
information on its expected losses over its multibillion dollar
acquisition of Health Net Inc.

The case, until recently known as Israel Sanchez v Centene Corp.,
originally was filed Nov. 14 in the U.S. District Court for
California's Central District. On March 1, California U.S.
District Court Judge Andre Birotte Jr. approved Centene's motion
to change the venue to U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, saying the location of Centene's
headquarters is relevant to the case.

"All defendants reside in the Eastern District of Missouri," court
documents said. "Although the named plaintiff, Israel Sanchez,
resides in this district (California), this is a class action, so
his place of residence carries little weight."

The location of potential witnesses in the case also had bearing
in the venue change, Birotte said in his ruling.

"Because the gravamen of this case is whether Centene made false
and misleading statements in its quarterly report, Centene
departments and personnel responsible for Centene's financial
analysis and financial reporting will be key witnesses," Birotte
said in the ruling. "The key witnesses are therefore all located
in the Eastern District of Missouri."

On May 1, the U.S. district judge now overseeing the case, Audrey
G. Fleissig, granted a motion by Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension &
Relief Fund to be the named lead plaintiff in the case.

The lawsuit stems from Centene's acquisition last spring of Health
Net. Centene, a multinational health care company that provides
programs and services to the underinsured and uninsured in the
United States, is headquartered in St. Louis.

The class action claims that Centene made false and misleading
statements about Health Net's insurance programs. Centene failed
to reveal that Health Net's programs were significantly
underperforming and were generating losses while, at the same
time, overstating Net's financial future prospects, according to
the lawsuit.

In April 2016, Centene released its first quarter financial
results that included its USD6 billion acquisition of Health Net.

"This strategic acquisition broadens our current service
offerings, providing expansion in Medicaid and Medicare programs,"
Centene said in its announcement. "This acquisition provides
further diversification across our markets and products through
the addition of government-sponsored care under federal contracts
with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of
Veteran's Affairs, as well as Medicare Advantage.  Our
consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months
ended March 31, 2016 reflect eight days of Health Net operations."

That sounded good to investors and resulted in artificially
inflated prices for Centene shares, which were as high as USD75.39
per share, according to the lawsuit.

"Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities relying upon the integrity of
the market price of Centene's securities and market information
relating to Centene, and have been damaged thereby," the lawsuit
said.

Days later, Centene filed a report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) that it was reserving approximately
USD300 million for losses associated with Health Net's insurance
plan, according to the lawsuit. That news caused Centene's shares
price to fall more than 8 percent, closing at USD68.87 per share
on July 26, according to the lawsuit.

"Then on September 6, 2016, during the middle of the trading
session, Leerink Partners, LLC ("Leerink") issued a report
downgrading Centene stock due to underperformance of the Health
Net legacy insurance programs, including Health Net's California
substance abuse programs," the lawsuit said.

That caused Centene's shares price to fall another 5 percent,
closing at USD65.30 that same day, the lawsuit said.

The class action seeks to represent those who acquired Centene
securities between April 26, 2016, and Sept. 6, 2016 for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jay Francis Ensor, Christina Jewel Gateley, Stacy
Higgs, Eufemia Jimenez, Matthew A. Medina, Krystal Parker and
Maxcimo Scott filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum and
order dated March 29, 2017, in their lawsuit titled Scott v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-8333, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 20,
2017, Chipotle defeated certification of six separate classes
involving allegations that the job position of "Apprentice" was
misclassified as exempt for purposes of paying overtime wages.
The case was brought by seven individuals, who had worked as
Apprentices in various Chipotle stores.  The named plaintiffs
worked in six states while the opt-in plaintiffs worked in 37
states.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., Case No. 17-1047, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Maxcimo Scott, Jay Francis Ensor, Matthew
A. Medina, Eufemia Jimenez, Krystal Parker, Stacy Higgs and
Christina Jewel Gateley, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Defendants-Respondents Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle
Services, LLC, are represented by:

          Abigail Nitka, Esq.
          MESSNER REEVES LLP
          733 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 663-1874
          Facsimile: (212) 490-3038
          E-mail: anitka@messner.com


CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Leaking Sunroofs
--------------------------------------------------
Katherine Coig, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that the
lawsuit against Chrysler for leaking sunroofs is still trying to
reach class-action status.  The lawsuit, which was first filed in
2014, alleges the manufacturer was negligent in disclosing to
owners that regular maintenance is needed on affected vehicles'
sunroof drain tubes.

The vehicles named in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep
Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand
Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300, from model
years 2009 to present.

The lawsuit was brought forth by David Cox, owner of a 2010 Jeep
Patriot.  He claims his vehicle's sunroof began leaking after
owning the vehicle for the less than a year, and, as a result, has
sustained interior damage that lessen the vehicle's resale value.

"Within one year of purchase and when the vehicle had
approximately 10,000 miles on it, plaintiff Cox's vehicle began
leaking from the sunroof damaging the radio in the vehicle," the
court document states.  "Plaintiff Cox brought his vehicle in to
the Chrysler dealer's service department to service the sunroof
leak immediately.  The Chrysler dealer replaced the radio and
cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes.  However, the sunroof has
leaked several times since the first attempted repair, once again
damaging the radio display and causing electrical malfunctions in
the sunroof.  Thus, on June 26, 2013, plaintiff Cox brought the
vehicle in to the Chrysler service department again to service the
sunroof leak.  However, Chrysler refused to repair the sunroof
leak under the warranty stating that clogged drain tubes is a
maintenance problem.  As a result, plaintiff Cox continues to
observe water leaking into and through the sunroof and interior
dome light that has resulted in electrical problems, a noticeable
musty or moldy smell and water damage to the interior of his
vehicle."

Mr. Cox claims he was never told by Chrysler that the vehicle's
sunroof drain tubes would need routine maintenance.

The lawsuit also alleges that Chrysler told a number of owners
that the leaking sunroofs were a result of the vehicles being
misused.  It goes on to claim that even vehicles that were still
under warranty were denied repairs by dealers, who claimed the
damage was due to the owners not taking the proper steps in
maintaining the sunroof drain tubes.

Claims in the lawsuit regarding warranty and fraud have been
dismissed by the judge, but claims of violating implied warranty
and consumer protection laws are continuing.  According to the
judge, the plaintiffs have not had sufficient time to "engage in
merits-based discovery" against Chrysler. [GN]


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Warner Sues over Falsified Checkup Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEN WARNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
BRUCE VAN SAUN, ERIC W. ABOAF, JOHN J. FAWCETT, and JOHN F.
WOODS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03004 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25,
2017), seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for compensatory damages as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Citizens' securities between March 18, 2016, and March
29, 2017. Citizens Financial purportedly offers banking products
and services through its two operating segments -- Consumer
Banking and Commercial Banking -- with a focus on providing local
delivery and a differentiated customer experience.

On March 29, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
Company implemented a program that invited customers into branches
for a financial checkup (or "Citizens Checkup") and that the
Company claimed 400,000 such meetings occurred in 2016, but that
11 current and former Citizens branch employees in five states
claimed that information about some meetings was fabricated by
those employees or others as they struggled
to meet goals set by the bank. On this news, the Company's stock
price declined $0.54 per share to close at $34.49 per share on
March 29, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Company employees were
falsifying information related to the Citizens Checkup program;
(2) that, as a result, the Company's reported Citizens Checkup
figures were inflated; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Citizens' business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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.

Citizens Financial is an American bank headquartered in
Providence, Rhode Island, which operates in the states of
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, and
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


CNX GAS: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Decision in "Hale" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CNX Gas Company, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit titled JEFFERY CARLOS HALE, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CNX GAS
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-00059-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon.

The appellate case is captioned as CNX Gas Company, LLC v. Jeffrey
Hale, Case No. 17-199, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28,
2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class
certification and certified the action as a class action.

The certified class is defined as:

     All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were
     identified by CNX Gas Company, LLC ("CNX") in filings with
     the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM
     estate interests and for whom CNX has applied, as of the
     later of the date of this Court's class certification order
     or the resolution of an interlocutory appeal of such order,
     pursuant to Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.22:2(A), for the
     release of funds held in escrow or internally, and all such
     gas claimants who have received distributions from escrow or
     directly from CNX as a result of a judicial determination of
     ownership or agreement between September 23, 2010 and
     January 1, 2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia
     Code Section 45.1-361.1.

     The Class excludes (a) CNX, (b) any person who serves as a
     judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (c) any
     individuals who have received a Court-supervised accounting
     of CNX's CBM royalty payments into escrow or internal
     suspense, and (d) any person who operates a CBM well in
     Virginia and any person who holds a working interest in a
     CBM well operated by CNX in Virginia.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, is represented by:

          Jonathan Todd Blank, Esq.
          James F. Neale, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          Facsimile: (434) 980-2258
          E-mail: jblank@mcguirewoods.com
                  jneale@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4758
          Facsimile: (804) 440-7770
          E-mail: tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com

Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North
          One Nashville Place
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-0000
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Jennifer Gross, Esq.
          Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq.
          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  jgross@lchb.com
                  dseltz@lchb.com
                  dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, PC
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095-0000
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          P. O. Box 339
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-4960
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          Sara Katherine Riley, Esq.
          DON BARRETT PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                  kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Peter G. Glubiak, Esq.
          GLUBIAK LAW OFFICE
          19840 King William Road
          P. O. Box 27
          King William, VA 23086
          Telephone: (804) 769-1616
          Facsimile: (804) 769-1897
          E-mail: glubiaklaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          HERRINGTON LAW PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (601) 376-9331
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, PA
          265 North Lamar Boulevard
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 232-8979
          Facsimile: (662) 232-8940
          E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq.
          Post Office Box 2032
          Abingdon, VA 24212
          Telephone: (276) 525-1103

               - and -

          Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 286
          Abingdon, VA 24212-0000
          Telephone: (276) 619-3831


CONCENTRA HEALTH: Sued for Clearing Driver Who Caused Bus Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Waldman at WBAL reports that victims in the fatal November
crash involving a city school bus and a Maryland Transportation
Administration bus are filing a class action lawsuit against the
clinic chain that cleared the school bus driver and the city
schools contractor that employed him.

Hassan Murphy of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy and Jonathan Schochor of
Schochor, Federico & Staton filed the suit against Concentra
Health Services, AA Affordable Transportation and that firm's
owners and operators. It names nine victims or next-of-kin as
plaintiffs.

School bus driver Glenn Chappell died in the crash along with five
aboard the MTA bus, including its driver. Only an aide was with
Chappell aboard the school bus. At the time of the crash, state
officials did not have a valid medical exam certificate for him on
file.

The complaint alleges that Concentra knew or should have known
when they medically cleared Chappell that he had a history of
seizures and at least four crashes involving a school bus or
personal vehicle where he lost consciousness due to a seizure.
They allege Concentra should never have issued the certification
in the first place, given his medical and driving history.

Concentra didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Furthermore, they allege AA Affordable should have known about his
seizure disorder and driving history and failed to ensure he was
in fact medically certified to drive at the time of the crash or
held a valid commercial driver's license. They allege that they
knew he had a seizure-like episode one week prior to the crash and
yet continued to let him drive.

Michelle Kennedy, who was aboard the MTA bus, said she won't
forget that fateful November day.

"I'll never forget waking up on the floor of the bus pinned
underneath metal and other passengers with glass in my mouth. It's
been traumatic. I don't know if I'll ever get over this," she said
in a statement. "I want answers, and I want justice for all of us
who have suffered. He should never have been driving that bus."

The National Transportation Safety Board, in issuing preliminary
findings one month after the crash, said Chappell's medical issues
may have been a contributing factor to the crash.

Antwan Baker lost his wife, Ebonee, who was behind the wheel of
the MTA bus.

"Our lives changed forever that day. Our kids lost their mother,
and I lost my wife and best friend," he said. "They should never
have let him drive that bus. This should never have happened."

Upon the lawsuit's filing, Hassan Murphy, Managing Partner at
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy stated, "It is beyond unbelievable that
Concentra and AAAfordable put this man behind the wheel and that
they certified him to drive buses full of disabled children.  It
makes us all angry that they gave this man keys to a school bus,
endangering the children he carried and all of us that he
encountered, despite his clear history of having seizures while
operating vehicles. Concentra's decision to certify this driver,
without performing the required inquiry into his medical and
driving background, leads to the inevitable conclusion that they
operated a rubber-stamp machine that valued profits over the
safety of their passengers and every other driver on the road.
This tragedy is truly heartbreaking and the fact that it could
have been prevented by a series of easy checks that take minutes
is unconscionable."

Murphy's co-counsel, Jonathan Schochor, Senior Managing Partner of
Schochor, Federico & Staton added, "Nothing we can do will take
away the pain of the families who lost a loved one, or heal the
wounds of those who were injured. Concentra and AAAfordable must
be brought to justice for their recklessness. This class action
suit is the most efficient and expedient way to help bring closure
to the families and justice for those injured."

The Complaint requests that the matter be certified as a class
action in order to ensure that each victim receives the full
measure of damages permitted under the law and to ensure an
orderly procedure by which to handle these claims, instead of
pursuing multiple separate actions.  This procedure will also
significantly decrease the cost of each Plaintiff's suit.  A copy
of the Complaint is attached. [GN]


CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Classes Certification in "Sellars" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CRST Expedited, Inc., filed an appeal from the District
Court's class certification order entered in the lawsuit styled
CATHY SELLARS, CLAUDIA LOPEZ and LESLIE FORTUNE, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00117-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

The District Court has certified two classes:

   a. The Hostile Work Environment Class: All women who were or
      are employed as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc.
      at any time from October 12, 2013 to the present, who have
      been subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex
      as a result of any of the following alleged CRST policies:

      (1) failing to find their complaints were corroborated
          without an eyewitness or admission,

      (2) failing to discipline drivers after complaints were
          corroborated; and

      (3) failure to discipline DMs for failing to promptly
          respond to sexual harassment complaints.

   b. The Retaliation Class: All women who were or are employed
      as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time
      from October 12, 2013 to the present, who have been
      subjected to retaliation based on sex as a result of CRST
      requiring them to exit the truck in response to their
      complaints of sexual harassment.

CRST contends that review is needed because the Order violates the
commonality, preponderance, and superiority requirements of Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Among other things,
CRST argues that the Order is erroneous because the District Court
did not find that the specified issues were common to each member
of each class.

The appellate case is captioned as CATHY SELLARS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, et al. v. CRST
EXPEDITED, INC., Case No. 17-8018, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Tom Newkirk, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN PLC
          515 E. Locust St., Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com

               - and -

          Giselle Schuetz, Esq.
          Rebecca Houlding, Esq.
          Joshua Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & HOULDING, LLP
          1050 Seven Oaks Ln.
          Mamaroneck, NY 10543
          E-mail: giselle@joshuafriedmanesq.com
                  josh@joshuafriedmanesq.com
                  rebecca@joshuafriedmanesq.com

The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Kevin J. Visser, Esq.
          Nicholas Petersen, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
          115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 366-7641
          Facsimile: (319) 366-1917
          E-mail: kvisser@simmonsperrine.com
                  npetersen@simmonsperrine.com

               - and -

          John H. Mathias Jr., Esq.
          James T. Malysiak, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: jmathias@jenner.com
                  jmalysiak@jenner.com


DELTA NATURAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Peoples Natural Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC., GLENN R.
JENNINGS, LINDA K. BREATHITT, JACOB P. CLINE, III, SANDRA C. GRAY,
EDWARD J. HOLMES, MICHAEL J. KISTNER, FRED N. PARKER, RODNEY L.
SHORT, ARTHUR E. WALKER, JR., PEOPLES NATURAL GAS, PNG COMPANIES
LLC, DRAKE MERGER SUB INC., AND STEELRIVER INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
NORTH AMERICA LP, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00194-KKC (E.D.
Ken., April 28, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act in relation to the acquisition of Delta Natural
Gas Company, Inc. by affiliates of Peoples Natural Gas and
SteelRiver Infrastructure Fund North America LP.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Delta will receive $30.50 per share in cash.

The case alleges that the Proxy Statement regarding the merger
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
Delta's financial projections and the financial analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
Advisors, LLC (TPH), in support of its so-called fairness opinion.

Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of TPH.

Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether the
confidentiality agreements entered into between Delta and
prospective bidders contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't
waive" provisions that were or are preventing those counterparties
from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company.

Fourth, while one member of the Board will be retained by the
post-transaction company, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose
the timing and nature of all communications regarding future
directorship and/or employment of Delta's directors and officers,
including who participated in all such communications.

Delta is a natural gas company that distributes or transports
natural gas to approximately 36,000 customers located in central
and southeastern Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall S. Strause, Esq.
     STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
     804 Stone Creek Pkwy, Suite 1
     Louisville, KY 40223
     Phone: (502) 426-1661
     E-mail: rstrause@strauselawgroup.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800


EAST ST. LOUIS, IL: Settles Class Suit Over Police Officers' Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hellman at Madison Record reports that twelve police
officers will receive overtime and back pay wages, as well as
attorneys' fees, in a settlement reached with the East St. Louis
Park District and its police chief Marion Hubbard.

Marquitta McAfee, Draphy Durgins, Jeffrey Waters and Rory Stewart
sued Marion Hubbard and the East. St. Louis Park District in 2016.
They allege that, under the employ of the defendants, they worked
without receiving overtime pay, straight time pay and received
less pay than the federal and state minimum wage.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an additional eight
individuals were also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The East St. Louis Park District police patrol parks including
East St. Louis, Alorton, Centreville and Washington Park. It is
regularly staffed with 15 part-time police officers.

McAfee was awarded USD212.10, Durgins was awarded USD1,235.20,
Stewart was awarded USD5,258.60 and Waters was awarded
USD5,126.03. These amounts include a 2 percent interest rate for
each monthly interval since the lawsuit was filed in May 2016.

Attorneys' fees in the amount of USD27,935.20 were also awarded.

Under an FLSA class-action settlement, the court considers, "(1)
the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation;
(2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of
the proceeding and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the
risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing
damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the
trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a larger
judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund
in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of all the risks of
litigation."

The parties' counsel met several times to come to settlement
before one was reached. The settlement was not reached until time
and payroll records for each plaintiff dating back to 2009 were
received. [GN]


EDWIN GOULD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cruz" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintia Cruz, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Edwin Gould Services for Children And
Families, Oasis Outsourcing VI, Inc., and/or any entities
affiliated with or controlled by Edwin Gould Services for Children
and Families and/or Oasis Outsourcing VI, Inc., Case No.
153684/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours in any given week.

The Defendants operate an adoption agency located at 151 Lawrence
Street, 5th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Files Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SANCHEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT
19 SERVICES, INC, a Nevada corporation; 20 and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-309248 (Cal. Super., County
of Santa Clara, April 28, 2017), sues Defendants for alleged
failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages owed, failure to
provide off-duty meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to
keep accurate records, failure to reimburse all business-related
expenses, failure to pay wages in a timely manner upon separation
of employment, and penalties under the California Labor Code.

The case was also brought under the applicable Wage Orders of the
California Industrial Welfare Commission and the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code.

Defendant is in the business of providing medical examination and
testing services, medical record retrieval, and other services.

Defendants hired Plaintiff to perform medical exams for various
insurance applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 488-6555
     Fax: (213) 488-6554
     E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

        - and -

     William L. Marder, Esq.
     POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
     501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
     Hollister, CA 95023
     Phone: (831) 531-4214
     Fax: (831) 634-0333


EXAR CORPORATION: Marshall Seeks to Enjoin MaxLinear Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD E. MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXAR CORPORATION, RYAN A.
BENTON, GARY MEYERS, BEHROOZ ABDI, IZAK BENCUYA, PIERRE G.
GUILBAULT, BRIAN HILTON, and JEFFREY JACOBOWITZ, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02334 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to enjoin
a proposed transaction unless and/or until Defendants issue
supplemental disclosures to make the recommendation statement not
false and/or misleading.

The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Exar Corporation against the members of Exar's
Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, arising out of their attempt to sell Exar to
MaxLinear, Inc. and its affiliated entity Eagle Acquisition
Corporation.

On March 29, 2017, MaxLinear and the Company announced they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 28, 2017
("Merger Agreement"), by which MaxLinear, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Eagle Acquisition Corporation, would launch a tender
offer to acquire all outstanding shares of Exar in an all-cash
transaction for $13.00 per share in cash (Proposed Transaction).
The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $700 million,
or $472 million net of Exar's cash acquired. MaxLinear and its
affiliate launched the tender offer on April 13, 2017. Unless
extended or terminated earlier, the tender offer is set to expire
on May 11, 2017.

On April 13, 2017, Exar filed a Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation/
Solicitation Statement (Recommendation Statement) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Recommendation Statement
is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it
fails to disclose material information about the financial
projections of the Company used by its financial advisor, Cowen
and Company, LLC, in its financial analysis provided to the Board,
and the conflicts of interest impacting certain members of the
Board and entities affiliated with them. The Recommendation
Statement contains other material omissions that render it
materially misleading, necessitating disclosure of further
information about (i) the process culminating in the execution of
the Merger Agreement; and (ii) material inputs and assumptions
underlying Cowen's financial analysis. Without additional
information, the Recommendation Statement is materially misleading
in violation of federal securities laws.

By unanimously approving the Proposed Transaction and authorizing
the issuance of the Recommendation Statement, the Individual
Defendants participated in the solicitation even though they knew,
or should have known, that the Recommendation Statement was
materially false and/or misleading. The Recommendation Statement
is an essential link in accomplishing, and receiving shareholder
approval for, the Proposed Transaction.

Exar Corporation is an American semiconductor manufacturer. Having
acquired companies such as hifn, in March 2017, MaxLinear Inc.
announced it would buy Exar Corporation for about $661.6 million
cash. Exar is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
          Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291 2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fuller Sues Over Background Check
-------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGETTE FULLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00740-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal., Apr. 24,
2017), seeks to recover statutory and/or actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorney's fees and costs against the Defendant by
failing to establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer
reports it furnished.

The case is a consumer class action brought for a willful
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), against the
Defendant, after Plaintiff obtained a copy of her Experian
consumer report and discovered that Experian inaccurately reported
tax lien information about her.

Experian uses an automated procedure to gather and report tax lien
information in consumer reports. However, it does not follow
similar procedures to gather updated information after the tax
lien has a subsequent disposition i.e., when the lien is satisfied
or withdrawn.  According to the Complaint, Experian's failure to
timely gather subsequent lien dispositions is a violation of 15
U.S.C. section 1681e(b) because Experian has not implemented
reasonable procedures (or any procedures whatsoever) to ensure the
maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer
reports containing this public record information that it
furnished regarding Plaintiff and the class members.

The Plaintiff and each putative class member were the subject of a
consumer report sold to a third party which inaccurately reflected
that one or more of their tax liens was outstanding after it had
already been released or withdrawn.

Experian Information operates as an information services company.
The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and
marketing services. Experian Information Solutions serves clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Rd., Ste. 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273 7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892 3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.,
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


FCA US: Chatom Motor Sues Over EcoDiesel Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------
CHATOM MOTOR COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US, LLC, FIAT
CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V., ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and Robert Bosch
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02263-EMC (S.D. Ala., Apr.
24, 2017), seeks cost, restitution, damages and disgorgement as a
direct result of Defendants' false and misleading representation
and warranties of "EcoDiesel" vehicles.

FCA US is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler. From at
least 2007 to the present, FCA has manufactured and sold cars in
the United States. Many vehicles manufactured by FCA have engines
designed and/or manufactured by Bosch, including the EcoDiesel
versions of vehicles like the Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand
Cherokee.

In an effort to appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers, FCA
markets its "EcoDiesel" line of vehicles as "clean diesel". FCA
advertises that its "EcoDiesel" vehicles have many
environmentally-friendly qualities, including ultra-low emissions,
high fuel efficiency, powerful torque and high towing capacity.
Consumers relied of these representations in deciding whether to
purchase or lease FCA's Eco-Diesel vehicles. Similar dealerships,
including Plaintiff, relied on FCA and Bosch's false
representation in deciding whether to purchase the "EcoDiesel"
line of vehicles or accept the vehicles as trade-ins for their
dealership, as well as whether to sell those vehicles to their
customers. FCA charges a considerable price premium for its
EcoDiesel vehicles. For example, the Manufacturers Suggested
Retail Price for a new 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited with
standard engine is $38,560.

It was recently revealed that rather than designing and
manufacturing the EcoDiesel vehicles as promised, FCA and Bosch
instead devised software that makes the EcoDiesel vehicles appear
to function as advertised while under testing conditions. FCA and
Bosch installed this software on various makes and models under
the "EcoDiesel" brand.

FCA US, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the
Netherlands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq.
          CLAY, MASSEU & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          509 Church Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 1000

               - and -

          Stacey Slaugther, Esq.
          Kaitlyn Johnson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349 8500


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Fiorentino Sues Over Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARYANN FIORENTINO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60801-BB (S.D. Fla., Apr.
24, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other such other and
further relief that the court deems just and proper, pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

This class action arises from Defendant's unlawful scheme to
collect debts in violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, and deceptive
practices. The FDCPA prohibits collectors of consumer debts from,
among other things, using "any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt." A debt collector's collection communication is deceptive or
misleading if, when attempting to collect a time-barred debt, the
debt collector does not inform the consumer that, if the consumer
makes or even just agrees to make, a partial payment on the debt,
it could restart the clock on a long-expired statute of
limitations, in effect bringing a long-dead debt back to life.

The Defendant has a pattern and practice of attempting to collect
consumer debts, which the collector can no longer sue for because
of statute of limitations, without notifying the consumer that
should they accept one of the offered settlement options it will
restart the statute of limitations and substantially affect the
consumer's rights. In fact, Defendant FRS's collection letters
falsely state that the payment options will not affect the
consumer's rights.

Financial Recovery provides debt collection services to consumer
creditors, finance companies, and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Shaw, Esq.
          M. Perez, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989 6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          Consumer Law Organization, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 692 6013
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: Darren@cloorg.com
                  DCard@Consumerlaworg.com


GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
ILIANA AGUILAR, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00876-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 1,
2017), seeks to challenge the actions with regard to attempts by
Defendant to allegedly unlawfully and abusively collect a debt
allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. -- http://www.gmlaw.com/-- is a law
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523

        - and -

     Joeseph Samo, Esq.
     SAMO LAW GROUP
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, #305
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 672-1741
     E-mail: joe@samolaw.com


GREENFIELD CARE: "Clay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Letia Clay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Greenfield Care Center of Gardena, Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No.
BC658806 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and interest thereon for off-the-clock work, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees, and wage penalties, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Greenfield Care Center of Gardena, Inc. operates a nursing home
company that manages and owns at least 15 facilities in California
with more than 700 people in its care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
      MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      Facsimile: (818) 963-5954
      E-mail: ari@mossbollinger.com
              jeremy@mossbollinger.com


GUAM, USA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Guam, Guam Election Commission, Alice M. Taijeron,
Martha C. Ruth, Joseph F. Mesa, Johnny P. Taitano, Joshua F.
Renorio, Donald I. Weakley and Leonardo M. Rapadas filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arnold Davis v. Guam,
et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Guam.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 24,
2017, the Hon. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood granted the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Davis v. Guam, et al.,
Case No. 17-15719, 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 12, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 12, 2017;

   -- Appellants Guam, Guam Election Commission, Joseph F. Mesa,
      Leonardo M. Rapadas, Joshua F. Renorio, Martha C. Ruth,
      Alice M. Taijeron, Johnny P. Taitano and Donald I.
      Weakley's opening brief is due on July 21, 2017;

   -- Appellee Arnold Davis' answering brief is due on August 21,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ARNOLD DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mun Su Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PARK & ASSOCIATES
          P.O. Box 10749
          Tamuning, GU 96931
          Telephone: (671) 647-1200
          Facsimile: (671) 647-1211
          E-mail: lawyerpark@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Michael Rosman, Esq.
          CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
          1233 20th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 833-8400
          Facsimile: (202) 833-8410
          E-mail: rosman@cir-usa.org

Defendants-Appellants GUAM, GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, ALICE M.
TAIJERON, MARTHA C. RUTH, JOSEPH F. MESA, JOHNNY P. TAITANO,
JOSHUA F. RENORIO, DONALD I. WEAKLEY and LEONARDO M. RAPADAS are
represented by:

          Kenneth Orcutt, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          287 W. O'Brien Drive
          Hagatna, GU 98910
          Telephone: (671) 475-3324
          Facsimile: (671) 477-4703
          E-mail: korcutt@guamag.org


HONDA MOTOR: CRV Owners File Suit in Cook County Over Odors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hush, writing for NBCC 5, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed on May 10 in Cook County after local owners of
Honda CRVs complained of falling ill from an odor -- and their
attorney says there could be hundreds of others -- if not more --
who have yet to come forward.

Every time Carol gets in her CRV she says she doesn't know when
she'll smell gasoline.  NBC 5 is not using Carol's last name due
to concern over her privacy.

"You can turn it on and smell it or you can drive for 10 minutes
and smell it," she said.

Her attorney, Alexander Loftus, filed a class action lawsuit
against American Honda Motor Company -- claiming 2015, 2016, and
2017 model CRVs are filling up with a harmful noxious gasoline
odor.

"I was afraid that the car might explode," Carol said.  "What's
going on? Where's the gas? What did I do?"

An odor that carol says has even made her kids sick.

"They've experienced the headaches and sickness from the fumes,"
she said.  "And I don't know how to protect them when I can't even
protect myself."

"They keep selling the car, people keep complaining, they don't do
anything about it," Mr. Loftus told NBC 5.

Mr. Loftus is representing four clients locally but says dozens of
people have contacted him about the issue from around the country.

The lawsuit claims, despite knowing Honda is selling cars that
reek of gasoline, Honda has failed to honor warranties requiring
replacement of defective vehicles.

"We also have some mixed responses from individual dealerships who
try to fix it and they can't figure out how," Mr. Loftus said.
A Honda spokesperson tells NBC 5, once they've seen the complaint,
they'll be in a better position to consider a comment regarding
the allegations.

As for Carol who still drives the CRV, she says she used her life
savings to purchase the vehicle and can't afford a new car.

"This is my only vehicle and I have to rely on this," she said.
Mr. Loftus also pointed us to hundreds of complaints that can be
found on online message boards.

Last year he represented a couple who settled with Honda over the
same issue. [GN]


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Arthur Kaye Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR KAYE IRA FCC AS CUSTODIAN DTD 6-8-00, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS, LTD., DAVID FRACTOR, JOHN S. YU,
ANDREW GENGOS, MANISH SINGH, LAVOS, LLC, LIDINGO HOLDINGS,
LLC, KAMILLA BJORLIN, ANDREW HODGE, BRIAN NICHOLS, and VINCENT
CASSANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03250 (C.D. Cal., May 1,
2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

The case claims that the Defendant made statements that were false
and misleading.  Specifically, that (i) ImmunoCellular retained
Lidingo to publish promotional articles designed to
unlawfully promote the Company and inflate the price of
ImmunoCellular stock; (ii) Defendant was manipulating
ImmunoCellular's stock price through an unlawful paid promotional
campaign; and (iii) Defendant Singh directly, reviewed, edited and
approved promotional articles prior to publication for the purpose
of manipulating ImmunoCellular stock; (iv) ImmunoCellular failed
to disclose that the most likely cause of fluctuations in its
stock price was its own unlawful campaign to pay stock promoters
to pump its stock; and (iv) the promotional articles failed to
disclose that the authors were compensated from ImmunoCellular or
disclose that the articles were part of a paid promotional
campaign.

ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. is a development stage company
that seeks to develop imaging devices with medical diagnostic
applications for the treatment of cancer, such as brain, ovarian
and other solid tumors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAL LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     L.A., CA 90067
     Tell: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     Email: info@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
     Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-759-4600
     Fax: 212-486-2093
     E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
             fqian@wolfpopper.com


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: June 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of ImmunoCellular securities
from May 1, 2012 through December 11, 2013, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ImmunoCellular
investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that that Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
ImmunoCellular retained Lidingo Holdings, LLC to publish
promotional articles designed to unlawfully promote
ImmunoCellular, which led the market to believe that
ImmunoCellular's clinical studies for its product candidate ICT-
107 was going well.  As a result of this scheme, ImmunoCellular's
share price was artificially inflated.  On April 10, 2017, the
Securities and Exchange Commission announced enforcement actions
against ImmunoCellular, as well as other individuals and entities,
for engaging in stock promotion schemes

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 30, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com[GN]


JACK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Dealers' FLSA Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
JIM LAWRY, and RONDA LAWRY (c/o Christopher Wido, Esq., The Spitz
Law Firm, LLC, 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200, Beachwood, Ohio
44122) On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. JACK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (c/o CT Corporation System,
1300 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114) and ROCK OHIO
VENTURES LLC (c/o The Corporation Company, 40600 Ann Arbor Road E,
Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan, 48170) and ROCK VENTURES LLC
c/o The Corporation Company (40600 Ann Arbor Road E, Suite 201,
Plymouth, Michigan, 48170) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00896
(N.D. Ohio, April 28, 2017), alleges that dealers were not paid
for all hours worked, and/or the applicable minimum wage or
overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half times their
respective regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek at any time during three years preceding the filing of
this action.  The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Jim Lawry primarily deals for Poker games for Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chris P. Wido, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 291-4744
     Fax: (216) 291-5744
     Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


JC PENNEY: Settles Shareholders' Class Action For $97.5-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., reached an agreement in principle to
settle the securities class action lawsuit, Alan B. Marcus,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et.al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that statements made by the Company
and its former chief executive and chief financial officers in
August and September 2013 misled investors regarding the Company's
liquidity prior to the announcement of a public stock offering in
September 2013. JCPenney denies the allegations in the lawsuit,
but is entering into this settlement to eliminate the
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation. The USD97.5 million settlement will be funded by
insurance and will have no financial impact to the Company.   The
settlement remains subject to final documentation and approval of
the District Court following notice to class members.

Media Relations:

     Tel: (972) 431-3400
     Email: jcpnews@jcp.com
     Follow at @jcpnews

Investor Relations:

     Tel: (972) 431-5500
     Email: jcpinvestorrelations@jcpenney.com

                     About JC Penney

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., one of the nation's largest apparel
and home furnishings retailers, is on a mission to ensure every
customer's shopping experience is worth her time, money and
effort. Whether shopping jcp.com or visiting one of over 1,000
store locations across the United States and Puerto Rico, she will
discover a broad assortment of products from a leading portfolio
of private, exclusive and national brands.  Supporting this value
proposition is the warrior spirit of over 100,000 JCPenney
associates worldwide, who are focused on the Company's three
strategic priorities of strengthening private brands, becoming a
world-class omnichannel retailer and increasing revenue per
customer. For additional information, please visit jcp.com.[GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ordered to Pay $110MM to Settle Talc Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Borney at USA Today reports that a Missouri jury ordered
health products giant Johnson & Johnson to pay more than USD110
million to a Virginia woman for allegedly failing to disclose the
cancer risk from its baby powder and another product.

Lois Slemp, 62, prevailed in the case after suing the company when
she was diagnosed in 2012 with ovarian cancer. She alleged that
J&J concealed the possibility that talc in its baby powder and
Shower to Shower products can cause cancer.

The case deepens J&J's legal crisis connected to talc. The company
has already lost several similar cases, including verdicts of
USD72 million, USD70 million and USD55 million. And it faces
multiple federal class-action suits in the matter, according to a
Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

After three weeks of testimony in Slemp's case, a 12-person jury
deliberated for 10 hours before delivering the verdict against
J&J.

"They chose to put profits over people, spending millions in
efforts to manipulate scientific and regulatory scrutiny," said
Ted Meadows, a Beasley Allen lawyer representing Stemp and other
similar plaintiffs, in a statement. "I hope this verdict prompts
J&J to acknowledge the facts and help educate the medical
community and the public about the proper use of their products."

J&J, which has repeatedly denied the connection between talc and
cancer and rejected the suggestion that it should have warned
consumers, said in a statement that "we deeply sympathize" with
anyone affected by ovarian cancer.

But the company said it would appeal the verdict, citing a
separate case that it won in March and two other dismissed cases
that "further highlight the lack of credible scientific evidence
behind plaintiffs' allegations."

"We are preparing for additional trials this year and we will
continue to defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder," the
company said in a statement.

J&J's stock barely budged in pre-market trading on May 5, falling
0.1% to USD123.87. The company sold the Shower to Shower brand
several years ago.


KBR INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of KBR,
Inc. securities (KBR) from February 26, 2016 through April 27,
2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for KBR
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the KBR class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1109.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free
at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) KBR's United Kingdom subsidiaries had violated applicable
bribery and corruption laws; and (2) as a result, KBR's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On April 28, 2017, the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud
Office confirmed it is investigating "the activities of KBR's UK
subsidiaries, their officers, employees and agents for suspected
offences of bribery and corruption." On this news, shares of KBR
fell USD1.43 per share or over 9% to close at USD14.05 per share
on April 28, 2017, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1109.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


KBR INC: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against KBR, Inc. ("KBR" or the "Company") and certain
of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and
docketed under 17-cv-01375, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired KBR securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased KBR securities between
February 26, 2016 and April 27, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

KBR provides professional services and technologies across the
asset and program life-cycle within the government services and
hydrocarbons industries worldwide.  The company operates through
three segments: Government Services, Technology & Consulting, and
Engineering & Construction.

Complaint alleges that 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's United Kingdom
("UK") subsidiaries had violated applicable bribery and corruption
laws; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, KBR's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On April 28, 2017, the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office
confirmed that it had opened an investigation into "the activities
of KBR's UK subsidiaries, their officers, employees and agents for
suspected offences of bribery and corruption."

On this news, KBR's share price fell $1.43, or 9.24%, to close at
$14.05 on April 28, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


KOHL: Judge Denies Class Certification on Disability Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports that disability rights
class action brought against Kohl's more than two and a half years
ago is on the shelf after a federal judge in Chicago denied class
certification, saying, because Kohl's store layouts vary from
store to store, plaintiffs would have too difficult of a time
proving the retailer had in place a nationwide policy diminishing
access to people using wheelchairs.

In an opinion issued May 2, U.S. District Judge Ronald A. Guzman
denied the motion for class certification in a complaint that
originated in October 2014 when the Equal Rights Center and six
individual plaintiffs sued Kohl's Corporation, alleging the
retailer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New
York Human Rights Law by designing stores in ways that "prevent
individuals with disabilities from navigating their stores with
the same ease and dignity as customers without disabilities,"
according to the original complaint.

Last year, Guzman rejected an attempt by Kohl's to strike class
allegations and dismiss the suit, which, among other allegations,
said side aisles in the retail chain's 1,100 U.S. stores were too
narrow, its counters too high and its merchandise displays too
difficult for those who need wheelchairs or suffer from other
disabilities to browse through with ease.

But Guzman did allow the retailer to argue the plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate a legally allowable class of plaintiffs exists by
filing an amended complaint satisfying that so-called
"ascertainability" requirement. Kohl's again tried to strike
allegations and dismiss the count alleging ADA violations. Guzman
denied that motion and suspended consideration of the class
certification to allow the parties to negotiate a settlement. When
that proved unsuccessful, Guzman again considered certification.

The plaintiffs proposed the class include anyone who shopped at
any Kohl's in the 12 months prior to the initial filing while
using "wheeled mobility devices" and encountered aisles narrower
than 36 inches.

Guzman's analysis focused on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
primarily the commonality of shopping experience among all people
the class would encompass. He wrote the "plaintiffs acknowledge
that Kohl's written Shopability Standards, 'if enforced, would
most likely have avoided this lawsuit altogether.' Thus,
Plaintiffs challenge not a company-wide policy but daily
individual decisions by relevant Kohl's employees in each
particular store as to how wide aisles would be and where
merchandise racks would be placed."

The complaint, Guzman noted, also is weak in naming only 12
shoppers who reported accessibility issues at 17 stores, and
includes admission that obstructions could differ from store to
store and even by the day a shopper may visit -- insufficient for
demonstrating a nationwide policy intended to cause
discrimination.

Likewise, Guzman wrote the complaint failed to satisfy a
numerosity requirement, saying the nationwide statistics used to
suggest the number of shoppers affected are weakened because
Kohl's doesn't require every store employ an identical layout.

"Simply because a store may have one or more aisles that are less
than 36 inches does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it
was inaccessible to a person using a wheeled mobility device,"
Guzman wrote.

Finally, Guzman took issue with the plaintiffs' request for an
injunction requiring Kohl's to enforce its own corporate policies
and comply with ADA guidelines.

"Such injunctive relief simply directs Kohl's to obey the law,"
Guzman wrote. "These types of injunctions are viewed with caution
given the possibility for overbreadth and vagueness. . . .
Plaintiffs do not indicate how an injunction containing such broad
and non-specific language could be enforced given that the layout
of over 1,100 stores could and do vary on a daily basis."

Kohl's is represented in the case by attorneys from the firm of
Baker & Hostetler LLP, with offices in Chicago and Orlando, Fla.
[GN]


LAKE OSWEGO, OR: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Daley, writing for Portland Tribune, reports that LOHS
softball players' case would include all female students if the
plaintiffs' motion is granted Attorneys in a Title IX case against
the Lake Oswego School District debated the potential class-action
status on May 3 of a federal lawsuit brought by 10 current and
former members of the Lake Oswego High School softball team.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman used the
hearing to clarify key points in the case, but issued no ruling.
The crux of the discussion: whether the Title IX case should
include every female student at LOHS, and whether the plaintiffs
adequately demonstrated that there are systemic inequities between
male and female players.

"I found this discussion to be very helpful," Judge Beckerman
said, adding that she could make a decision on the class-action
status within two months.

If she approves the motion, the lawsuit would apply not only to
the original plaintiffs, but to every female student at the
school.  That would include about 600 students, or 48 percent of
the student body.

The class-action motion, filed in December 2016, was intended to
spotlight a disparity between the total percentage of female
students at the school and the percentage of female students
involved in interscholastic athletics (about 37 percent), said
Andrew Glascock, who is working pro bono as the attorney for the
LOHS softball team and players' families.

Mr. Glascock originally filed the Title IX lawsuit against the
district on April 4, 2016.  The suit states that female softball
players have been denied equal access to the kinds of equipment,
facilities, funding and fundraising opportunities that male
baseball players enjoy.  Title IX is a 1972 law that prohibits
discrimination based on sex "under any education program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance."

Another complaint in the class-action legal documents contends
that "girls' teams have fewer opportunities to play games and
experience the benefits of competition, in comparison to their
male counterparts."  According to the plaintiffs' motion, LOHS had
23 girls' varsity softball competitions in 2016 and 29 boys'
varsity baseball games.

The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages, asking the court
instead to order the district to make improvements to athletic
facilities and make facilities use more equal, Mr. Glascock said.

The district has said it has sought to make such reparations,
including opening up the baseball teams' artificial-turf field and
hitting facility to softball players.

The plaintiffs also are represented by Title IX experts from the
Legal Aid at Work in San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that
works pro-bono cases.  On May 3, Legal Aid attorney Kim Turner
argued that there are systemic inequities in the district,
including fewer levels in each sport for girls than boys. Softball
only has a varsity level, for example, while baseball has varsity,
junior varsity and freshman teams.

"Having been an athlete myself," Ms. Turner said, "the fact that
there is no JV team really deprives the girls of the opportunity
to scrimmage with another team or work out with another team."

Ms. Turner also said that equipment in the LOHS weight room is
geared toward male athletes and that girls' basketball had its
third level cut three years ago, whereas boys' basketball had a
fourth level added recently.  There also are more coaches and more
publicity for male players, she said.

She also said that she had not seen a single example where girls
are treated better than boys in athletics in her entire career.

"It's the inherent conflict," replied Blake Fry, one of the
attorneys for the LOSD.  "It's not what Ms. Turner alleges in her
experiences."

Mr. Fry's arguments included that the legal documents entered by
the plaintiff do not prove widespread inequity.  For example, he
said that there may not have been enough interest to support
additional levels or teams in softball and other sports. He also
said that more specifics proving that there are inequities at all
levels should have been included in legal documents.

"The only specific allegations in the claim that are not related
to softball," Mr. Fry said, "are just not enough on their own to
support a (class-action) claim."

Originally, softball players' complaints included that they have
no enclosed hitting facility and were not allowed to use the boys'
indoor hitting facility.  In addition, the softball team
previously played on a dirt field at Lake Oswego Junior High,
while the baseball team has an artificial-turf field on campus.
The softball facilities lacked a bullpen, pitching area, warm-up
area, batting cages or a way to separate the field to allow
multiple practice stations, the lawsuit said.

After the suit was filed, the school district made improvements to
areas the team identified as unequal: upgrading the indoor batting
facility, adding an outdoor batting facility, putting in a bank of
lockers and installing a flagpole at the softball field.  But Mr.
Glascock said at the time that the changes did not make the
district compliant with Title IX.

Then in January 2017, the LOSD agreed to open the baseball field
and hitting facility at LOHS to female and male athletes from a
variety of sports.  The field, which was previously used by
baseball, lacrosse, cross country, soccer and football players, is
now available to softball as well. The district also replaced the
field's dirt mound with a removable plastic alternative.

Some of the softball team members and their parents attended the
hearing and agreed afterwards that they love their school and that
they support the bond to repairs schools that is slated to appear
on the May 16 ballot.

"There is no reason why we wouldn't want this bond to help the
schools," said Marna Tomita, mom of LOHS player Anna Tomita.  "We
just want equality for our daughters."

Softball player Kelsey Deos' dad, Kelly Deos, added that
participating in this Title IX case and supporting the bond "don't
have to be exclusive."

Contact Lake Oswego Review reporter Jillian Daley at 503-636-1281
ext. 109 or jdaley@lakeoswegoreview.com. [GN]


LEAPFROG: Judge Not Convinced of Investors' Merger Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a
federal judge said on May 3 he "just doesn't see" that toy maker
Leapfrog's board of directors misled investors to push through a
$72 million merger with VTech last year.

"The board could have decided to make the judgment you wanted them
to make, but that's a business decision, not a falsity issue,"
U.S. District Judge William Orrick III told an attorney for a
class of Leapfrog investors.

Lead plaintiff Pete Manger sued Leapfrog and its directors in
March 2016, claiming they used deceptively gloomy financial
projections to push through the $72 million acquisition, for which
shareholders got a "paltry" $1 per share.  The merger was
completed on April 4, 2016.

Class attorney James Wilson Jr. said the board misled investors
about how soon it would face a liquidity crisis and lose its
ability to borrow money, so it could reject a better offer by L&M
Acquisitions, of $1.10 per share.

"The liquidity issue is an illusion," Mr. Wilson said, adding that
Leapfrog paid off $20 million of its credit debt in January 2016.
"Where did that come from if they were struggling?"

But Leapfrog's attorney Mark Foster said market demand for the
company's educational toys was dwindling year after year, and the
company "faced a serious risk of being put out of business" before
the end of 2016.

The company's revenue, cash on hand and assets had fallen by at
least 40 percent each year while its liabilities kept increasing,
Mr. Foster told the judge.

Mr. Foster said there was nothing misleading about the company's
recommendation statement for the merger, which said that Leapfrog
faced a "significant possibility" that it would lack the liquidity
and credit needed to continue operating by the first or second
quarter of 2016.

In an opposition to Leapfrog's motion to dismiss, the shareholders
said the board "misleadingly focused" on the failure of the LeapTV
product, but failed to mention that demand for its Epic tablet
product had exceeded sales projections.

Still, Judge Orrick did not appear persuaded that the board
intentionally misled investors.

"Epic's success, it seems, was not hidden," Judge Orrick said.
"It didn't mean the company's statements were false or misleading.
Liquidity statements about running out of cash by the first
quarter don't seem inconsistent."

After indicating that he would dismiss the shareholders' second
amended complaint, Judge Orrick ended the 20-minute hearing and
said he would issue a ruling soon.

Mr. Wilson is with Faruqi & Faruqi in New York City; Foster with
Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco.

Leapfrog faces a separate class action, filed in January 2015,
accusing it of misleading investors about dwindling prospects for
its children's educational toys, including its Leap TV.

In February, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed some claims
against Leapfrog in that case, but refused to dismiss allegations
based on the company's failure to take a write-off for long-lived
asset impairment in the third quarter of 2014. [GN]


LIVE VENTURES: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, announces that on May 5,
2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Live Ventures
Incorporated between November 7, 2016 and January 6, 2017.  The
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are a Live Ventures investor, and would
like additional information about our investigation and complaint,
please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua
Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at
info@jlclasslaw.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a stock promotion
scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock
through paid promotional advertisements by undisclosed individuals
and companies.  As a result of the stock promotion scheme, the
complaint alleges defendants caused the Company to issue false and
misleading statements in the Company's financial statements
throughout the Class Period, including reporting false earnings
per share.

Investors have 60 days from May 5 to file a motion, with the
court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors
in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the
country.[GN]

Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz & Miller LLP
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email:info@jlclasslaw.com


LOUISIANA: Class Status for Suit vs. Public Defender Board Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Daley at Nola reports that civil rights advocates hoping to
force a rebuild of Louisiana's indigent defense system on May 4
sought class-action status for a lawsuit filed in February against
Gov. John Bel Edwards and the state's Public Defender Board.

The motion for class certification argues that Louisiana has
allowed the system meant to provide constitutionally mandated
legal aid for poor criminal defendants to buckle under excessive
caseloads, inadequate staffing and deficient funding mechanisms.
Supporters said that if the class action request is certified,
rulings in the case would apply to nearly 20,000 indigent
defendants in the state, likely making it the largest indigent-
defense case of its kind.

The motion filed in the 19th Judicial District in East Baton Rouge
Parish cites a new report solicited by the original 13 plaintiffs
from Seattle University law professor Robert Boruchowitz,
described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a national expert
on public defense. His report concludes that Louisiana's public
defender system fails to meet constitutional and professional
standards, "and creates an unacceptable risk that indigent
defendants throughout the state who are charged in non-capital
cases carrying a threat of imprisonment will be denied effective
representation by counsel."

The underlying lawsuit was filed Feb. 6 by attorneys from the
SPLC, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and
attorneys from the law firms Jones Walker of New Orleans and
Davis, Polk & Wardell of New York.

"The report we filed documents what indigent defendants across the
state have long known: Louisiana's public defender system is
broken," Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director of the SPLC, said in
a statement.  "This failure has created a two-tiered justice
system in Louisiana -- one for those with the money for meaningful
representation in court and another for the poor, that simply
churns them through the system without providing them the
meaningful defense required by the constitution.

"Louisiana's public defense system is underfunded, unmonitored,
and wholly inadequate. The failure of the system is a statewide
problem, and it calls for a statewide remedy."

The motion for class certification argues that Louisiana for years
has allowed the system to languish under inadequate funding and
staffing, resulting in excessive caseloads that prevent even the
most dedicated public attorneys from mounting an ethically and
constitutionally sound defense for most clients.

The claims are echoed in the assessment written by Boruchowitz,
who conducted or oversaw law students' visits to nearly 20
Louisiana parishes to research his report. His conclusions were
based on court observations, court documents and interviews with
public defenders and "other criminal justice stakeholders,"
according to SPLC spokeswoman Elizabeth Johnson.

"The local district defenders are limited in what they can do
because of their necessary reliance on inconsistent and erratic
sources of funding," Boruchowitz wrote. "These structural barriers
make it nearly impossible for most defenders to provide effective
representation to most of their clients.

"The situation in Louisiana has grown to be so serious that the
defenders and judges have come to accept routinely and openly a
pattern of practice regarding indigent accused persons that falls
well below what the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct
require and effectively disregards the ethical responsibilities of
both lawyers and judges."

Among the biggest shortcomings Boruchowitz said he found
throughout the state's public defense system were:

   -- Public defenders often do not have timely and confidential
communications with their clients and cannot exercise informed
judgment on the type of investigation needed in their cases.

   -- Many defenders rarely investigate the facts in their cases,
do not conduct motion hearings to the extent that they should, and
rarely have the funds or ability to employ expert witnesses.

   -- Almost none of the state's public defense districts use
social workers, which the professor said "can significantly
improve plea bargaining results and result in better sentences for
the defendants."

Boruchowitz's report also zeroed in on problems he specifically
found in Orleans Parish, which has the largest population and
demand for public defense in the state.

The professor described as "a stunning number" the 1,060 cases
that were refused or waitlisted in 2016 by Orleans Public Defender
Derwyn Bunton's office, which amounted to just over 6 percent of
all its new cases. And while Boruchowitz found that the New
Orleans defenders have a lower average caseload than nearly all
other district defenders in the state, "caseload remains too high,
its turnover rate of staff is too high and it does not have enough
experienced attorneys to match the complexity of the cases it is
assigned."

Citing information provided by Bunton, the report said nine
attorneys left the Orleans Public Defenders office in 2016,
leaving 54 attorneys on staff. The average length of service for
existing attorneys in the office is 4.33 years.

"The loss of so many experienced attorneys coupled with the
relative inexperience of the remaining attorneys makes it quite
difficult to provide counsel for the most serious cases,"
Boruchowitz wrote.

The report, again citing data provided by Bunton, also said that
the average caseload for New Orleans public defenders was
equivalent to 182 felony cases per year for full-time felony
lawyers, which Boruchowitz said "is 21.3 percent higher than
national and other state standards."

Orleans Public Defenders reported winning not guilty verdicts in
23 of 49 felony trials in 2016, an acquittal rate of 46.9 percent.
That was among 4,202 felony cases that were closed last year,
according to the report. [GN]


LYFT INC: Price Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Steven Price filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4,
2017, the District Court gave final approval to a $27 million
settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed
they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could
skirt minimum wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 17-15702, 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 11, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 12, 2017;

   -- Appellant Steven Price's opening brief is due on July 20,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and
      Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 21,
      2017;

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

Objector-Appellant STEVEN PRICE is represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          11845 W.Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail:  mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com


LYFT INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kerry Ann Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case
No. 3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4,
2017, the District Court gave final approval to a $27 million
settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed
they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could
skirt minimum wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 17-15724, 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 11, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 12, 2017;

   -- Appellant Kerry Ann Sweeney's opening brief is due on
      July 20, 2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and
      Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 21,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com


MCDONALDS: Settlement in Wage Class Suit Gets Tentative OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News reports that a federal judge
preliminarily approved a class action settlement between a
McDonald's franchisee and more than 100 current and former
employees for California labor law violations.

The USD235,000 settlement should net each class member roughly
USD150, according to a motion to approve it. All current and
future employees will also be paid overtime premiums, and
franchise owner Bobby Haynes agreed to review payroll records and
pay an additional one hour's wages to each employee for every day
he or she was not allowed meal or rest breaks.

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

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010.

Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment in August 2016,
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg noted that the Haynes
Partnership controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wage-setting
and working conditions, and that McDonald's was not a joint
employer because it did not make direct personnel decisions.
The workers then tried to proceed on an "ostensible agency"
theory, whereby a franchisee can be believed by the employee to be
acting on behalf of the parent company.

But in January, Seeborg denied class certification, finding
insufficient evidence to show a common set of circumstances
classwide. The class has appealed that ruling to the Ninth
Circuit.

Ruling from the bench on May 4, Seeborg said he would approve the
settlement, but denied Haynes' request to keep employees' contact
information away from the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The settlement requires that Haynes turn over a putative class
list.

"The Haynes' position is their business decision to settle is not
carte blanche for plaintiffs' counsel to engage in a fishing
expedition and an attempt to contact Haynes' employees," Haynes
Partnership's attorney Katarzyna Nowak told Seeborg. "Employees
have a right to be left alone free of contact from plaintiffs'
counsel."

Seeborg rejected that, saying he did not believe the plaintiffs'
attorneys would misuse the information. "I'm going to leave the
status quo," he said. [GN]


MDL 2724: FWK Holdings' Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., the
Plaintiff, v. MYLAN INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD, TARO
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and SANDOZ INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00626-RBK-JS (filed by Jan. 30, 2017), was transferred on April
24, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Camden), to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-01847-CMR to the proceeding.

The FWK case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 24, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on
this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Pursuant to
Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached
schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407 to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in the order of
August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not become
effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to the Clerk shall be
stayed seven days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Mylan develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic,
branded generic, and specialty pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Radice
          RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
          34 Sunset Blvd
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (646) 245 8502
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfmn.com

Attorney for Mylan Inc.:

          Arnold B. Calmann, Esq.
          Jakob Benjamin Halpern, Esq.
          Monvan Hu, Esq.
          SAIBER LLC
          One Gateway Center, 1oth Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5311
          Telephone: (973) 622 3333
          Facsimile: (973) 622 3349
          E-mail: abc@saiber.com
                  jbh@saiber.com
                  mhu@saiber.com

Attorneys for Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.:

          David N. Cinotti, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          1270 A Venue of the Americas, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 370 6279
          E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com

Attorneys for Sandoz Inc.:

          Asaad K. Siddiqi, Esq.
          John B. Mccusker, Esq.
          MCCUSKER, ANSELMI,
          ROSEN & CARVELLI, P.C.
          210 Park A Venue, Suite 301
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 635 6300
          Facsimile: (973) 457 0265
          E-mail: asiddiqi@marc.law
                  jmcc@marc-law.com


MDL 2724: "Castillo" Suit v. Teligent et al. Goes to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
TELIGENT, INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, TARO PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Case No.,
1:16-cv-09592-RMB-KMW (Date Filed Dec. 27, 2016) was transferred
on April 24, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Camden), to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01846-CMR to the proceeding.

The Castillo case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 24, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s)
on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in
the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not
become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Teligent manufactures and distributes pharmaceutical products. The
Company offers creams, ointments, injections, and other medical
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park
          220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
          Telephone: 856 482 5222
          Facsimile: 856 482 6980
          E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com

Teligent Inc. is represented by:

          Katelyn O'Reilly, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor
          New Ark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 757 1100
          E-mail: koreilly@thewalshfirm.com


MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Impax et al. Over Drug Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., the Plaintiffs,
v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., SANDOZ, INC., FOUGERA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., AKORN, INC.,
and ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01873-CMR (E.D. Pa., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, to
the maximum extent allowed by the Sherman Act, as a result of
Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy of Lidocaine/Prilocaine.

On January 9, 2017, two executives of a manufacturer of generic
doxycycline pled guilty in federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to criminal price-fixing, thereby confirming the
existence of conspiracies among generic drug manufacturers to fix
prices. In addition, in December 2016, the Attorneys General of 20
states filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut also alleging price fixing of
generic doxycycline. Further 71 generic pricing actions (44 end
payor actions, and 27 direct purchaser actions) have been filed in
the Federal Courts including 38 in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, 26 in the Southern District of New York, five in the
District of New Jersey, and two in the District of Puerto Rico.

This case is brought by Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company
and HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated indirect purchasers of generic
Lidocaine/Prilocaine, to recoup overcharges that resulted from
Defendants' price-fixing conspiracies. The Plaintiffs bring this
action both individually and on behalf of (a) a national
injunctive class of persons or entities in the United States and
its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic
Lidocaine/Prilocaine, products manufactured by any Defendant from
October 1, 2012 to the present, and (b) a damages class of or
entities in the states identified herein, the District of
Columbia and U.S. territories who indirectly purchased, paid
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine, products manufactured by
any Defendant, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 to the
present.

The Defendants engaged in conspiracies to allocate customers, rig
bids and fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic
Lidocaine/Prilocaine. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed Classes paid
artificially inflated prices.

The Louisiana Health case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in
re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.

Impax Laboratories is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing, manufacturing and marketing generic and branded
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Dugan, Esq.
          David S. Scalia, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
          Mekel Smith-Alvarez, Esq.
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648 0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Over Fluocinonide Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., the Plaintiffs,
v. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES , LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.,
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC., and ACTAVIS HOLDCO
U.S., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01874-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, to the maximum extent
allowed by Sherman Act, as a result of Defendants' price-fixing
conspiracy of Fluocinonide.

On January 9, 2017, two executives of a manufacturer of generic
doxycycline pled guilty in federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to criminal price-fixing, thereby confirming the
existence of conspiracies among generic drug manufacturers to fix
prices. In addition, in December 2016, the Attorneys General of 20
states filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut also alleging price fixing of
generic doxycycline. Further 71 generic pricing actions (44 end
payor actions, and 27 direct purchaser actions) have been filed in
the Federal Courts including 38 in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, 26 in the Southern District of New York, five in the
District of New Jersey, and two in the District of Puerto Rico.

This case is brought by Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company
and HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated indirect purchasers of generic Fluocinonide, to
recoup overcharges that resulted from Defendants' price-fixing
conspiracies. The Plaintiffs bring this action both individually
and on behalf of (a) a national injunctive class of persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
the purchase price of generic
Fluocinonide, products manufactured by any Defendant from October
1, 2012 to the present, and (b) a damages class of or entities in
the states identified herein, the District of Columbia and U.S.
territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic
Fluocinonide, products manufactured by any Defendant, other than
for resale, from October 1, 2012 to the present.

The Defendants engaged in conspiracies to allocate customers, rig
bids and fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic
Lidocaine/Prilocaine. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed Classes paid
artificially inflated prices.

The Louisiana Health case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in
re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries is a research-based pharmaceutical
manufacturer publicly listed in the New York Stock Exchange. The
company has more than 180 of its own drugs sold all over the
world, reaching the markets of over 25 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Dugan, Esq.
          David S. Scalia, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
          Mekel Smith-Alvarez, Esq.
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648 0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


MDL 2773: "Kreuzer" Suit V. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Kreuzer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00526 (date
filed March 16, 2017), was transferred on April 25, 2017 from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Southern California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Jose). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:17-cv-02172-LHK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is a purchaser of CDMA- and/or premium LTE cellular
devices, including an Apple iPhone 6, Apple iPad Mini 2, and
Samsung Galaxy S6, each of which contains a baseband processor
(also called a modem chipset), which are semiconductor devices
that enable cellular communications in cellphones and other
products, from January 25, 2013 through the present.

The Plaintiff brought the action against Defendant for Qualcomm's
unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in baseband processors.
Qualcomm has maintained its monopoly by engaging in
anticompetitive, exclusionary conduct, including, without
limitation: (a) failure to license standard-essential patents to
all applicants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
("FRAND") terms; (b) withholding Qualcomm's baseband processors
unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents
on terms imposed by Qualcomm, including excessive and unlawful
royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors'
processors ("no license-no chips"); (c) refusing to license its
cellular standard-essential patents to competitors, in violation
of Qualcomm's FRAND commitments; and (d) entering into exclusive
dealing arrangements, including with Apple Inc., a large and
highly important cellphone manufacturer.

Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class
Members to pay inflated prices for each cellular telephone and
cellular device they purchased and has excluded competitors,
harmed competition, taxed Qualcomm's competitors' baseband
processor sales and reduced competitors' ability to compete and
incentive to innovate.

The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated for injunctive relief and to recover for the
substantial injuries they have suffered as a result of Qualcomm's
violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and
consumer laws and the common law of unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages and all
available remedies to which they are entitled for Qualcomm's
unlawful conduct.

The Kreuzer case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re:
Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April
5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from
allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or
alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its
standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of
baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and
premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on
agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent
portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular
phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the
requirements of various standard setting organizations to license
its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)
terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert
similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve
overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers.
Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK.

Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400 5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400 5832
          Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
                  lindner@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632 4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632 4521
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


MDL 2773: "Rotman" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Allan Rotman, Shari Cole
Phillip James Zacharias, Mary Beth Cummins, Guy Snowdy, Cynthia
Bambini, Grant Hauschild, David Floyd, Kim Coughlin, Brandon
Fuller, Lisa Patnode, and Nina Bartoshevich, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00260
(filed Feb. 9, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02169-LHK
to the proceeding.

The Rotman case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re:
Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April
5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from
allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or
alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its
standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of
baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and
premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on
agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent
portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular
phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the
requirements of various standard setting organizations to license
its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)
terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert
similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve
overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers.
Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK.

Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400 5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400 5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


MDL 2773: "Schwartz" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Schwartz, Suzanne Block
Kevin Calero, Carlo Caringal, Ian Carson, Andre Cruz, Lucas Rangel
Ferreira, Masood Javaherian, David Koplovitz, Brian Letulle,
Deirdre McElhaney, Carmen Minon, Erica Minon, Gabriel Minon, Betsy
Santiago, Javier Santiago, and Peter Yee, the Plaintiffs, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00166
(filed Jan 27, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02166-LHK
to the proceeding.

The Schwartz case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re:
Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April
5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from
allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or
alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its
standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of
baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and
premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on
agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent
portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular
phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the
requirements of various standard setting organizations to license
its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)
terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert
similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve
overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers.
Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK.

Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772 4707
          E-mail lking@kaplanfox.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


MDLIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Action Over Patient Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeny at Fierce Health Care reports that MDLive filed a
motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that claims the
telehealth provider failed to maintain patient privacy, arguing
that users knew their information was being shared with a third
party.

In a motion submitted to a Florida federal judge, MDLive included
the company's privacy policy and its terms of use that allowed the
telehealth provider to share limited user information with third-
party contractors.

MDLive user Joan Richards filed a class-action lawsuit claiming
the company took continuous screenshots during the first 15
minutes of use while patients were entering their medical history.
Richard alleged that information was shared with TestFairy, an
Israel-based company contracted to identify bugs and track user
experience, without the consent of app users. In a statement to
FierceHealthcare, MDLive denied the allegations, adding that it
had confirmed no evidence of a HIPAA breach.

Lawyers for MDLive argued that the claims were baseless, pointing
to specific language within the user agreement that allows the
company to share user information with companies contracted to
improve the app's usability.

"Richards's failure to rely on the actual Terms of Use Contract
available on that site, to which every user must affirmatively
assent in order to gain access to MDLIVE, is ironic and telling,"
the motion stated. "The reason for her avoidance of the contract
is clear: MDLIVE's Terms of Use Contract exposes her lawsuit as
baseless."

MDLive's privacy policy states the company may disclose personal
information provided by users "to contractors, service providers
and other third parties we use to support or business." The motion
for dismissal also included screenshots of MDLive's app
illustrating registration process in which users must agree to the
terms of use before creating an account.

The latest wrinkle in the case underscores the importance of the
language within a privacy policy, an issue that representatives
with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil
Rights and the Federal Trade Commission highlighted during a
recent session at Datapalooza.[GN]


MICHIGAN: State Secretary Sued Over Suspension of Drivers Licenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Steckroth at Click On Detroit reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed May 5 against the Michigan Secretary of State
which claims the state suspended driver's licenses of people who
had safe driving records but couldn't afford to pay traffic fines
or court fees.

The suit was filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a national civil
rights organization, against Ruth Johnson, the Secretary of State.

The two named plaintiffs in the suit are Andrian Fowler and Kitia
Harris, residents of Detroit and mothers of young children, each
stopped for routine traffic violations and unable to afford the
fines. Both mother's live below the poverty line and the state
suspended their driver's licenses.

"Losing a driver's license is an extraordinary punishment that
goes far beyond a fine," said Phil Telfeyan, found and executive
director of Equal Justice Under Law. "It is an attack on a
person's independence, pride, and character. As a nation, we
encourage our citizens to be self-sufficient. To take away
someone's ability to drive simply because they are too poor to pay
a fine is unfair, unjust, and un-American. This lawsuit is the
beginning of the process to end the state's unjust system and
restore driving rights to tens of thousands of residents." [GN]


MINNESOTA: Judge Stays Further Proceedings in Sex Offender Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has stayed
further proceedings in a class-action lawsuit over Minnesota's sex
offender treatment program while lawyers for the offenders ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court finding that the
program is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank declared the program
unconstitutional after phase one of the case in 2015 because only
a handful of offenders had ever won provisional releases. However,
the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed him in January.

In a ruling on May 3, Judge Frank agreed with lawyers who
represent more than 700 offenders in the program that it makes
sense to put further proceedings for addressing the remaining
legal issues on hold for at least 90 days while the Supreme Court
considers whether to hear the case. [GN]


MOISES BAKERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO VALENTIN MUNIZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. MOISES BAKERY OF MIAMI,
INC. a/k/a MOISES BAKERY, JOAQUIN BRAS, JACQUELIN BRAS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21528-UU (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Between June 1, 2014 to September 1 2014, and from July 12, 2015
to April 4, 2017, Plaintiff worked an average of 48 hours a week
for Defendants and was paid an average of $13.54 per hour but was
never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40
hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff claims the
half time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate
whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Moises Bakery is a Venezuelan bakery serving empanadas, arepas and
other savory snacks, plus coffee and sweet pastries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Blair-Chick Suit Over Roundup Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BLAIR and GREGORY CHICK, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-50123
(N.D. Ill., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks damages and equitable and
declaratory relief against Defendant in violating Illinois's
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law,
and Unfair Competition Law.

Monsanto labels its retail Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed and
Grass Killer products (Roundup Garden Products) as targeting an
enzyme that is not found "in people or pets," based on its active
ingredient, glyphosate: "Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in
plants but not in people or pets." However, this claim is false,
misleading, and deceptive, as the enzyme that glyphosate targets
is found in people and pets. The Plaintiffs bring this deceptive
advertising claim on behalf of consumers who purchased the Roundup
Garden Products in Illinois and California, and seek relief,
including refunds to purchasers. Glyphosate, the active ingredient
in Roundup, targets the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
(EPSP) synthase. The beneficial bacteria in our gut (and the gut
of other mammals), on which the immune systems rely, produce, and
utilize EPSP synthase. Thus, the targeted enzyme EPSP synthase is
in people and pets.

According to the Complaint, the false statement regarding
glyphosate and the enzyme is material. There is widespread
controversy and concern around glyphosate and its risks.  The
Complaint says, "Studies indicate that the health of the
beneficial bacteria in our bodies is directly linked to our
general health. Studies also suggest that glyphosate may be
carcinogenic and affect human and animal cardiovascular,
endocrine, nervous, and reproductive systems. As a result of the
false statements and material omissions, Monsanto was able to sell
more Roundup Garden Products and to charge more for the Products
than it otherwise would have been."

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687 8291


MURRAY: Abandons Farmer Payment Clawback, Class Action Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Long, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action
against dairy processor Murray Goulburn has been dropped after the
company agreed to abandon its clawback of money from farmers.

The company announced it would close three factories, drop its
controversial clawback of farmer payments, and borrow money to
artificially keep its milk price higher if required.

ABC News AudioPlayDisable your screen reader before downloading.
Playback starts immediately after pressing enter.  Use space bar
to pause or play, and up and down arrows to control volume.  Use
left arrow to rewind and right arrow to fast forward.

The package was announced as a way for farmers to repay what they
owed when the company suddenly and retrospectively cut prices last
year.

The company will make payments to suppliers who made contributions
under the package.

A Victorian law firm said now the money was being returned to
farmers, it would drop its case against Murray Goulburn, but would
proceed with another against its rival, Fonterra, for doing the
same thing.

Rural towns fear for the future
For the 700 residents of Kiewa-Tangambalanga, losing 135 jobs from
Murray Goulburn's factory closure has sent shockwaves through the
town.

Adley Burstyner principal David Burstyner, who is working with law
firm Harwood Andrews, said the result, albeit good, was late.

"It provides the financial repayment of what most of what the
class action was about. That's good for dairy farmers," he said.

Not all good news
But the lawyer said it was not all good news for dairy farmers.

After Murray Goulburn made its sudden and retrospective cut to
prices on April 27, 2016, many farmers decided to leave and take
their milk to supply another company.

Those farmers will not be repaid money under the decision from
Murray Goulburn.

Mr Burstyner believed the farmers had a case if they wished to
pursue it.

"They are a reasonably smaller percentage of the overall bigger
picture," he said.

"Instead of a $200 million claim, we're now talking about several
million.

"It's a lot smaller and it may be difficult for those farmers for
practical reasons."

Fonterra case continues

Rival dairy processor Fonterra, which made a decision to cut
prices in autumn 2016, is also under legal pressure for a
questionable loan scheme.

Mr Burstyner has Fonterra suppliers on his books who will continue
with a class action up until that company, like Murray Goulburn,
agrees to forgive its loan scheme and repay farmers.

"One of the things Fonterra says is that we paid those higher
prices because we had to match Murray Goulburn," he said.

"There are problems with that answer legally, but that is one of
the things that Fonterra says.

"Now that Murray Goulburn have in effect wound back those
financial dynamics, it will be interesting to see if Fonterra does
the right thing.

"If they don't we will proceed with the class action." [GN]


MURRAY ENERGY: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JETSON MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, THE
AMERICAN COAL COMPANY, INC. and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00444 (S.D. Ill., April 28, 2017), arises out of
Defendants' alleged failure to provide 60-day advanced notice of
the "mass layoff" of nearly hundreds of employees that occurred at
its New Future Mine in Galatia, Illinois on or about April 19,
2017 through April 28, 2017, in violation of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

Murray Energy Corp. is a privately owned coal company in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin P. Green, Esq.
     Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Thomas J. Lech, Esq.
     Kevin P. Green, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
     2227 South State Route 157
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Phone: 618-656-5150
     E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
             tlech@ghalaw.com
             kevin@ghalaw.com


NATIONAL MILK: Consumers Await Refunds from Milk Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Holmes and Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, report that
consumers are still waiting for refunds for a class action lawsuit
they thought would be resolved by now.

It involves allegations of price fixing of dairy products and a
$52 million settlement that was to be paid to consumers who bought
just about any fresh dairy product in Arizona and 15 other states.

The deadline to file was January 31, 2017 and many are asking
'where is the money?'

According to a proposed disbursement schedule in the lawsuit
documents, the plan was for payments to start being deposited on
March 1, 2017.

We contacted Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the law firm that
represents the class to find out what happened.

Managing partner Steve Berman says it's still held up in court. In
a statement he says in part, "we look forward to the court issuing
a final ruling on the settlement soon, after which consumers
will begin receiving payments."

According to court documents, more than 3.5 million people
submitted claims, which "has exceeded original predictions",
administrative website boughtmilk.com says.

Also, instead of the $45 to $70 refund per person, consumers can
expect closer to $6.

Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com is not affiliated with the
case, but says it is not uncommon for delays with a lawsuit this
large.  He notes that any objections would have to be resolved
before anything could be paid out.

No word yet on when that will be, but we'll be watching. [GN]


NELNET INC: Faces "Peterson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. NELNET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01064-NYW (D. Col., April 28, 2017), alleges that Nelnet violated
the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff premium overtime
compensation. Plaintiff claims he is entitled to unpaid overtime
compensation from Nelnet for all hours worked by them in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, and are also entitled to liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was filed on behalf Plaintiff and all current and former
Account Managers and Call Center Representatives of Defendant.

Nelnet is a diverse company that delivers education-related
products and services and student loan asset management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     242 Linden Street
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Phone: (970) 214-0562

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831


NEW YORK: Food Cart Owners Sue NYPD, DOH for Trashing Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony O'Reilly at Queens Chronicle reports that food cart owners
are suing the NYPD and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for
allegedly trashing and illegally throwing away their equipment
after random checks.

According to the federal class-action lawsuit, provided to the
Chronicle last April 4, the city has "a policy of seizing and
destroying street vendors' property without any hearing or other
constitutionally required due process."

The Street Vendor Project at the Urban Justice Center alleges this
practice is unconstitutional.

"We've heard about this for a little while," said attorney Matt
Shapiro. "In these types of cases, the carts are never put through
the system. They're just destroyed and disposed of."

The lawsuit states 86-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant Sanwar Ahmed
-- who sells jhal muri, puffed rice with spices, in Jackson
Heights -- was approached by two police officers and two DOH
inspectors on June 4, 2016. They then took his cart and food items
away in a truck.

Ahmed, according to the lawsuit, is a licensed street food vendor.

He was allegedly unable to recover the cart after it was taken
away and later learned it had been destroyed.

Ahmed is suing along with a Brooklyn street vendor and possibly
more -- Shapiro said the Street Vendor Project is looking for
additional plaintiffs to join the class-action suit. The suit
seeks to have the city change its policy on removing food carts
from the streets and reimburse the defendants.

"If they're going to seize property they have to do it lawfully,"
Shapiro said.

The city Law Department is reviewing the lawsuit.

But Shapiro is looking for the city to take action even further,
asking it to lift the number of permits available for food vendors
-- which has been capped since 1983.

Legislation to do that, stuck in the Committee on Consumer
Affairs, would double the number of legal food vendors from 4,000
now to 8,000 by 2023 -- with 5 percent set aside for veterans and
the disabled.

It has the support of many Queens Council members, but at least
two are against it.

"Not at this particular time," said Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz
(D-Forest Hills). "In my district, there's plenty of food carts on
Continental [Avenue] itself."

Councilman Barry Grodenchik (D-Oakland Gardens) said there is a
surplus along Hillside Avenue and Little Neck Parkway in his
district.

"I first started hearing about this during my campaign," the
councilman said. "I do not support it."

Both were unaware of the lawsuit and had not heard complaints like
the ones raised by the plaintiff.

"I would ask what were they doing that warranted inspection,"
Koslowitz said.

The Council Health Committee discussed a bill drafted by the
councilwoman that would require mobile food vendors to post their
given grade, either A, B or C, received for sanitary inspections.

The councilwoman said the bill is popular among vendors and her
Council colleagues.

"If I saw they had a good grade, maybe I'd stop off and have
something," she said.

Grodenchik is a supporter of his colleague's bill.

"If restaurants have to comply, then why not food vendors?" he
asked.

The DOH told the Health Committee it has "contemplated" letter
grades for street vendors and "agree[s] there should be more
transparency about our mobile food vending inspections." [GN]


NISSAN: Car Owners Await Dashboard Class Acton Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Quesada, writing for WPTV, report that it's been four
months since a Nissan class-action settlement was approved, but
car owners are still waiting for their money.

Two years after Brittany Scardino bought her Nissan Altima, she
started noticing her dashboard was becoming sticky, shiny, and
caused a dangerous glare on her windshield.

"I couldn't see.  I almost hit several people in crosswalks,
crossing in front of me," said Ms. Scardino.

The dash was melting and her Nissan wasn't the only one.
Ms. Scardino found out about a class action lawsuit and started
working with the Gibbs Law Group to file her claim.

She had two options, pay $2,000 up front to repair her car and get
reimbursed when the settlement was issued, or file a claim and
wait for the settlement check to buy a new dash.

"I put it on my credit card thinking I'll get paid in the next few
months, I'll just apply it to my credit card," said
Ms. Scardino.

But that was almost six months ago.  Ms. Scardino is working two
jobs, a teacher during the day and waiting tables at night just to
pay off the dashboard charge.

"My interest rate shot up and now I'm having to pay extra while I
wait," she added.  "It's not pocket change for me."

The class-action lawsuit was approved in January.  Attorneys say
once Nissan provides the funds, car owners will be paid, but the
months go by and Ms. Scardino is worried.

"That I'm not even going to see the money," she added.

WPTV reached a Nissan representative for information on the
settlement.  A representative is expected to reply on April 27.
[GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Dismissal of Panoramic Sunroof Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North
America Inc. on May 2 urged a California federal court to throw
out a proposed class action over panoramic sunroofs that allegedly
shatter due to a defect in the glass, saying in part that its
warranties don't cover the problem.

The U.S. branch of the Japanese automaker is seeking to dismiss an
amended complaint brought by three named plaintiffs who say their
cars' sunroofs shattered for no good reason.  Nissan said on May 2
that the owners can't bring nationwide claims and that claims
involving express and implied warranty, as well as fraud, fail
completely.

The three plaintiffs say that Nissan used tempered glass with
ceramic paint in its sunroofs, as opposed to laminated glass some
other manufacturers use.  Tempered glass allegedly shrinks the
outer layer of glass around the inner layer, making it stronger,
but capable of shattering the whole sheet if the outer layer is
damaged.  The ceramic paint, meanwhile is applied for "aesthetic
and functional purposes," but weakens the outer layer, the owners
said.

But all three have conceded that the sunroofs might weaken over
time and may shatter due to stress caused by flexing and
vibrations occurring during ordinary driving, Nissan said.

Since filing her original complaint, California resident Sherida
Johnson has been joined by two Nissan owners from New Jersey and
New York, and the trio seek to bring claims on behalf of a
nationwide class.  The automaker rejected their ability to do so,
saying that they have no standing to represent car owners from
other states who might have claims under their own states' laws,
nor can California, New Jersey or New York laws be applied across
the board.

Nissan also said that the drivers' express warranty claims fail
because its limited warranty only covers repairs that correct
material or workmanship defects, not design defects.  The drivers'
claim -- that Nissan chose the wrong type of glass and paint for
its panoramic sunroofs -- is a design defect and thus not covered
by warranty, the automaker said.

As for the Nissan owners' implied warranty claims, Nissan said
that Johnson bought her used 2016 Nissan Maxima from CarMax, so
Nissan has no implied warranty obligations to her.  The same goes
for New York plaintiff Subrina Seenarain, who bought her used 2014
Maxima from a dealership, and New Jersey resident Harry
Gunsenhouser, who failed to show that the alleged defect actually
made his 2015 Nissan Rogue unsellable, the company said.

Furthermore, Nissan argued that the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
should all be dismissed, in part because the amended complaint
doesn't identify any misrepresentations made by Nissan itself.
Ms. Johnson specifically doesn't even say she transacted with the
company, it said.

After buying her car and an extended service plan from Car Max --
which Nissan said is not a manufacturer's warranty -- Ms. Johnson
was driving at about 70 miles per hour on a highway on Halloween
when she heard "what sounded like a gunshot."

When she pulled over, she found the sunroof was broken and at
least some glass had fallen into her car, but she needed to get to
work, so she closed the sunroof shade and continued driving. She
took the car to CarMax on her lunch break and was told the damage
could not be fixed.  A Nissan dealer told her something appeared
to have hit the glass and that a repair wouldn't be covered by
warranty.

The dealership replaced the roof and Johnson's car insurance
covered all but $185 of the approximately $1,100 cost. She says
she's afraid the new sunroof will explode, but still drives the
car to work every day, Nissan said.

Similarly, Ms. Seenarain was driving on the highway in September
when she and her passenger heard "a thunderous pop," and pulled
over to find a hole in her sunroof. She took the car to a Nissan
dealer and was told the damage wasn't covered by warranty.

In Mr. Gunsenhouser's case, his wife was driving in June 2016 when
she heard a "very loud popping sound."  She didn't see any damage,
but debris began falling off her roof when she pulled onto the
highway. She pulled over and found that the sunroof had broken. A
Nissan dealer told her it wasn't covered by warranty.

The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on May 3.

Nissan is represented by William R. Sampson -- wsampson@shb.com
-- Amir M. Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- and M. Kevin Underhill
-- kunderhill@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The owners are represented by Crystal Foley --
cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Paul J. Hanly Jr. --
phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- and Mitchell M. Breit --
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC and by
Gregory F. Coleman, Mark E. Silvey, Adam A. Edwards and Lisa A.
White of Greg Coleman Law PC.

The case is Johnson v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., case
number 3:17-cv-00517, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


NOBLE ENERGY: "King" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01279 (S.D. Tex., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Noble Energy,
Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

King and the other drilling consultants like him regularly worked
for Noble in excess of 40 hours each week without overtime
compensation. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
Noble improperly classified King and those similarly situated as
independent contractors, paying a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

Noble is a global oil and gas exploration and production company
operating worldwide and throughout the United States, including in
Texas. In order to provide services to many of its customers,
Noble contracts with certain companies to provide it with
employees to perform the necessary work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  jbresler@mybackwages.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877 8788
          Facsimile: 713-877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in St. Louis Heart Center Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., filed an appeal from a
memorandum & order and judgment both dated March 20, 2017, entered
in its lawsuit styled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00517-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Nomax, Inc., Case No. 17-1794, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on May 23, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. is due on
      May 23, 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]

Plaintiff-Appellant St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Nomax, Inc., is represented by:

          Tina N. Babel, Esq.
          Laura Bailey Brown, Esq.
          Sarah J. Klebolt, Esq.
          David P. Stoeberl, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854-8600
          Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
          E-mail: tnb@carmodymacdonald.com
                  lbb@carmodymacdonald.com
                  sjk@carmodymacdonald.com
                  dps@carmodymacdonald.com


PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Final Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
A final settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice in the class action Cannon v. ParkLane Financial Group
Limited et al. regarding the ParkLane Funds for Canada Gift
Program, which operated from 2005 to 2009. The settlement is a
negotiated resolution of disputed claims, the court has not made
any finding of liability against any of the Defendants in respect
of any of the allegations raised in the class action and the
Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability in connection
with the class action.

Under the terms of the settlement, ParkLane Financial Group
Limited, Trafalgar Associates Limited, Trafalgar Trading Limited
and Estera Services (Bermuda) Limited as the Trustee of the
Bermuda Longtail Trust have paid USD17,500,000 plus interest of
USD164,931.50, and the action against them, as well as all cross-
claims, counterclaims and third party claims have been dismissed,
bringing the class action to an end.

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

A notice of the settlement including an explanation of how to make
a claim will be sent to the last known address for each class
member by mail and email (where known).  [GN]


PCM INC: RM Law Files Shareholders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased PCM
Inc. securities between June 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017, inclusive.

PCM shareholders may, no later than July 3, 2017, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of PCM and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to
sign up online, visit http://www.maniskas.com/case/pcmi

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that (1) En Pointe's financial statements that PCM filed
with the SEC materially overstated the profitability of the
business; and (2) consequently, PCM's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

In April 2015, PCM acquired En Pointe Technologies, Inc. and
publicly filed En Pointe's supposed financial statements. On May
2, 2017, an article published on Seeking Alpha exposed that PCM
has alleged that En Pointe's net income was overstated due to
several accounting shenanigans. Following this news, PCM stock
dropped USD2.05 per share or roughly 8% to close at USD22.30 on
May 2, 2017.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 3,
2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or visit: www.maniskas.com/case/pcmi.
For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website:
www.maniskas.com.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.[GN]

CONTACT:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel No: 484-324-6800
             844-291-9299
     E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


PCM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of PCM Inc. securities (PCMI) from June 17, 2015
through May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PCM investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the PCM class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1116.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

In April 2015, PCM acquired the assets of En Pointe Technologies
Sales, Inc.  According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) En Pointe's financial statements that PCM
filed with the SEC materially overstated the profitability of the
business; and (2) as a result, PCM's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 3, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1116.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Class Over Champix(R) Drug Discontinued
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Morritt, Esq., and Geoffrey Hunnisett, Esq., at Osler Hoskin
& Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
notwithstanding a large settlement of similar litigation in the
United States, the Ontario class proceeding Parker v. Pfizer
Canada Inc. was discontinued without costs on April 20, 2017,
demonstrating the strategic importance of litigation timing.

Background

The class proceeding involved a class of persons who had used the
prescription drug varenicline (sold in Canada by Pfizer Canada
Inc. under the brand name CHAMPIX(R)) as a treatment for nicotine
addiction. The representative plaintiff, Mr. Parker, alleged that
he and other members of the class had experienced neuropsychiatric
adverse events ("NAEs") as a consequence of ingesting CHAMPIX.

The evidence at certification

At the certification motion, the defendants Pfizer Canada Inc. and
Pfizer Inc. argued that Mr. Parker had failed to meet the
admittedly low-burden of showing some basis in fact for his claim.
Justice Perell, however, found that the evidence adduced by Mr.
Parker did establish some basis in fact for the common issues
about a duty to warn, and also found "The contemporaneous or near
contemporaneous neuropsychiatric events experienced by those using
the drug provides some basis in fact to the claim that there was a
failure to warn by the manufacturer of the drug."

For reasons released June 21, 2012, Justice Perell certified
common issues regarding the two corporate defendants' alleged
failure to warn of the risk of NAEs when using CHAMPIX.

American settlement

Shortly thereafter, in February of 2013, a similar claim in the
United States regarding the use of varenicline settled for
USUSD273 million. Fortunately for the defendants in the Ontario
action, the Ontario action did not settle. The parties proceeded
with documentary and oral discovery, and Pfizer Canada Inc.
produced over 60,000 documents.

Awaiting better evidence

Before examinations for discovery had completed, Mr. Parker --
presumably hopeful the results would support his allegations --
decided it was appropriate to put the action on hold pending the
outcome of a large-scale epidemiological clinical study referred
to as the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation
Study (or "EAGLES Study"). The results of the EAGLES Study were
released in April, 2016 (three years following the settlement in
the United States). Disappointingly for Mr. Parker, the study did
not support his allegations. The EAGLES Study showed no
significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events
attributable to varenicline.

Discontinuance

On that basis, Mr. Parker moved to have the action discontinued.
Unsurprisingly, Pfizer Canada consented to a discontinuance
without costs. Acknowledging that, in the face of the EAGLES Study
results, Mr. Parker's prospects of success were "remote", Justice
Perell granted the motion for discontinuance on a without costs
basis.

Conclusion

It is not uncommon for Canadian class action litigation to
progress behind similar litigation in the United States. In this
case, this operated to the benefit of the defendants when
additional scientific evidence relevant to the claims being made
was released before a settlement or other disposition of the
litigation occurred. Because Mr. Parker decided it was appropriate
to await the outcome of the EAGLES Study, the defendants were able
to obtain the results of the study before trial was imminent.
Effectively, the delay allowed the science to catch up with the
litigation, while in the United States the latter was ahead of the
former which drove a settlement.

To the extent that a defendant foresees future study results being
released that could affect findings of liability, this case
demonstrates the strategic importance of any decision affecting
the speed at which the litigation will progress. [GN]


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Suit over Autism Therapy Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
S.W., by and through her parents and guardians, K.C.W. and F.W.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and
derivatively on behalf of the Raytheon Health Benefits Plan, the
Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY; RAYTHEON HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN; AND
WILLIAM M. BULL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10786 (D. Mass.,
May 4, 2017), seeks remedies for Defendants' breach of fiduciary
duty under Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
arising out of their failure to comply with the terms of the Plan
and relevant federal law.

The Plaintiff further seeks to recover the benefits that have been
wrongfully denied to S.W. and the class she seeks to represent. It
also seeks a court order declaring Defendants' exclusions,
limitations, policies and practices related to Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) therapy to treat autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
illegal and void. The lawsuit further seeks an injunction to
prevent any future or ongoing efforts by Defendants to use and
enforce any exclusions, limitations, policies or practices that
impermissibly deny, exclude or limit beneficiaries' access to
medically necessary ABA therapy to treat ASD under the Plan.
Finally, it seeks to require Defendants to provide accurate
information concerning the legally-required coverage of ABA under
the Plan.

S.W. is the two-year-old daughter and dependent of K.C.W. and
F.W., and resides in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. S.W. is a
beneficiary, as defined by the Employment Retirement Security of
Act of 1974 (ERISA), of the Raytheon Health Benefit Plan. S.W.'s
coverage is through F.W.'s employment with Raytheon.

Defendant Raytheon Health Benefit Plan (Plan) is an employee
welfare benefit plan under ERISA. The Plan provides health
benefits for Raytheon employees and their dependents such as
S.W.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Churchill
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3260
          Facsimile: (617) 448 2261
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

              - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ
          SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223 0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223 0246
          E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
                  ehamburger@sylaw.com


RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Schopp" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
George Kenneth Schopp, Plaintiff, v. The Right Choice Heating &
Air, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex., April 28,
2017), was filed on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other
persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf
of Defendant.  The case was brought to enforce the consumer-
privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Right Choice Heating & Air, Inc. provides air conditioning
repair-installation-AC tune up.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092
     Phone: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


ROAD TRAFFIC: Outa Contemplates Traffic Fine Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacaranda FM reports that the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse
(Outa) is compiling a class action and looking at other legal
avenues which will compel the Road Traffic Infringement Agency
(RTIA) and relevant metros to withdraw all unlawfully processed
traffic fines, Outa said on May 6.

"Outa congratulates Fines-4-U and their client Audi Centre
Johannesburg on the win against an appeal by the Road Traffic
Infringement Agency as regards the unlawfulness of the Aarto
[Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act] traffic
fine process applied in Johannesburg and Tshwane," Outa chairman
Wayne Duvenage said.

It was clear to Outa that the traffic infringement authorities had
not applied themselves in accordance with the legal processes and
regulations under the Aarto Act, as required by law, from as far
back as 2008, he said

"As per the judgment issued by [High Court] Judge [Bill] Prinsloo
on 5th May 2017 for this case. . . the public now has every right
to challenge authorities refusing to renew vehicle and drivers'
licences where enforcement orders are in place as a result of
traffic fines illegally issued in Johannesburg and Tshwane.

"This judgment is a win [for] the people and a sure sign that
active citizenry, when applied effectively, holds authorities
accountable for unjust actions," Duvenage said.

"What matters first and foremost is the authorities conduct
themselves within the laws of this country before they expect
citizens to do the same. As a result of the ruling in favour of
the people Outa is compiling a class action and other legal
avenues which will compel the RTIA and relevant metros to withdraw
all unlawfully processed traffic fines.

"This does not suggest Outa supports the idea of unlawful conduct
on our roads; it means the authorities need to take the matter of
law enforcement seriously. Furthermore, it is important the RTIA
shifts its policy of treating traffic enforcement as a revenue
generating tool to one of addressing road safety issues," Duvenage
said. [GN]


ROBINSON NURSING: Class Status of Wrongful Death Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton at Northwest Arkansas reports that a man whose
mother died in one of businessman Michael Morton's nursing homes
won a victory May 4 in the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Andrew Phillips' lawsuit is still pending, but the court upheld
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox's decision that granted
class-action status to the case in all but one area -- negligence.

Phillips filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Robinson Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center LLC in North Little Rock, Central
Arkansas Nursing Centers Inc., Nursing Consultants Inc. and Morton
in 2015 over the death of Dorothy Phillips, who lived in the
nursing home from Aug. 19, 2013, until her death Feb. 22, 2014.

Phillips has alleged understaffing and resulting problems in the
nursing home.

No court has ruled on the lawsuit's allegations. May 4's action
concerned only the class-action issues.

Justice Rhonda Wood was the only justice to join in the entire
opinion as written by Justice Karen Baker. The other five justices
on the court -- Chief Justice Dan Kemp and Justices Courtney
Goodson, Josephine Hart, Robin Wynne and Shawn Womack -- concurred
in part and dissented in part.

Morton spokesman Matt DeCample said in an email that Morton's
attorneys had no comment on the decision because the case is
pending.

Phillips' attorneys did not immediately return phone messages
seeking comment.

Thomas Buchanan, who has represented other plaintiffs suing Morton
nursing homes, called the Supreme Court's ruling "absolutely a
victory" for Phillips.

Buchanan said he had not read the court's majority opinion but
said, "I think it was a big win for them [Phillips and his
attorneys], quite frankly."

In a separate opinion written by Hart and joined by Womack, Hart
said she agreed that the negligence claim should be decertified.
But she disputed the court's findings that other lawsuit claims
were properly certified.

In a third opinion written by Kemp and joined by Goodson and
Wynne, Kemp said he agreed with the majority opinion on all points
except for the negligence claim. He said he believed its class
status also should have been upheld.

But Baker, writing the majority opinion, said, "Negligence
requires an individual analysis of each plaintiff's specific
allegations."

"Even assuming there are questions common to each class member, we
cannot say that these common issues clearly predominate over the
individual issues," Baker wrote.

The court reversed that single part of Fox's multifaceted ruling
and ordered the case back to his court with instructions to
decertify the class solely on the negligence claim.

The high court rejected Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center's arguments that Phillips had failed to prove some
essential elements behind the class-action status on other points.

To certify a class, Baker wrote, the circuit court must determine
that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class,"
Arkansas' Rules of Civil Procedure state.

"Once commonality is determined when deciding whether to certify a
class, the next question is whether common questions of law and
fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members," Baker wrote.

"The commonality requirement is clearly satisfied because ...
Robinson's act of understaffing, independent of any action by
Phillips, establishes a common question relating to the entire
class," Baker said. "Further we find that the predominance
requirement has been satisfied."

Baker noted that the lower court had explained that "the common
overarching issues concern whether appellants have liability for
chronic understaffing under the admission agreement and the
asserted statutes."

After citing case law, Baker wrote, "Accordingly ... as to the
breach of contract, [the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act],
and unjust-enrichment claims, we hold that the circuit court
correctly found that the commonality and predominance requirements
of Rule 23 had been met."

Rule 23 refers to a provision in the Arkansas Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Baker also wrote that "Phillips has focused his allegations
exclusively on claims of understaffing. Therefore, any class
member who has a claim based on an alternate legal theory would be
precluded from bringing such a claim."

Phillips' attorneys had asked Wood to recuse from the case, but
she declined. She ended up siding with Phillips' attorneys on all
class-action issues except for the negligence one.

The attorneys had cited campaign contributions Wood received from
Morton and his businesses and noted that her name had come up in
connection with an investigation involving Morton, lobbyist
Gilbert Baker and ousted Circuit Judge Michael Maggio.

Maggio has pleaded guilty to a federal bribery charge but has
appealed his conviction. Baker and Morton have not been charged
with a crime. Maggio implicated them, though not by name, in his
plea agreement. No one has accused Wood of criminal wrongdoing.
[GN]


SACRAMENTO, CA: Metropolitan Fire Sued over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Valentine, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Case No.
2:17-at-00424 (E.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District provides fire protection and
emergency medical services to all unincorporated areas of
Sacramento County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Ace T. Tate, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
      E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
              istevens@mastagni.com
              atate@mastagni.com


SAMSUNG: Suit Blames Overheated S3 for Pittsburgh House Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Aupperleee at Trib Live reports that a Pittsburgh woman is
suing Samsung, claiming her Galaxy S3 cellphone overheated and
caused a fire at her mother's North Side home.

The fire caused more than USD10,000 in damage, according to the
class-action complaint filed on May 4 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit accuses Samsung of being negligent in its design and
manufacturing of the phone, misrepresenting and omitting
information, and breaching and violating its warranties.

A Samsung spokesperson said the company doesn't comment on pending
litigation.

There have been several reports of Samsung cellphones, including
the Galaxy S3, overheating, catching fire or exploding, causing
injuries and damage. A class-action lawsuit was filed in October
in New Jersey over the Galaxy Note 7, which Samsung stopped
selling and replaced because so many models caught fire.

Aaron Rihn, an attorney with the Downtown firm Robert Peirce &
Associates, which is representing Brittany Jones, said he is
working with a Philadelphia law firm that is handling a similar
case about a different Samsung device.

Jones claims she was charging her cellphone on Dec. 30 in a
bedroom at her mother's house on Chautauqua Street. The phone was
on a bed when it overheated and caused the bed to catch fire. No
one was injured, but the bedroom was damaged and smoke damaged
other portions of the home, Rihn said.

An investigator found a damaged phone and partially burnt charging
cable on the bed and battery of the phone was destroyed, according
to a report form the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The detective
ruled the fire was caused by a malfunctioning battery.

Anyone who purchased a Galaxy S3 and had damages because it
overheated could join the class-action suit if it goes forward.
[GN]


SAMURAI INC: "Mardones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MARDONES, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE SAMURAI, INC., a
Florida for-profit corporation, and THOMAS BALDWIN, an individual,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21543-RNS (S.D. Fla., Apr. 25,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the Complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally forced Plaintiff to participate in an illegal tip-
sharing scheme in which Plaintiff was required to share her tips
with non-tipped employees, such as kitchen workers and prep cooks.
By forcing Plaintiff to share tips with non-tipped employees,
Defendants cannot claim the tip credit and therefore owe Plaintiff
the full minimum wage for each hour worked up to forty hours in a
week. As a direct and proximate result of forcing Plaintiff to
share tips with non-tipped employees, Plaintiff has been damaged
for one or more weeks of work with Defendants.

The Samurai, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
          Miami Florida 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


SANTA ANA: Faces "German" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick German and Brian Peters, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Santa Ana Creek Development Company
and Does 1-100, Case No. BC658731 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
regular and overtime wages, failure to issue accurate itemized
wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due upon separation.

Santa Ana Creek Development Company operates an engineering firm
located at 2288 North Batavia Street, Orange, California 92865.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Malk, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
      180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 203-0016
      Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
      E-mail: MM@MALKLAWFIRM.COM

         - and -

      W. Zev Abramson, Esq.
      Jack J. Gindi, Esq.
      Nissim Levin, Esq.
      ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
      3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 493-6300
      Facsimile: (213) 382-4083
      E-mail: NISSIM@ABRAMSONLABOR.COM


SAVORY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Beck" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER BECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAVORY SANDWICHES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01009 (D. Colo., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an ASM from approximately
2015 through March 2017. Plaintiff worked for Defendant at stores
located in Denver, Lakewood, and Arvada, Colorado.

Consistent with the Defendant's policy, pattern and/or practice,
Plaintiff and Assistant Store Managers regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages. The
Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per workweek.

Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations
under one or more franchise agreements with Jimmy John's
Franchise, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 214 0562
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

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


SBBM GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR GARCIA, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. SBBM GROUP LLC d/b/a BRASSERIE AZUR and JEAN
PHILIPPE BERNARD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21511-DPG (S.D.
Fla., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
recover from the Corporate Defendant unpaid overtime compensation
including actual damages of $39,501.90, liquidated Damages of
$39,501.90, and total Damages of $79,003.80 plus reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from September 2015 to
March 2017. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 78
compensable weeks under the Act, or 78 compensable weeks if we
count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $1,794.00
per week. Prior to the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with
the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendant
agreed that Plaintiff was only going to work 40-50 hours per week.
Therefore, Plaintiff's above-referenced compensation was intended
to pay for only 40-50 hours of work.

The Defendant did not properly pay Plaintiff overtime for hours
that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendant is a chic French-Med eatery with farmhouse feel
serving rotisserie chicken, plus Euro-inspired cocktails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Seeks Review of Order in "Cyphert" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and The Scotts Company
LLC, and Intervenor James Hagedorn filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Laura Cyphert, et al. v. The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in connection
with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of
a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a
defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June
27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California as In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law
claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food
products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending
government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of
millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble damages;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Laura Cyphert, et al. v. The
Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al., Case No. 17-80060, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents LAURA CYPHERT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, MILT CYPHERT, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and DAVID KIRBY are
represented by:

          Jason Forge, Esq.
          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

Intervenor-Petitioner JAMES HAGEDORN is represented by:

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Mark Charles Holscher, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: mark.holscher@kirkland.com

Defendants-Petitioners THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY and THE
SCOTTS COMPANY LLC are represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  cchorba@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 586-7244
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: lachaiten@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          325 John H. McConnell Boulevard
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 281-3655
          Facsimile: (614) 461-4198
          E-mail: mpduffy@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Edward Patrick Swan, Jr., Esq.
          JONES DAY
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92121-3134
          Telephone: (858) 703-3132
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1150
          E-mail: pswan@jonesday.com


SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Arias" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROILANDIS ARIAS and ALEXANDER PETRILLO, For Themselves and
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE,
LLC, GRAEME BAGG, and LANCE SCHNITTMAN, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-
cv-60853-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs are
part of a much larger class of similarly situated current and
former employees of Defendants who worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek and who earned, but did not receive overtime wages as a
result of Defendants' systematic failure to properly calculate and
pay overtime wages to their commissioned health insurance agents.
The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, Selective Healthcare, LLC, is an insurance agency.
Plaintiff, Roilandis Arias, worked for Defendants from June 2014
to August 5, 2016, performing inside sales of health insurance
policies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
     FAIRLAW FIRM
     7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: 305.230.4884
     Fax: 305.230.4844
     E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


SENSAY INC: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Spam Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MEYER, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SENSAY, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03046 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks relief including
injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from sending unsolicited
automated text messages without prior express consent; injunctive
relief enjoining Defendant from sending unsolicited automated text
messages that includes or introduces an advertisement or
constitutes telemarketing without prior express written consent;
and award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for
each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA).

The case challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
automated text messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff
and Class members in violation of the TCPA.

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff received a text message (Text) on
his cellular telephone stating "A friend of yours thinks you can
help people with advice, via texts, on Sensay". The Text was sent
from telephone number 844-423-7761. The Text is an advertisement
of Defendant's services containing automated content impersonal to
Plaintiff. The Defendant sent or transmitted, or had sent or
transmitted on its behalf, the Text to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


SILVERLEAF LAWN: Landscaping Employees File Suit for FLSA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Martinez-Canto and Crisantos Santos On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs vs. Silverleaf Lawn
& Landscaping, Inc. [Registered Agent) Joel I. Krieger Wallace,
Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs (10111 West 87th Street, Overland
Park, KS 66212), Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02252 (D. Kan., April
28, 2017), alleges that Defendant's practices and policies have
resulted in Defendant willfully failing to properly pay straight
time and overtime due owing to Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In addition, Plaintiffs bring this action as class representatives
of Defendant's hourly landscaping employees for Defendant's
failure to pay wages due to Plaintiffs and members of the class in
violation of the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Defendant operates a landscaping business located in Overland
Park, Kansas.  Plaintiff Martinez-Canto was employed as an hourly
landscaping employee of the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
     BRADY & ASSOCIATES
     10985 Cody Street, Ste. 135
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Phone: (913) 696-0925
     Fax: (913) 696-0468
     E-mail: mkistler@mbradylaw.com

        - and -

     Paul H. Mose, Esq.
     MOSE LAW LLC
     3111 Strong Avenue
     Kansas City, KS 66106
     Phone: (913) 432-4484
     Fax: (913) 432-4464
     E-mail: Pablo@moselaw.com


SIMILASAN CORP: Settles Homeopathic Products False Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving Similasan Corp., a distributor of homeopathic products.
The settlement establishes a $700,000 fund and entitles some
consumers who purchased Similasan products to claim a refund or a
payment estimated up to $10 to $30.

On April 12th, 2017, Federal Judge Cynthia A. Bashant
preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between Similasan
and a class representing purchasers of Similasan products.  The
lawsuit claimed that labeling and marketing on Similasan over-the-
counter homeopathic drugs distributed by Similasan Corp. was false
or deceptive.  Similasan stands by its advertising and denies it
did anything wrong.  The Court has not decided which side was
right.  Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case.

A settlement fund of $700,000 is being set up to pay claims to
eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, incentive award
to the named plaintiff, and the notice and claims administration
costs.  Similasan has also agreed to make certain changes to the
manner in which it labels and advertises the Products, and has
also agreed to provide dilution disclaimers on its websites.

Class members, those who purchased certain Similasan homeopathic
drugs in all sizes and package iterations for personal or
household use between February 10, 2008 and April 12, 2017, may be
eligible for payments under the settlement terms and are advised
to carefully read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be
affected whether they act or not.

Class Members may submit a claim form with a declaration that they
purchased a class product that did not provide any relief.
Alternatively, class members may submit a proof of purchase for
each class product purchased.  Claimants without a proof of
purchase are limited to one claim and may receive payments
estimated up to $10 and $30.  Claimants with a valid proof of
purchase may submit a claim for each class product purchased.  The
amount class members actually receive may be higher or lower than
the amount they claim depending on the number of claims received.
To receive money from the settlement, class members must submit a
valid claim form within 30 days of the date the court grants final
approval to the settlement, or by September 7, 2017.  Claims can
be filed online at the class website,
www.SimilasanClassActionSettlement.com.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement,
comment on the settlement, or object to the settlement, must do so
by July 8, 2017.  Class members who do nothing will not receive a
payment and are bound by the Court's decision.

Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them --
are only summarized in this press release.  It is only a summary
of the full class action settlement.  A Detailed Notice describes,
in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself, and
provides other important information.  For more information and to
obtain a Detailed Notice, claim form or other documents, visit
www.SimilasanClassAction.com, call toll-free 1-855-974-6452, or
write to: Similasan Class Action, c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St
#1080, Atlanta, GA 30309. [GN]


SPRINGCO METAL: Faces "Benefield" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BENEFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGCO METAL COATING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00918-DCN (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2017), alleges that
Defendant's practice of improperly rounding time is always in its
favor, which resulted in its employees always losing time worked,
and its practice of docking hours worked in 15-minute increments
for late arrivals, results and has resulted in Defendant's
employees, including Plaintiff being underpaid for overtime hours
worked on a nearly daily basis.  The case challenges policies and
practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

SPRINGCO METAL COATING, INC. -- http://http://www.springco-
coatings.com -- is a metal coating job shop.  The proposed class
is composed of all present and former hourly employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4428
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
             mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


SRM ENTERPRISES: Exotic Dancers Sue for Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that an exotic dancer has
filed a class-action lawsuit against SRM Enterprises LLC, citing
alleged unpaid wages, violation of applicable minimum wage law and
violation of Workers' Compensation acts for failing to pay its
performers a regular hourly rate.

Nafeesa Hill filed a complaint on behalf of similarly situated
employees on April 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that the company, which operates
the Vanity Grand Cabaret club in Southeast Philadelphia, failed to
properly compensate the plaintiff for her work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
damaged from not being paid hourly wages at the legal rate. The
plaintiff holds SRM Enterprises responsible because it allegedly
failed to pay standard compensation to the plaintiff, instead
relying on customer tips.

The plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wages of USD7.25 for every hour
worked, reimbursement, interest, liquidated damages, court costs
and any further relief this court grants. She is represented by
Peter Winebrake, Esq., R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. and Mark J.
Gottesfeld, Esq. of Winebrake & Santillo LLC in Dresher.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-01927-MAK [GN]


STERLING JEWELERS: Settles EEOC's Sex Bias Claims
-------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Sterling Jewelers Inc. has
settled claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that
it discriminated against female employees in pay and promotions,
but the deal will not affect a similar case brought on behalf of
nearly 70,000 women who worked for the company.

The settlement was revealed in a joint filing in federal court in
Buffalo, N.Y., on May 4 by Sterling, a unit of Signet Jewelers
Ltd., and the EEOC.

Akron, Ohio-based Sterling will adopt new anti-discrimination
policies and train managers on how to avoid bias, but it will not
pay any money to settle claims in a 2008 lawsuit by the EEOC that
it engaged in a nationwide practice of paying men more than women
and favoring them for promotions.

Lynn Dennison, Esq. -- lweissberg@swglegal.com -- of  Shapiro
Weissberg & Garin LLP, Signet's chief legal officer, said in a
statement that the company, which denied any wrongdoing, was
pleased to resolve the case.

"Signet has a sound framework of policies and practices designed
to ensure equal opportunity for women and we do not tolerate
discrimination of any kind," she said.

Sterling, which owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of
Jewelery, is also facing class action sex discrimination claims in
a case brought by female employees in private arbitration. [GN]


SUNRISE SENIOR: Judge Gives Initial OK to Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett at Law360 reports that a California federal judge on
May 3 gave initial approval to a USD2.5 million class action
settlement to end a suit that claimed Sunrise Senior Living
Management Inc.'s alleged policy of making employees receive their
final wages through a packet containing an ATM card and blank
checks violated state law.

U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell signed off on a bid for
preliminary approval of a deal to settle a suit brought from Janee
Johnson on behalf of others similarly situated that challenged the
company's alleged practice of forcing workers to get their final
wages through a "pay kit" that contained an ATM card and three
blank checks requiring an authorization number as violating the
California Labor Code.

The judge also conditionally certified a class for settlement
purposes that consisted of anyone who was employed by Sunrise in
California and received the pay kit upon separation between Dec.
31, 2010, and the date of the preliminary settlement approval.

"The court further finds that plaintiff conducted sufficient
investigation and research, and that she was able to reasonably
evaluate her claims for purposes of settlement," the judge wrote
in a short order. "Plaintiff has also provided the court with
enough information about the nature and magnitude of the claims
being settled, as well as the impediments to recovery, to make an
independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which
the parties have agreed."

Johnson filed her suit in December 2014 in Los Angeles Superior
Court alleging that the putative class members didn't receive all
wages due upon termination, that Sunrise Senior Living Management
didn't provide the putative members with a legally sufficient pay
stub upon termination, and that the use of the ATM card pay kit
violated the California Labor Code.

Sunrise Senior Living Management had asserted various defenses,
including that the pay kit wasn't unlawful because the employees
had the choice between the ATM card and the blank checks and
because the workers allegedly could obtain all funds immediately
without incurring any fees, according to court documents.

The company eventually removed the action, but in June 2015 the
case was remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
according to court documents, before eventually landing in federal
court. The court eventually dismissed Johnson's third cause of
action to the extent it alleged claims for penalties under the
California Labor Code, according to court documents.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on May 4.

Johnson is represented by Timothy B. McCaffrey Jr. --
tbm@cmlegal.com -- and Natasha R. Chesler -- nrc@cmlegal.com -- of
Chesler McCaffrey LLP.

Sunrise Senior Living Management is represented by Michele L.
Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Dustin G. May --
dmay@gibsondunn.com -- Jason C. Schwartz --
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- and Anna M. McKenzie --
amckenzie@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Janee Johnson v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc.
et al, case number 2:16-cv-00443, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. [GN]


SUNRUN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Sunrun Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sunrun
stock on the open market from September 16, 2015 through May 2,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sunrun failed to
adequately disclose how many customers canceled contracts after
signing up for Sunrun's home-solar energy system; (2) discovery of
such conduct would subject Sunrun to heightened regulatory
scrutiny and potential civil sanctions; and (3) as a result,
Sunrun's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.  On May 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal
reported that Sunrun was the subject of a SEC probe and according
to a person familiar with the investigation, "[t]he SEC recently
issued a subpoena to Sunrun and interviewed current and former
employees about the adequacy of its disclosures on account
cancellations."  On this news, shares of Sunrun fell USD0.46 per
share or over 8% to close at USD4.75 per share on May 3, 2017,
damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 3, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com


SUNRUN INC: Faces Class Action, July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:RUN) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 17-cv-02537, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sunrun securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sunrun securities between
September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation,
sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy
systems in the United States.  The Company markets and sells its
products through direct channels, partner channels, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing.

Complaint alleges that 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) Sunrun failed to adequately
disclose how many customers canceled contracts after signing up
for the Company's home-solar energy system; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would subject the Company to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential civil sanctions; and (iii) as a
result, Sunrun's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "SEC Probes Solar Companies Over Disclosure of Customer
Cancellations," reporting that the Company was the subject of a
probe initiated by the SEC.  The Wall Street Journal reported
that, according to a person familiar with the investigation,
"[t]he SEC recently issued a subpoena to Sunrun and interviewed
current and former employees about the adequacy of its disclosures
on account cancellations."

On this news, Sunrun's share price fell $0.46, or 8.83%, to close
at 4.75 on May 3, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: "Littlejohn" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA LITTLEJOHN and SAS STEIN, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. SUNSHINE
RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC and SUNSHINE RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC,
together d/b/a IHOP, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60810-BB
(S.D. Fla., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks declaratory relief; overtime
compensation for all overtime work required, suffered, or
permitted by SRP; liquidated and/or other damages and penalties as
permitted by applicable law; benefits recoverable under applicable
law; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

SRP employs exempt-classified Assistant Managers (AMs) and
Managers in Training (MITs) at its restaurants. MITs include all
employees participating in Defendants' management training
program, regardless of the specific position the employee assumed
after training. SRP unlawfully classifies all of its AMs and MITs
as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the
FLSA. SRP has willfully refused to pay AMs and MITs, including
Plaintiffs, required overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

According to its website, SRP operates "over 150 restaurants in
Florida and four restaurants in southern Georgia."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SURFSTITCH: Faces Second Shareholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Sue Mitchell, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that online surf and skate wear retailer SurfStitch is facing its
second class action from shareholders who lost money when its
share price was wiped out by a series of profit downgrades and
ill-advised acquisitions.

Vannin Capital, one of the largest litigation funders in the
world, has engaged Sydney law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan to file a $100 million class action claim against
SurfStitch in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The claim is on behalf of shareholders who saw the value of their
shares plunge 90 per cent, from around $1.85 to 18.5õ between
August 2015 and June 2016, slashing its market value by $500
million.

Last June, Melbourne law firm Gadens said it was considering a
class action on behalf of shareholders who bought shares in
SurfStitch's $83 million initial public offering in December 2014.

SurfStitch shares, issued at $1.00, had fallen to 48õ by May 2016
after the company issued a profit warning.

Gadens said SurfStitch may have breached its continuous disclosure
obligations and failed to keep all shareholders properly informed
after co-founder and former chief executive Justin Cameron
resigned unexpectedly in March 2016, triggering a chain of events
that wiped almost $500 million off the company's market value.

Vannin Capital's director of investments Pip Murphy said on May 3
the class action claim would allege that SurfStitch breached its
disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct, contravening the Corporations Act 2001 and ASX listing
rules, in relation to announcements made to the market concerning
a series of acquisitions.

Vannin said the claim, believed to be the first shareholder class
action under the Supreme Court of Queensland's new class action
rules, would be lodged shortly.

Quinn Emanuel Partner Damian Scattini --
damianscattini@quinnemanuel.com -- alleged that SurfStitch made a
series of "bad deals" for the primary purpose of disguising a
shortfall in revenue.

"When the rug was finally lifted, the market saw what was
underneath and the SurfStitch share price collapsed into that
hole," he said.

Shareholders who bought shares between August 2015 and June 2016
may be entitled to participate in the class action, he said.

SurfStitch shares are now trading around 12.5õ - well below the
20õ a share purportedly offered by digital publisher Kim Sundell's
Coastalcoms Group last year.

SurfStitch sold Garage Entertainment, a company which makes
action-sports films and videos, to Madman Group for a nominal sum
after writing down goodwill by $12.5 million last year.

Garage was one of five over-priced media and content acquisitions
made by Mr Cameron in an attempt to turn SurfStitch into the
Amazon Prime of the action sports world.

Between December 2014, when the company floated, and December
2015, the online retailer outlaid more than $120 million in cash
and shares on five acquisitions, including $24 million for Surf
Hardware International, $21 million for Stab, an online surf
content platform, Magicseaweed and Rollingyouth, a user-generated
surf forecasting network, and $15 million for Garage
Entertainment,

SurfStitch is being sued by Coastalcoms over a failed content deal
and has launched claims and counter claims in the Queensland
courts, alleging Coastalcoms conspired with Mr Cameron to enter
into contracts designed to inflate revenues and profits.

As a result of these contracts, $20.3 million included as revenue
in the first half of 2016 had to be reversed in the full-year
accounts, contributing to SurfStitch's $155 million bottom-line
loss.

Mr Scattini said SurfStitch's legal claim against Coastalcoms
would make it difficult for the company to defend the class
action.

"It makes it difficult for them to say these things didn't
happen," he said.

"I think it's a meritorious case.  Their conduct was pretty
outrageous and the losses are substantial -- that's what the class
action regime is for." [GN]


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between
December 6, 2016 through April 26, 2017 inclusive. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm in advance of the June 30, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Synchronoss made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: that the Company would not be able to meet revenue
guidance provided to investors; that Synchronoss would need to
revise its prior guidance; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. Upon release of this news, shares of
Synchronoss lowered in value materially, which harmed investors
according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.


TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Class Status to Inmates' Hep C Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Boucher at The Tennessean reports that thousands of Tennessee
inmates suffering from a hepatitis C epidemic in state prisons are
one step closer to receiving life-saving medication currently
provided to a select few.

U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw granted class action
status on May 4 to a lawsuit filed by two state inmates against
the Tennessee Department of Correction. That means that every
current or future inmate infected with the potentially deadly
liver disease could be in line to receive better treatment.

The lawsuit, filed by inmates Charles Graham and Russell Davis,
calls on the department to provide medication that can treat
hepatitis C to every infected Tennessee inmate, a move experts
believe would drastically cut down on the spread of the disease
inside and outside of prison but could cost the state hundreds of
millions of dollars.

"Judge Crenshaw's order is the first victory for plaintiffs in
their larger legal battle to ultimately force the Department of
Correction to diagnose and treat inmates suffering from hepatitis
C according to universally accepted minimum medical standards,"
said Karla Campbell, the lead attorney representing the inmates in
the case.

Almost every infected inmate is not receiving treatment

The department fought the class action status, saying by denying
access to the costly but effective medication that they were not
violating constitutional rights to care. They also note that there
is a treatment protocol established by the state, and that in some
cases people with hepatitis C do not require medication in order
to overcome the disease.

But a 2016 investigation from The Tennessean showed the many
shortcomings of the department's policies and the staggering
number of inmates suffering who received no medical treatment. In
April 2016, the investigation found 3,487 inmates suffering from
hepatitis C, while only eight were receiving treatment. As of
November, at least 3,669 inmates suffered from hepatitis C with
seven undergoing the best available treatment. Experts suspect the
real number of infected inmates could be much higher, because the
department doesn't test every inmate entering their facilities.

There are medicines available that can cure almost every patient,
but the regimens can cost USD80,000 or more per person.

The department countered that they were offering treatment because
they were drawing blood. A national expert told The Tennessean
their efforts did not meet standards of treatment.

Crenshaw disagreed with the department's defenses, noting the
arguments didn't apply to a class action determination. The
decision to grant class action status has less to do with the
actual merits of the case, but rather whether there is an argument
that many people in similar situations should be treated together
in the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs are not simply disagreeing with a
doctor's course of treatment for a particular person. They are
attacking TDOC's statewide policies and procedures applicable to
all inmates with hepatitis C," Crenshaw wrote.

Department spokeswoman Alison Randgaard said it would be
inappropriate to comment on the class certification because the
lawsuit is pending.

"The department is committed to providing the community standard
of care to all inmates," Randgaard said.

More money for treatment still up in the air

The ACLU of Tennessee and advocacy organization Disability Rights
Tennessee are also on the inmates' legal team. Both heralded the
judge's decision.

"This class certification reinforces the major impact this case
has on public health in Tennessee as a whole. The vast majority of
Tennesseans in state custody will eventually be released, making
both treatment and a failure to treat a public health issue," said
Disability Rights Tennessee attorney Liz Logsdon in a news
release.

Jeannie Alexander, a former prison chaplain and current leader of
advocacy organization No Exceptions Prison Collective, said the
class action status is another signal that the department needs to
pay more attention to the quality of life for the thousands of men
and women in their care.

"Over and over again, there are issues with health care, there are
issues with conditions brought to the attention of department of
corrections, and brought to the attention of politicians. But when
those cries for help fall on deaf ears, and individuals who have
the power to changes things won't do so, we're going to make sure
they have to provide that health care. That's the bottom line,"
Alexander said.

In late 2016, Department Commissioner Tony Parker asked for USD4
million in additional money to combat hepatitis C. However, Gov.
Bill Haslam only funded half of that request. Lawmakers are still
jockeying to determine final budget figures for next year. [GN]


U.S. STEEL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
purchasers of United States Steel Corporation common stock during
the period between November 1, 2016 and April 25, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Defendants are United States Steel
Corporation, Mario Longhi, and David B. Burritt.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights
or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, U.S. Steel
made materially false and misleading statements regarding its
outlook and expected financial performance.  The complaint alleges
that the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows: (a) While the Company was implementing its Carnegie Way
program, it was focused on cutting costs and was not making
investments necessary to position U.S. Steel so that it could
respond to improved market conditions; (b) Defendants' failure to
invest in improving capital assets during the industry downturn,
in order to report apparent financial improvements, meant that
U.S. Steel had higher production costs than its competitors, even
in the face of improved pricing, which would negatively impact its
financial results; (c) Defendants were forestalling expensive
capital equipment upgrades in order to boost the Company's short-
term financial results at the expense of long-term financial
performance, leaving U.S. Steel in need of accelerated, costly
equipment upgrades that would leave the Company years away from
generating improved financial performance; and (d) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' statements regarding the Company's
outlook and expected financial performance were false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made.  The complaint
alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements and
material omissions, U.S. Steel stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, and that after the above
revelations were revealed to the market, the price of U.S. Steel
stock declined significantly as the artificial inflation was
removed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
U.S. Steel's common stock during the Class Period.

Contact:

         Johnson & Weaver, LLP
         Jim Baker
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         E-mail: jimb@johnsonandweaver.com

                         About Johnson & Weaver

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com.Attorney advertising. Past
results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


UNITED KINGDOM: Government Faces Class Suit on Air Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Laville and Anushka Asthana at The Guardian reports that
lawyers are taking a class action against the government over its
repeated failures to clean up illegal levels of air pollution, the
Guardian can reveal, as ministers publish a long-awaited plan to
reduce diesel emissions.

The unprecedented legal challenge on behalf of asthma sufferers
could see ministers paying out significant compensation for
allowing the nation's air to exceed legal limits for so long.

The government is expected to publish its new air quality plan at
midday on April 5 after key local election results have been
announced, with a targeted diesel scrappage scheme to cut down on
harmful nitrogen dioxide.

The strategy will outline ways that central government can support
local councils to draw up their own plans, with some expected to
be asked to consider charging for the use of polluting vehicles.

However, sources said there was no need for all local authorities
to use charging and insisted there would be a focus on avoiding
anything that might "punish" motorists.

Levels of nitrogen dioxide, primarily from diesel traffic, have
been at illegal levels in almost 90% of urban areas in the UK
since 2010. The government has had a string of humiliating defeats
in the courts over its failure to clean up the nation's air -- the
latest of which when a high court judge said the continued delays
were "a significant threat to public health". He ordered the
publication of the new air quality plan by Tuesday.

Nitrogen dioxide causes 23,500 of the 40,000 premature deaths
caused by air pollution each year, according to the government's
own data. In April last year MPs said air pollution was a public
health emergency.

One move will be to support councils in retro-fitting old buses,
which are highly polluting. There will also be a focus on the way
that traffic lights can be used to reduce emissions around
particular junctions.

The Guardian understands that the document will probably name
about two dozen locations around the country where "active
intervention" is required in order to tackle air pollution
problems,.

The new list will include Manchester and some unexpected places
such as Doncaster, Southend and even the New Forest. Sources said
the areas had not been added because of widespread problems but
because of localised issues, which are limited to a single
junction in some cases.

Theresa May said last month that she was "very conscious" that
motorists had been encouraged to purchase diesel vehicles when
worries were centred on carbon emissions. Some of the biggest
issues are in London where the mayor, Sadiq Khan, will be taking
action.

The legal challenge being brought on behalf of asthma sufferers
could see ministers paying out significant compensation for
allowing the air pollution to exceed legal limits for so long.

Frances Lawson, the barrister who is leading the class action,
said: "We are looking to bring a state liability claim against the
UK government on the basis that it is in breach of an EU directive
and that people have suffered as a result of that breach.

"The fact that the UK is in breach of the air quality directive is
well established. We believe we can show that people in polluted
areas like London are suffering from the symptoms of asthma in
part because of excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air
they are forced to breathe.

"The public has had seven years of excuses from government while
the medical evidence about the health impacts of air pollution
strengthens all the time. The government has not addressed this
issue with the requisite urgency and people are suffering as a
result."

Dr Claire Holman, an expert in air pollution, who has produced a
report to support the class action, said: "I believe there is
good, strong evidence that exposure to nitrogen dioxide, both in
the long and short term, causes adverse health impacts,
particularly on children.

"The evidence is strong that nitrogen dioxide pollution causes
asthma as well as exacerbating the symptoms where asthma is
already present."

The Guardian and Greenpeace revealed last month that more than
2,000 schools and nurseries across the country were within 150
metres of a road where nitrogen dioxide levels exceeded the legal
limit of 40 ug/m3.

Chris Griffiths, professor of primary care and public health at
Bart's and the London School of Medicine, said the research on the
impact of exposure to traffic fumes was pretty consistent,
including include reduced lung growth in children, long-term ill
health and premature death.

In 2015, the supreme court told ministers it must act to tackle
illegal levels of air pollution in the "shortest possible time"
after the environmental group ClientEarth took the government to
court.

ClientEarth took the government back to court last year and a
judge ruled that its plans to create five clean air zones in
cities across the country were so bad they were illegal.

He gave the government until 24 April this year to come up with a
new plan, but ministers attempted to delay publication of the
policy once more until after the general election on 8 June.

Ministers have not denied a leak of the new draft policy which
suggested they would introduce a targeted diesel scrappage system.
But the plans do not appear to include mandating local authorities
to impose pollution taxes on drivers of dirty vehicles --
something which may not satisfy the high court. [GN]


US AIRWAYS: Baggage Fee Class Action Suit Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance reports a federal appeals
court has reinstated a putative class action lawsuit filed by an
airline passenger seeking reimbursement of her baggage fee after
her luggage was not returned to her until the following day.

Hayley Hickcox-Huffman bought a ticket on US Airways to fly from
Colorado Springs, Colorado, to San Luis Obispo, California, in
2009 and checked one bag, paying a USD15 fee, according to April
3's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco in Hayley Hickcox-Huffman v. US Airways Inc.; US Airway
Group Inc.

Her bag did not show up on the baggage carousel and US Airways,
which has since merged with Fort Worth, Texas-based American
Airlines Inc., delivered it the next day.

Ms. Hickcox-Huffman filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in San Jose to get her USD15 back, claiming breach
of contract, among other charges.

The District Court dismissed her case on the basis her claim was
preempted by 1978's Airline Deregulation Act, and Ms. Hickox-
Huffman appealed.

A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel reinstated the case,
holding the deregulation act did not apply. Under the U.S. Supreme
Court's 1995 ruling in American Airlines Inc. v. Wolens, "The
states may not impose their own rules regarding fares, routes, or
services, but may afford relief for breaches of obligations the
airlines voluntarily undertook themselves, even when the
obligations directly relate to fares, routes, and services," the
ruling said.

"Because Hickcox-Huffman's claim is for breach of contract of a
voluntarily assumed contractual undertaking, and she pleads breach
of contract, the claim is not pre-empted by the Airline
Deregulation Act as construed by Wolens," said the panel, in
reinstating the case and remanding it for further proceedings.
[GN]


WARSAW, IN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY SCHOOL
CORPORATION, DAVID HOFFERT, Individually, BRANDON PENROD,
Individually, JAMIE CORSON, Individually, and CHERYL COOK,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00181 (N.D. Ind.,
Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover wages for "hours worked" and
overtime, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, have all worked for
the Defendant at least three years prior to the filing of the
instant action in the capacities of school bus drivers/shuttle
drivers, transporting school children from their respective bus
stops/homes, to school as school-related activities, and returning
them to their respective bus stops/homes.

The Complaint relates that the Plaintiff and his nonexempt
coworkers are required by WCSD agents to "work" prior to driving
the bus to conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections and to
determine the barn vehicle is safe to embark on trips, and cleaned
upon return to the "barn". They are not paid for this "work.
Rather than being paid by a time clock/timesheet, Defendants have
pre-ordained/pre-set amounts of money (wages) the drivers are
paid, regardless of the amount of time they work in a day or week
that they enter on a "Driver Weekly Log Time" sheet. Moreover,
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are "engaged to wait"
for a school activity to begin and end, but are not paid for such
time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Loren K. Allison, Esq.
          1214 Park Ave.
          Fort Wayne, IN 46807
          Telephone: 260.466 5205
          E-mail: info@lkallison.com


WELLS FARGO: Counsel Struggles to Defend Bank Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a federal judge May 4
appeared skeptical of Wells Fargo's claim that its board of
directors was unaware of the scope of the phony accounts scandal
that already has cost the bank more than USD300 million in
penalties for the misconduct.

During a hearing on a motion to dismiss a shareholder class
action, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar appeared to reject arguments
that a December 2013 article in the Los Angeles Times could not
have put the board on notice about the widespread nature of the
bank's bogus accounts scandal.

"I find it very difficult to read this article and conclude the
conduct was geographically limited and not about the unauthorized
opening of accounts," Tigar said.

Wells Fargo attorney Brendan Cullen, Esq. -- cullenb@sullcrom.com
-- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP said one could read the article and
conclude the problem was limited to Los Angeles and Orange
counties, and there was nothing inherently illegal about the
company's practice of encouraging employees to cross-sell multiple
products to customers.

Cullen added that even though former CEO and Chairman of the Board
John Stumpf discussed the L.A. Times article with board members at
a meeting, it is not known exactly what he said there.

Tigar replied: "I'm having trouble imagining Mr. Stumpf telling
the board about the L.A. Times article and saying it's good news."

Wells Fargo is asking the judge to dismiss the class action from
shareholders who claim the board of directors breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to stop a scandal that has cost the bank
more than USD300 million in fines and settlements and potentially
billions more in lost revenue.

Wells Fargo paid USD185 million in September 2016 to settle claims
that its employees opened some 2.1 million unauthorized accounts,
sometimes forging customers' signatures, to meet aggressive sales
quotas.

The bank said it has ended its sales quota program, clawed back
USD75 million from two former top executives, and agreed to pay
another USD32 million for the sham accounts scandal.

The shareholders say the board was put on notice about the scandal
by "numerous red flags," including warnings from employees, prior
litigation, internal reports, investigations by regulators, and
the L.A. Times article of 2013.

But John Cove, Esq. -- jcove@shearman.com -- of Shearman &
Sterling LLO representing the board's independent directors, said
the bank's charter includes an exculpatory clause that protects
its directors from liability unless they are found to have acted
in bad faith or engaged in intentional misconduct.

Because the charter falls under the jurisdiction of the Delaware's
corporation laws, the plaintiffs must allege "a particular factual
allegation," that the board knew of the conduct and did nothing,
Cove said.

"The complaint is absolutely devoid of any inference that they
knew the company wasn't doing anything about it or that the
controls were inadequate," Cove told the judge.

Representing the shareholders, Richard Heimann, Esq. of  Lieff
Caresser Heimann & Bernstein said the board had been on notice for
years about its employees' illegal conduct, stemming from the
bank's very public strategy to maximize profits.

"It comes down to whether the totality of circumstances give rise
to a reasonable inference that the board would have been made
aware," Heimann said.

The class attorney pointed out that the 2013 Times article
detailing how the bank's sales quotas pushed employees to break
the law was based on interviews with seven employees and 28 former
employees, from nine states.

Heimann said "no reasonable board member" could have believed the
problem was limited to Southern California, or that adequate
controls were in place, given the revelations in that article, a
steady stream of lawsuits, regulatory investigations and internal
complaints from employees.

After about an hour of debate, Tigar took the arguments under
submission.

Cullen is with Sullivan & Cromwell in Palo Alto; Cove with
Shearman & Sterling; and Heimann with Lieff Caresser Heimann &
Bernstein, both of San Francisco.

In the September 2016 class action, lead plaintiff Victoria Shave
claimed the bank lost USD19 billion in stock value within eight
days of Sept. 8, 2016, when it paid USD185 million to settle
claims of misconduct.

A consulting firm concluded in October that the bank could lose
USD212 billion in deposits and USD8 billion in revenue over the
next 18 months because of the scandal, according to Forbes.

Wells Fargo announced in March that it had opened 42 percent fewer
checking accounts and had 55 percent fewer credit-card
applications in February this year, compared to February 2016.
[GN]


WESCO AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "White" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khayyam White, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. WESCO Aircraft Hardware Corp.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC658654 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 21, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay hourly-paid and non-exempt employees for all hours
worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks.

WESCO Aircraft Hardware Corp. distributes aerospace products and
provides supply chain management services to the aerospace
industry globally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


Y&D MEAT: Faces "Zepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose T. Zepeda and Heber J. Zepeda, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated v. David Oberman, Yossi "Doe," Shlomo
"Doe," and Y&D Meat Corporation d/b/a Y&D Meat, Case No.
507766/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the New York Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a butcher shop located at 5314 16th
Avenue, Ste. 140 Brooklyn, New York 11204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
      Thomas H. Andrykovitz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
      501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-8999
      Facsimile: (212) 949-5085


* CBA President & CEO Comments on Senate Bill 33
------------------------------------------------
Simone Lagomarsino, president & CEO of the California Bankers
Association, in an article for Sacramento Bee, says that
an editorial in the Bee, "Wells Fargo needs to back bill to allow
suits" (April 24), was strongly supportive of Senate Bill 33, a
measure that seeks to promote class action lawsuits where trial
attorneys, not consumers, are the winners.

SB 33 is not a narrowly tailored proposal. Instead, it applies to
"financial institutions," a term so broadly defined to include any
business that engages in financial activities, including
insurance, and which is why more than 30 wide-ranging business
trade associations strongly oppose this measure.

Under this bill, arbitration would be prohibited not only if a
relationship with a consumer was created fraudulently, but also if
the relationship was created by unlawfully using the consumer's
personal identifying information.

Ms. Lagomarsino says "We believe that this measure will prompt a
wide range of claims used to defeat otherwise valid arbitration
agreements.  We continue to believe that arbitration is a better
alternative to class action litigation that enriches trial
attorneys and ultimately fails to benefit the consumer."

The Bee also noted that this bill was even more important given
that President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order
that "stepped toward dismantling" the Dodd-Frank Act.  In fact the
order merely requested that the Treasury Department review the
Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority and its process for
designating nonbanks as systemically important financial
institutions.

"Our association is on record advocating for meaningful reform,
not repeal, of Dodd-Frank, so that our community banks aren't
crushed by a one-size-fits-all regulatory system.  Dodd-Frank has
resulted in more than 20,000 pages of new regulations -- why
shouldn't we pause to ensure they are having the intended impact
and not negatively impacting our banking community's ability to
serve and meet the needs of their local businesses and
communities?" Ms. Lagomarsino says.

"Banks are the pillars of our communities.  We support more than
$130 billion of California's economic output, employ hundreds of
thousands of Californians and contribute more than $100 million to
charities annually. We understand the need for and can support
legislation that provides actual needed consumer protection -- but
not legislation that only purports to do so." [GN]


* Class Action Securities Litigation Hits New High in Q1 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance reports that the heighted
pace of f
ederal securities class action litigation reported for 2016
continued during this year's first quarter, says a survey issued
on May 4.

Plaintiffs filed a record 127 federal class action securities
cases during the first quarter, which was almost twice the 64
filed in 2016's first quarter, according to a report issued by
Boston-based Cornerstone Research and Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in Stanford, California.

They previously reported a record 270 filings in 2016.

The report said all industry sectors showed markedly increased
activity. Litigation activity, though, has been particularly
notable in the biotech, pharmaceuticals and health care sectors,
increasing to 36 in the first quarter of 2017 compared with 15
during 2016's first quarter, according to the report. [GN]


* "Class Action" Mulled Against Conveyancing Solicitors
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Clover, Esq. -- sarah.clover@clydeco.com -- Tony Nurse-
Marsh, Esq. -- tony.nurse-marsh@clydeco.com -- and Philip Evans,
Esq. -- philip.evans@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that recent press, television and
radio coverage has raised the potential for litigation against
conveyancing solicitors for allegedly failing properly to advise
large numbers of clients about onerous ground rent clauses
contained in leasehold contracts.  The leases in question are said
to relate to new build properties sold since 2007 with high ground
rents which can double every 10 or 25 years, or are linked to the
rate of inflation.  These expensive ground rent clauses are also
said to render the properties difficult to sell.  Leasehold Law,
an ABS, is understood to be seeking to sign up potential claimants
for 'group litigation' against the conveyancing solicitors
involved, with one report alleging that solicitors' liability
could exceed GBP500 million.  However, it is currently unclear
what stage the potential claimants are at and how such claims, or
litigation, would be funded.  This is also not a new issue, or the
first time that concerns about onerous ground rents have been
raised in the legal, housing and parliamentary sphere. In recent
years, there has been criticism of a number of major developers,
one of which has apparently made a considerable provision in its
accounts to compensate customers.

Prospects of the Court granting a Group Litigation Order ("GLO")

The procedural rules for group litigation are covered by Part 19
of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Group litigation proceedings,
in contrast to the US "class action" procedure, must be brought on
an opt-in basis, so claimants must actively choose to take part
should they wish to receive a share of any damages recovered.

The Court has discretion whether to grant a GLO and would only do
so to provide for the effective case management of claims which
give rise to "common or related issues of fact or law" (CPR
19.10).  Accordingly, until the facts and details of the claims
and parties are known there is no certainty that litigation would
proceed under a GLO, assuming that the Professional Negligence
Pre-Action Protocol did not resolve the issues first.  It is also
noteworthy that claimants or defendants may apply to the Court for
a GLO, or the Court may make an order of its own initiative.

Alternatives to a GLO

In the case of Hobson v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors [2006] EWHC
1134 (Admin), the Court dismissed the claimants' application for a
GLO on the basis that insufficient consideration had been given to
pursuing a more cost efficient means of resolving the dispute,
such as a 'test case' or 'consolidation' (which is also predicated
on effective case management with claimants being permitted to use
a single claim form to start all claims).  It had not been
demonstrated that either method was inappropriate or inaccessible
and no group litigation issue had been sufficiently or precisely
identified.

More recently, Schmitt v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 638
(QB) (21 March 2016), was a product liability case involving a
number of claims against the same manufacturer.  Even though it
was accepted that there were common or related issues of fact and
law and a large enough group of claimants, the Court still
concluded that it would be more appropriate to have a test case or
for the claims to be consolidated.

Challenges and benefits of GLOs or other "group action"

Clearly the prospect of any type of group litigation, or claims,
involving common facts, parties or practice can present unique
challenges for solicitors and their insurers.  Depending on the
case, these can include issues of notification, aggregation and
the coordination of claims amongst multiple or individual
insureds.

From our experience of advising on the defence of multiple claims,
the likelihood of publicity is invariably a consequence, but
effective case management through a GLO, or other group litigation
procedure, can be beneficial for defendants and insurers,
particularly in relation to coordination, outcomes and issues of
costs.

Defendants therefore have an opportunity to be proactive, at an
early stage in the dispute resolution process, which could enable
large numbers of claims to be dealt with far more efficiently.

What next?

Many claimant law firms or alternative business structures
periodically seek to bring large numbers of very similar claims,
arising from similar facts, where the alleged negligence arises
from a common or repeated error.  Whether such claims are of
sufficient merit to overcome initial scrutiny and justify the
pursuit of formal group litigation is always uncertain, with some
potential actions falling at the first hurdle, and others being
dismissed much later at great financial cost, even if a primary
risk of a finding of, for example, breach of duty can be
identified. Claimants must establish all of the elements of their
cause of action in order to recover damages and as a result many
test or lead cases fail.

In relation to the recently reported matters, many of the
potential claims may now be statute barred given the passage of
almost a decade in some cases. Others may turn on the extent of
the advice received, which parties were involved and whether the
purchasers would always have gone ahead anyway, even before
questions of actual loss come into play.

In the immediate term, affected firms may have to deal with
requests by former clients, or claims companies, for the release
of files and will need to consider the nature of those requests
carefully and how best to respond to them. Something more nuanced
than a bland rejection of the request, or the wholesale provision
of the file, is likely to be necessary and more prudent.

We are therefore continuing to monitor developments in this area
and will provide further updates in due course. [GN]


* Ethan Preston Speaks Up Against Potential Damage of Bill 985
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
veteran attorney Ethan Preston knows the world of class actions
very well.  He's successfully represented thousands of people in
consumer and small class action lawsuits as a Texas attorney
through his firm Ethan Preston Law, where much of his focus is on
consumer technology and consumer privacy cases.

He now feels compelled to stand up for the rights of consumers in
a slightly different way.  He is speaking out against the
potential damage the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of
2017 could do to consumer rights.

Sometimes referred to as Bill 985, it made its way through
Congress on March 8, 2017 and is now awaiting consideration by the
Judiciary Committee in Senate.

"This bill shouldn't pass if you think that class actions and
consumer litigation generally add any value to society," says
Preston.

Many trial attorneys, including Ethan Preston, believe class
actions exist to ensure that consumers can aggregate their
complaints in a broad based, meaningful way in a format that can
hold big companies and corporate entities to account when
necessary Mr. Preston, and others including the Centre for Public
Justice, warn that should Bill 985 be signed into law it could
dramatically change class action and change it in a way that is
decidedly not friendly to consumers.

"Bill 985 reads a lot like a wish list from the US Chamber of
Commerce.  From my perspective one of the biggest problems is
section 1716 that basically says that you can only certify a class
where all the members of the class have suffered the same type and
scope of injuries," says Mr. Preston.

That might not sound that bad but if you're a lawyer you realize
just how limiting that could be.

"In a stock fraud case that language suggests that everyone has to
have the same damages," says Mr. Preston.  "You might have to
separate classes based, perhaps, on the number of shares an
individual held. It becomes obviously unworkable."

"In a consumer fraud situation it could mean, did you buy one
bottle of fake peanut oil or did you buy two bottles?" says
Mr. Preston.  "It would prevent, from my perspective, any type of
class certification from going forward except in extraordinarily,
excruciatingly narrow situations."

Bill 985 also seeks to have a class action member essentially
prove that they are eligible to be part of the class action. That,
argues, Ethan Preston, would require a lot of procedural work that
would allow corporations to evade responsibility for their
actions.

For example, sometimes class actions are used to take on debt
collectors that use illegal ways to collect money such as
harassing people with late night phone calls.

The Fair Debt Collection Act only covers people who borrowed money
for personal use and not business use.  If a class action was
launched against an unfair debt collector under the new proposed
bill people would have to first prove the money they owed was
borrowed for personal use.

"One of the arguments that debt collectors like to make is that
they 'don't keep records as to what is personal use and what is
not.  They put them all together and we collect them all the same
way'.

"You would be unable to determine which is a personal debt without
going to each member of the class and asking them whether the debt
incurred was business or personal.  You would never be able to
certify a Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCP) class action suit
again because the debt collectors would throw out all the records
identifying which is a personal debt or a business debt," says Mr.
Preston.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation had its origin with
lawmakers who argued that lawyers were unfairly profiting from
class action suits while leaving little in the way of compensation
leftover for the members of the class.

Mr. Preston argues that just isn't true and the real intention of
the Fairness in Class Actions Law 2017 is to prevent consumers
from taking companies to court at all.

Bill 985 is also trying to curtail the ability of class action
suits to shift the burden of legal costs to the defendant. This is
particularly important when the amount of money owed to the
consumers is small.  If the suit involved, for example, consumers
being paid $10 for every harassing phone by debt collector the
actual amount the total compensation per consumer would be tiny.
The real deterrent is asking the courts to make the bad debt
collector pay the attorney fees.

"There are a number of consumer protection statutes that would be
affected.  These cases would no longer go forward as class actions
because attorneys can't get paid. No one would take the case,"
says Preston.

Bill 985 is being widely condemned by trial attorneys across the
country.  Although a previous version was brought forward several
years ago and failed, attorneys for consumers and attorneys
involved in class action suits believe that because the House and
the Senate are now controlled by Republicans it may be possible
for the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Bill 2017 to become
law this time around and have a serious impact on consumer rights.

Mr. Preston urges consumers to call their Senator and tell them to
vote no! Their consumer's rights are on the line. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Dugger" Denied
----------------------------------------------
In this products liability case captioned JOHN C. DUGGER, JR., as
Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN C. DUGGER, SR., et
al. v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor in interest
to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Civil No. CCB-16-3912 (D. Md.),
the estate of John C. Dugger and others have sued various
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products and
insurer Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
on October 26, 2016.  On December 7, 2016, one defendant -- Crane
Co. -- removed the case to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.  The plaintiffs moved to remand the case
to state court on January 6, 2017.  Crane Co. responded, and the
plaintiffs replied.  No oral argument is necessary.

Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs' motion for remand.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 5, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/UZAsid from Leagle.com.

John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos.

John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Garland,
Law Offices of Peter Angelos.

Melody Natishin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

Dana Buzgierski, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

Rana Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

Matthew Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

Julia Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of
Peter Angelos.

To The Use of Sandra Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland,
Law Offices of Peter Angelos.

To The Use of Sandra Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland,
Law Offices of Peter Angelos.

John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leianne S.
McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

E.L. Stebbing & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E.
Grenzer, Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- Bodie, Dolina,
Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Hampshire Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by David W.
Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Richard
Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker & Helyna M.
Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP.

J.H. France Refractories Co., Defendant, represented by:

     Laura D. Abenes, Esq.
     GAVETT, DATT BARISH PC
     Metro Executive Park I
     15850 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 330
     Rockville, MD 20855-2675
     Tel: 301-948-1177
     Fax: 301-948-4334

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Theodore F. Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com -- Venable LLP
& Scott Mason Richmond, Esq. -- srichmond@Venable.com -- Venable
LLP.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David J.
Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura A.
Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Cooper Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay
and Elliston LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant,
represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason
Richmond, Venable LLP.

Crown, Cork and Seal Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Theodore
F. Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robin Silver,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Greene, Tweed & Co., Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell,
Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

Phelps Packing and Rubber Co., Defendant, represented by William
Carlos Parler, Jr., Parler and Wobber LLP.

Paramount Packing & Rubber, Inc, Defendant, represented by Laura
D. Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Tate Engineering Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank F.
Daily, III, Law Offices of Frank F. Daily PA.

Keeler/Door-Oliver Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Laura
D. Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Weil-McLain, Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg
Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC & Thomas L. Doran, DeCaro Doran
Siciliano Gallagher and DeBlasis LLP.

Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto,
DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Riley Power, Inc, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto,
DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael L. Haslup,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Jermaine Derville Haughton, Miles &
Stockbridge P.C..

Superior Boiler Works, Defendant, represented by Robin Silver,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A. Schofield, MacDonald Law
Group, LLC.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew R.
Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by John C. Ruff,
DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Dale
Klein, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela
Thomas Broache, Goldberg Segalla.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Vincent J.
Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and
Elliston LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle
Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Friction Materials Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph
MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Holman Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, represented by
Robert Dale Klein, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA.

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell,
Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Defendant, represented by Douglas
B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Johanna Gibbon, Troutman Sanders LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Siobhan R.
Keenan, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA.

Standard Motor Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Johanna Gibbon, Troutman Sanders LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Warren N. Weaver,
Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Michelle Noorani, Whiteford
Taylor and Preston LLP.

Carlisle Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J.
Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC.

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Michael Thomas Wharton, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA.

Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas Wharton,
Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA.

Kelsey-Hayes Co., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Mack Truck, Defendant, represented by Eric Michael Leppo, Semmes
Bowen and Semmes PC.

Paccar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell,
Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by F.
Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Carver Pump Co., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles
and Stockbridge PC.

Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven
Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay
and Elliston LLP.

The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Howden Buffalo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Siobhan R. Keenan,
Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA.

M.T. Davidson Co., Defendant, represented by Scott Hamilton
Phillips, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC.

Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Viking Pump, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

BW/IP International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J.
McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg
Segalla.

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier,
Goldberg Segalla.

Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, represented by Gerry H. Tostanoski,
Tydings and Rosenberg LLP.

Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Jerguson Gage & Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Robin
Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Anthony B. Taddeo,
TaddeoSturm PLC & Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs,
Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Jermaine Derville Haughton,
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. & Michael L. Haslup, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston
LLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by
F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Deposition Denied in "Moore"
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, ordered that Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Take Such
Deposition will be denied without prejudice in the case captioned
HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR., and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16 CV 157 (W.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for
Protective Order From the Second Videotaped Deposition of Howard
Milton Moore and Request for Leave to take such Deposition.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 8, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/ItNihY from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black,
Ward Black, P.A..

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Live Trial Testimony in "Evans"
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.
JEANNE EVANS, as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK EVANS JR.
and JEANNE EVANS, As Spouse Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190109/2015, Motion Seq. No. 021 (N.Y.
Sup.), Defendant Crane Co. moves for an Order to Show Cause for an
order quashing the trial subpoena of Defendant Burnham, LLC,
pursuant to CPLR Section 2304 and CPLR Section 3101(a)(4).  Crane
also seeks a protective order barring enforcement of the subpoena
pursuant to CPLR Section 3103.  Crane was dismissed from the case
on April 5, 2017.  Subsequently, a trial subpoena was served on
counsel for Crane via personal service on or about April 12, 2017.
The Trial Subpoena requests that Crane produce a person most
knowledgeable to appear for trial, submit live testimony, and
produce numerous voluminous documents, including Crane Co.'s
historical sales records and catalogs, interrogatory responses,
and several other items.  Crane requests that the court quash
Burnham's subpoena and order that Burnham may take no live trial
testimony in this action from any Crane representative.

The Supreme Court, New York County, ordered that Crane's
application is granted and that Burnham may not take live trial
testimony in this action from Crane.

A full-text copy of the Decision & Order dated May 4, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/asN5eu from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Remands Suit vs. Welco for New Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Ronnie Startley filed a complaint against Welco
Manufacturing Company, claiming that asbestos from Welco's
products caused Ronnie to contract mesothelioma.  The trial court
directed a verdict in favor of Welco, because no witness could
specify how often Ronnie used Welco's products in his work.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division,
found the evidence sufficient to create an issue of material fact
as to whether use of Welco's products caused Ronnie to develop
mesothelioma.  The Appellate Court also held that Illinois law
applies to the case, the estate presented sufficient evidence to
show that Welco had a duty to warn users of the dangers of
asbestos dust, and the estate presented sufficient evidence to
show that the specific kinds of asbestos fiber found in Welco's
products caused Ronnie to develop mesothelioma.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment entered in
favor of Welco and remanded for a new trial.

The appeals case is Jo Ann STARTLEY, Individually and as Executor
of the Estate of Ronnie A. Startley, Deceased, and on Behalf of
Their Children, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELCO MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, No. 1-15-3649 (Ill. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 9, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/p2QzME from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PNA Directed to Produce Corporate Rep
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs, Pamela Coleman and Jody Coleman Nolte filed a Motion
to Compel to Produce a Corporate Representative Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) filed by Defendant
Pilkington North America, Inc., seeking to compel PNA to produce a
corporate representative to testify regarding certain topics. PNA
has filed an Opposition.

Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

Specifically, the court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with
respect to topic number 52. The court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel with respect to topic number 40 only to the extent this
topics seeks information prior to 1972. The court denies
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic numbers 12, 22,
32, 37, 38, 15, 25, and 35. The court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel with respect to topic numbers 13, 17, 21, 23, 27, 14, 24,
34, 16, 26, 36, 18, 19, 20, and 45 to the extent these topics seek
information for the time period following Decedent's employment at
the Shreveport plant. The court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel with respect to topic number 52.

The case is WILLIAM D. COLEMAN, v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL.,
Civil Action No. 15-821-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.).

A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated May 8, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/ZBT1GD from Leagle.com.

Pamela Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester-
Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.

Jody Coleman Nolte, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester-
Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Susan
M. Rogge, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC, H. Minor
Pipes, III, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC &
Kimberly R. Silas, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver,
L.L.C..

Safety National Casualty Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chris James LeBlanc, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP &
William Eugene Scott, III, 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, Rasmussen Willis Dickey Moore, pro hac vice, Matthew S.
Jensen, Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, pro hac vice & Jane
H. Barney, J.H. Barney Law Firm, LLC.

Bedivere Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel M.
Rosamond, III, Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam D. deMahy
& Angela Jacketti O'Brien, Louisiana Department of Justice -
Office of Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,000 Claims vs. FMC Corp. Pending at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is still facing around 8,000 premises and product
asbestos claims in several jurisdictions 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, "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation.  Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations.

"The machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did
not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in
the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection
Agency has banned the use of these components.  Further, the
asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were
accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance.
A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against
equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other
companies on such machinery and equipment.  We believe that,
overall, the claims against FMC are without merit.

"As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately 8,000 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several
jurisdictions.  Since the 1980s, approximately 113,000 asbestos
claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority
of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant.
Since the 1980s, settlements with claimants have totaled
approximately US$80 million.

"We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in
accordance with our historical experience.  We have established a
reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and
believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established
reserve cannot be reasonably estimated.  Our experience has been
that the overall trends in asbestos litigation have changed over
time.  Over the last several years, we have seen changes in the
jurisdictions where claims against FMC are being filed and changes
in the mix of products named in the various claims.  Because these
claim trends have yet to form a predictable pattern, we are
presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability
with respect to claims that may be filed in the future."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. continues to defend itself against various
personal injury lawsuits arising from alleged exposure to asbestos
or silica, 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.

W.W. Grainger states, "The Company has been named, along with
numerous other nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in
litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica.
These lawsuits typically assert claims of personal injury arising
from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or silica as a consequence
of products purportedly distributed by the Company.

"In 2016, the Company was named in new lawsuits relating to
asbestos involving approximately 70 new plaintiffs, while lawsuits
relating to asbestos and/or silica involving approximately 80
plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company, typically
based on the lack of product identification.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company is named in cases filed on
behalf of approximately 480 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and/or silica.  The Company has
denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in all of the
lawsuits.  If a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to
exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer.

"In addition, the Company believes that a substantial number of
these claims are covered by insurance.  The Company has entered
into agreements with its major insurance carriers relating to the
scope, coverage and costs of defense of lawsuits involving claims
of exposure to asbestos.

"While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits, it believes that the ultimate resolution will not have,
either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/wF8vlx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that based on information currently available,
it does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending
asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by
the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of
these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or
other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.
The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to
the Company, either individually or in the aggregate.

"The Company has unrecorded Asset Retirement Obligation's ("AROs")
that are conditional upon certain events.  These AROs generally
include the removal and disposition of non-friable asbestos.  The
Company has not recorded a liability for these conditional AROs at
December 31, 2016, because the Company does not currently believe
there is a reasonable basis for estimating a date or range of
dates for major renovation or demolition of these facilities.  In
reaching this conclusion, the Company considered the historical
performance of each facility and has taken into account factors
such as planned maintenance, asset replacements and upgrades,
which, if conducted as in the past, can extend the physical lives
of the facilities indefinitely.  The Company also considered the
possibility of changes in technology and risk of obsolescence in
arriving at its conclusion."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ODA67t


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various 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, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the Company.

"Our results of operations may be negatively impacted by product
liability lawsuits.

"Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims
which may be alleged in connection with the design, manufacture,
sale and use of our products.  Certain of our businesses also have
experienced claims relating to past alleged asbestos exposure.
Neither we nor our affiliates have to date incurred material costs
related to these asbestos claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves
against current claims and intend to do so against future claims.

"We also maintain certain insurance policies which may limit our
financial exposures.  We do not believe the outcome of such
matters will have an adverse effect on our financial position;
however, any significant liabilities which are not covered by
insurance could have an adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operation and cash flows.  Likewise, a substantial
increase in the number of claims that are made against us or the
amounts of any judgments or settlements could materially and
adversely affect our reputation and our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/mH9OOS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 3,023 Trauma Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety
Incorporated, is still facing 3,023 cumulative trauma product
liability claims arising from exposures to harmful substances
including 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.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC (MSA LLC) is presently named as a defendant in 1,794
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 3,023 claims.  Cumulative
trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful
substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred
many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time
into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma, or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis.

"The products at issue were manufactured many years ago and are
not currently offered by MSA LLC.  Although we have reserved
against the portion of claims outstanding, the reserve does not
take into account all the currently pending coal dust claims
against MSA LLC or any incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims,
which losses could have a materially adverse effect on our
business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity.
Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and
unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no
certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur charges in excess
of presently recorded liabilities with respect to claims included
within the existing reserve or related to claims not included in
the reserve.

"We will adjust the reserve for our liability relating to
cumulative trauma claims from time to time based on the maturation
of claims, developing facts and circumstances, and if actual
experience is worse than previously projected.  These adjustments
may reflect changes in estimates for claims currently covered by
the reserve, as well as estimated liabilities for claims not
presently covered by the reserve and IBNR claims, in the event we
become able to reasonably assess the probability and estimate the
magnitude of potential losses.  These adjustments may be material
and could increase the year over year variability of our financial
results."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Has 103 Asbestos Suits at April 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2017, that
the Company, through several subsidiaries, is subject to various
pending and threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary
damages are asserted in the ordinary course of business.  The
Company is 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.

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a global, diversified industrial
holding company providing integrated supply chain management
services and engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Reports $3MM Settlement March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., reports asbestos settlement-net of $3
million for the three months ended March 31, 2016, according to
the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 20, 2017.

The Company also reported asbestos settlement under current
liabilities of $831 million for the three months ended March 31,
2016.  It notes that assets and liabilities of PPG's flat glass
business were classified as held for sale as of March 31, 2016.
The business was sold on October 1, 2016.

PPG Industries, Inc., supplies products for the manufacturing,
construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1.27BB Net Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., reported net asbestos reserves of
$1.27 billion at March 31, 2017, 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 believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders.

The Company has received and continues to receive a significant
number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which
includes others seeking coverage under a policy).  Factors
underlying these claim filings include continued intensive
advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the
continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.  The focus
on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of
traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy
protection in previous years.

In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims,
bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-
related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and
later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments
by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders.  Although the Company has seen a
reduction in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future.  It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries.  In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.  Over the past decade, the property and
casualty insurance industry, including the Company, has
experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with
regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over
that period there has been a reduction in the volatility
associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the
overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by
exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage
disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were
asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate
limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily
driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with
mesothelioma.  The Company's overall view of the current
underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from
recent periods and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with
respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first quarter of
2017 were $58 million, compared with $37 million in the same
period of 2016.  Net asbestos reserves were $1.27 billion at March
31, 2017, compared with $1.77 billion at March 31, 2016.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
a range of commercial and personal property, and casualty
insurance products and services to businesses, government units,
associations, and individuals in the United states and
internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Firstsource Faces Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Builders Firstsource, Inc., is involved in various claims
including that related to asbestos in products manufactured and
distributed, and services provided by the Company, 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 involved in product liability, product
warranty, casualty, construction defect, asbestos, vehicle and
other claims relating to the products we manufacture and
distribute, and services we provide that, if adversely determined,
could adversely affect our financial condition, operating results,
and cash flows. We rely on manufacturers and other suppliers to
provide us with many of the products we sell and distribute.
Because we have no direct control over the quality of such
products manufactured or supplied by such third-party suppliers,
we are exposed to risks relating to the quality of such products.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company has seen an increased
occurrence of known and threatened legal claims, primarily related
to construction defect type claims. We are also involved in
several asbestos personal injury suits due to the alleged sale of
asbestos-containing products by legacy businesses that we
acquired.  In addition, we are exposed to potential claims arising
from the conduct of our respective employees and subcontractors,
and builders and their subcontractors, for which we may be
contractually liable. Although we currently maintain what we
believe to be suitable and adequate insurance in excess of our
self-insured amounts, there can be no assurance that we will be
able to maintain such insurance on acceptable terms or that such
insurance will provide adequate protection against potential
liabilities. Product liability, product warranty, casualty,
construction defect, asbestos, vehicle, and other claims can be
expensive to defend and can divert the attention of management and
other personnel for significant periods, regardless of the
ultimate outcome. Claims of this nature could also have a negative
impact on customer confidence in our products and our company. In
addition, we are involved on an ongoing basis in other types of
legal proceedings. We cannot assure you that any current or future
claims against us will not adversely affect our financial
condition, operating results and cash flows."

Builders FirstSource, Inc. manufactures and supplies building
materials, manufactured components, and construction services to
professional contractors, sub-contractors, and consumers in the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faces 64 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 64 asbestos cases as of
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 has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 64 asbestos cases pending as of December
31, 2016.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. As of December 31, 2016, the estimated range of
the Company's loss on a pending claim was $0.2 million to $0.6
million and the accrued amount was $0.2 million.

A table in https://is.gd/yadaUm sets forth information related to
our historical product liability costs associated with the
company's asbestos litigation.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. is a technology-based
manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a
real estate segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Faces 16 Asbestos, Tobacco Cases in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., is currently
a defendant in 16 multi-defendant personal injury cases in
Maryland that allege claims arising from asbestos and tobacco
exposure, according to Vector's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The tobacco defendants, including Liggett, moved (or are in the
process of moving) to dismiss the cases.  In the past, motions to
dismiss have generally been successful, typically resulting in the
dismissal without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants.
Recently, however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled,
in Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., that
dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate
where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco
exposure ("synergy cases"). In May 2016, the Court of Appeals for
Maryland (Maryland's highest court) heard oral argument on the
appeal of the intermediate appellate court's decision. In July
2016, the Court of Appeals ruled that joinder of tobacco and
asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but
plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such
cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to
prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants
and "the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures
applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies."
The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the
trial court level. It is possible that Liggett and other tobacco
company defendants will not be dismissed from pending synergy
cases, and may be named as defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury actions in Maryland going forward, including approximately
20 additional synergy cases currently pending in Maryland state
court.

Vector Group Ltd., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes in the United States. The Company is also
involved in the real estate business through its subsidiary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Continues to Defend "Parsons" at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., continues to
defend itself in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action
raising personal injury claims for exposure to cigarette smoke and
asbestos fibers, according to Vector's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

As of December 31, 2016, three actions were pending for which
either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class
certification where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette
manufacturers are also named in these actions.

One of these is Parsons v. AC & S Inc. In February 1998, in
Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on
behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal
injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and
asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the
defendants.

Vector Group Ltd., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes in the United States. The Company is also
involved in the real estate business through its subsidiary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Liabilities Could be Significant
-----------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Inc. warns that some liabilities, including that for
asbestos, that it agreed to assume after the sale of its paper,
forest products and timberland assets could turn out to be
significant, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

In connection with OfficeMax's sale of its paper, forest products
and timberland assets in 2004, OfficeMax agreed to assume
responsibility for certain liabilities of the businesses sold.
These obligations include liabilities related to environmental,
asbestos, health and safety, tax, litigation and employee benefit
matters.

The Company states: "Some of these retained liabilities could turn
out to be significant, which could have an adverse effect on our
results of operations. Our exposure to these liabilities could
harm our ability to compete with other office products
distributors, who would not typically be subject to similar
liabilities."

On November 5, 2013, Office Depot, Inc. merged with OfficeMax
Incorporated.  Office Depot currently operates under the Office
Depot(TM) and OfficeMax(TM) brands and utilizes other proprietary
company and product brand names, including Grand & Toy(TM) in
Canada.

Office Depot, Inc. is a global supplier of office products and
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,745 Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending itself against 3,745
asbestos claims as of 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: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

"We were defending 3,745 claims as of December 31, 2016."

A table in https://is.gd/1SJWPt sets forth the number of claims
filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods
presented.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

"Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2016,
we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,489
claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $10.2 million.
Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $2.5 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Faces 7,706 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary Albany International Corp., is also a
separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany
is named as a defendant, according to Albany's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

Brandon was defending against 7,706 claims as of December 31,
2016.

A table at https://is.gd/1SJWPt sets forth the number of claims
filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods
presented.

The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wagner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of December 31,
2016, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
9,900 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance
carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8%
of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

"For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as
the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon
claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be
made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these
remaining claims.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills. We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in
1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-
containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many
years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually
obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising
out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by
Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.
Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount
Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we
have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

"Although we do not believe, based on currently available
information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible
loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our
understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement
amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement
experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or
Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and
the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any
material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits.

"Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently
available information, that the ultimate resolution of the
aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp. is a global company of advanced
textiles and materials processing company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., continues to face
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes containing asbestos, according to U.S.
Auto's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. (WAG), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's
that contained asbestos.

WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-
of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is an online provider of automotive
aftermarket parts and repair information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Has $1.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation has $1.1 million asbestos
reserves, 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 property and casualty industry has experienced significant
loss from claims related to asbestos, environmental remediation,
product liability, mold and other mass torts.

The Company states: "Because we have insured primarily product
retailers and distributors, we do not expect to incur the same
level of liability, particularly related to asbestos, as companies
that have insured manufacturing risks."

Asbestos reserves are $1.1 million, and environmental reserves are
$15.1 million, for a total of $16.2 million, or 1.4% of net losses
and loss expenses payable. Asbestos reserves decreased $0.1
million and environmental reserves increased $3.8 million from
2015.

State Auto Financial Corporation is a property and casualty
insurance holding company.





                         *********


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  * * *