CAR_Public/170602.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, June 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 110



                            Headlines

7 FOLD: Faces "Clark" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Act
4175 LLC: Ha and Leong Seek Collective Action Status Under FLSA
ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Class Cert. Bid Continued to July 10
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: "Parshall" Short-changed on Merger Deal

AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ponte" Securities Suit Over Coversin
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Hennings" Partly Denied
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Vega" Suit
AMERICAN PRO: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Golden" Suit
AMERICAN QUALITY: Faces "Macais" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

AMSPEC LLC: "Wyatt" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
APEX BEHAVIORAL: Faces "Farrar" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AT&T CORP: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Thompson" Suit
AUSNET SERVICES: Bushfire Victims Call for Inquiry Into Law Firm
AVINGER INC: Grotewiel Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports

BAL HARBOUR: Faces "Bocskai" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
BARRICK GOLD: July 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BROOKSTONE STORES: "Cribbs" Suit Calls Gift Card Policy Unlawful
CAREGIVERS INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Unpaid OT Denied
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Williams" Sues Over Post-payment Interest

CCMC CORP: "Canedy" Suit Alleges FLSA, Conn. Wage Law Violations
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Brown" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violation
CHELSEA, MI: Citizens Allowed to Amend Suit Over ADA Violations
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Wants Certification Deadlines Extended
CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Suit Over Weed Control Ordinance

COLONY HOTEL: "Martinez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: "Coda" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Scott Moves for FLSA Class Certification
DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

DICK SMITH: Class Action Mulled Against Former Directors
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in CreditBuilder Suit Has Partial OK
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
EAT CLUB: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Costs, Laufer & Weber Say
EVERALBUM INC: Faces "Aloise" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

EXPRESS MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "LaCurtis" Suit
EZCORP: Court Partly Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
FLORIDA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Venkataram" Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: "Green" Suit by Distributors Claims FLSA Violation
FORSTER & GARBUS: Winslow Moves to Certify Class & Two Subclasses

FOUNTAIN HILLS: "Bell" Alleges Nonpayment of All Time Worked
FXCM: Faces New Securities Lawsuit in New York
FYRE MEDIA: Under FBI Investigation Amid Class Actions
G & D TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Castillo Says
HARDLINE CONSULTING: "Starling" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages

HYUNDAI: NHTSA Investigates Theta II Engine Recalls Amid Suits
IDEAL LUMBER: "Jimenez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Policy is Not Insurance, Judge Says
INTELLICHECK LLC: Calif. Court Trims Delivery Driver's FCRA Suit
JAL CHEMICAL: "Petty" Suit Seeks Judgment, Damages

JC CHRISTENSEN: Seeks Initial OK of $20K Deal in "Carroll" Suit
JIVE SOFTWARE: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Jazz Merger
JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Eisenband" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
JP MORGAN: "Merryman" Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations
JSC INC: Court Denies as Premature Boyce's Bid for Class Cert.

JUST FOR MEN: Judge Enters Hair Dye Case Coordination Order
KC LODGE: "Enegren" Seeks Back Wages, Uniform Reimbursement
LATE JULY: Court Trims Claims in "Sweargen" Suit
LET'S EAT OUT: Court Certifies Two Servers Classes in "Cope" Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: More Briefing Needed on Bid to Toss Garris Suit

LTG LLC: Miranda Moves to Certify Class of Front Desk Employees
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Parks" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
MANCI ENTERPRISES: "Christa" Demands Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
MARSH & MCLENNAN: "E.S." Sues Over Denied Health Coverage
MASSAGE ENVY: Class Action Over Breach of Contract Ongoing

MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Town & Country Seeks Prelim. OK of Accord
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Amin" Sues Over Defects in HVAC System
METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Decertifies Clothing Deductions Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bids to Certify, Dismiss in "Woods" Suit Withdrawn
MIDLAND FUNDING: Judge Denies Bid to Arbitrate "Garcia"

MORGAN GROUP: Bobiak Seeks Conditional Certification Under FLSA
MSI INVENTORY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEUROTROPE INC: "Hinshaw" Sues Over Share Price Drop
NEWDAY FINANCIAL: Clute et al. Sue Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
NORTHLAND GROUP: "Nedd" Sues Over Vague Collection Letter

OAKMONT MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Staff, Chem Suit Claims
OC BURGER: Faces "Ibanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OUHLALA GOURMET: VP for Marketing Sues Over FLSA Violation
PHENIX TRANS: Jones Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PHILADELPHIA: ACLU Resumes Prison Mental Health Care Suit

PORTLAND, OR: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss Veterans' Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Cert. of Retiree Subclass Sought in "Amos" Suit
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Plan Participants Class Certified in "Rozo" Suit
PROCON ENTERPRISE: Faces "Choi" Wage and Hour Suit in Virginia
QUALITY BUILDING: "Morales" Seeks OT Pay, Claims Retaliation

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Howe" Hits Erroneous Collection Letter
RECONTRUST COMPANY: Allred Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
RED DOG: Sued for Failure to Pay Adequate Overtime Wages
RED PARROT: Camp Drug Store Sues Under TCPA Over Faxed Ads
REMINGTON ARMS: Loses Defective Rifle Personal Injury Case

ROYAL BANK: Improves Rights Issue Class Action Settlement Offer
SAN DIEGO, CA: Helicopter Rescue Medics Seek Overtime Pay
SCOTTRADE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Claims
SILVER WHEATON: Class Certified in Consolidated Securities Suit
STATE COLLECTION: Spuhler Seeks to Certify Class Suit Under FDCPA

STEAK N SHAKE: "Clendenen" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
STEVEN MATULIS: Wants Judge to Put Multiple Lawsuits on Hold
SWISSPORT SA: Leonard Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
TARGET CORP: Court Trims Herbal Supplements Marketing Suit
TEAM ADHOC: "Solomon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

TRUCONNECT COMMUNICATIONS: Macias Sues Over Failure to Pay OT
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY: Able Home Suit Settled; Hearing on July 11
UNITED STATES: Court Trims FS's Age Discrimination Suit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Frankfurt-Trust Sues Over Earnings Guidance
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Amy and Gary G. Sue Over Denied Coverage

UNIVERSAL TAX: DB II's Bid for Cert. & to Review Judgment Cont'd
US BANCORP: "Wert" Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
VLAD RESTORATION: Appeals Ruling in "Alcantara-Flores" Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Minnesota Court Dismisses ERISA Suit
WINDOW NATION: Faces "Cook" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act

WINDSOR SURRY: Cover Seeks to Certify Class; Hearing on June 14


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds Pumps Could Be Sanctioned in "Jack"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in "Juni" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in "Brown" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. JT Thorpe Dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.5MM in General Damages Awarded to Couple

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supplemental Briefing on Jurisdiction Ordered
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Technology Denies Dumping Bags with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Condo Residents Worried of Asbestos Presence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake County Commissioners OK Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Reserve Bank Halts Renovation Work

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ugandan Government to Replace Asbestos Roofs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Exporters Block Move Against Chrysotile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastleigh Man Dies of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 592 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $62MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had US$891MM Claim Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwest Pipe Accrues US$0.2MM for VCP at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$82.0MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Completed in Major v. Lorillard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suit v. Cigarette Makers Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Unit Has 78 Filter Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Have 23 Claims in at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 324 Injury Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$41MM for DuPont Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,159 PI Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues US$583-Mil. for Respirator Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues US$19-Mil. for Aearo Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle in Settlement Talks with DAs








                            *********


7 FOLD: Faces "Clark" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trace Clark and Dylan Luff, each individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, vs. 7 FOLD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
5:17-cv-05082-TLB (W.D. Ark., May 11, 2017), alleges that if any
Technician worked more than forty hours per week, Defendant's
policy was not to pay that Technician overtime premium of one and
one half times the Technician's regular rate for the hours over
forty.  Also, allegedly, the Defendant had a general practice of
keeping no contemporaneous records of time that Technicians spent
installing DirecTV services.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant provides DirecTV installation services.  Plaintiffs were
employed as DirectTV Installation Technicians.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


4175 LLC: Ha and Leong Seek Collective Action Status Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SIU CHING HA and PAK CHUAN
LEONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
4175 LLC d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, BAUMGART CAFE OF LIVINGSTON d/b/a
Baumgart's Cafe, BAUMGART RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe,
BAUMGART EDGEWATER CORP. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, BAUMGART OF
RIDGEWOOD, INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, JOSEPH YUAN, ZONG HOU XIE
a/k/a Peter Xie, GOT-FU WANG a/k/a Sam Wang, STEVE WU, MARSHA WU,
and LEUNG FONG HO a/k/a Alex Ho, Case No. 2:15-cv-05530-ES-MAH
(D.N.J.), move the Court for an order:

   (1) granting collective action status to the lawsuit, under
       the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) directing the Defendants to produce necessary information
       of all those individuals, who have worked for the
       Defendants as a non-managerial employee between July 14,
       2012, and the date the Court decides the Motion;

   (3) authorizing that notice of the matter be sent to members
       of the putative class; and

   (4) directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
       Notice in conspicuous locations at the location where the
       Prospective Collective Action Members worked, or are now
       working.

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated April 19, 2017, opposition to
the Motion, if any, is due on or before June 5, 2017, and the
reply, if any, will be due no later than June 12, 2017.  Motion
Date is set for June 19, 2017.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EpY6APWB

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
          E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Physical Wellness, Ltd., asks the Court to enter an
order determining that its action titled NORTH SHORE PHYSICAL
WELLNESS, LTD., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
defined herein v. ACCESA MEDICAL, INC., PUSH HEALTH, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-03521 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as
a class action against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

   -- For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the
      Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227,
      the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a)
      all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
      four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
      Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
      Defendants Accesa Medical, Inc. and Push Health, Inc.,
      promoting their goods or services for sale (d) with respect
      to which Defendants Accesa Medical, Inc. and Push Health,
      Inc. do not have evidence of consent or an established
      business relationship prior to sending the fax;

   -- For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the
      Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, the Plaintiff
      seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
      with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three
      years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent
      faxes by or on behalf of Defendants Accesa Medical, Inc.
      and Push Health, Inc., promoting their goods or services
      for sale (d) with respect to which Defendants Accesa
      Medical, Inc. and Push Health, Inc. do not have evidence of
      consent or an established business relationship prior to
      sending the fax; and

   -- For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count
      IV, alleging trespass to chattels, the Plaintiff seeks to
      represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
      Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years
      prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
      or on behalf of Defendants Accesa Medical, Inc. and Push
      Health, Inc., promoting their goods or services for sale
      (d) with respect to which Defendants Accesa Medical, Inc.
      and Push Health, Inc. do not have evidence of consent or an
      established business relationship prior to sending the fax.

North Shore further asks that it be appointed class representative
and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RhlrU9pl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


ACCESA MEDICAL: North Shore Class Cert. Bid Continued to July 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 12, 2017, in the case entitled
North Shore Physical Wellness, Ltd. v. Accesa Medical, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03521 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to enterand
      continue its motion for class certification;

   -- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered
      and continued until the first status hearing in this
      matter;

   -- Status hearing is set for July 10, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- the Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendant(s) [as
      appropriate] of the status hearing forthwith;

   -- the parties are to file a joint status report in
      the format described on the Court's Web site at
      http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/at least 3 days prior to the
      status;

   -- the parties are directed to discuss settlement, and whether
      they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge; and

   -- the court encourages the parties to review the Court's Web
      site for its standing orders prior to contacting chambers.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zTm1rDxN


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: "Parshall" Short-changed on Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Advancepierre Foods Holdings, Inc., Dean
Hollis, Celeste A. Clark, Peter C. Dillingham, Stephen A. Kaplan,
Gary L. Perlin, Matthew C. Wilson, John N. Simons, Jr.,
Christopher D. Sliva, Tyson Foods, Inc. and DVB Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00333 (S.D. Ohio, May 15, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of AdvancePierre Foods Holdings, Inc. by Tyson Foods,
Inc. The suit also seeks rescissory damages should the merger push
through, costs of this action including reasonable allowance for
Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AdvancePierre Foods Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by Tyson
Foods, Inc. for $40.25 per share in cash, an amount deemed
inadequate by the Plaintiff. The merger agreement provides for a
termination fee of $100 million payable by the company to Tyson if
the company decides to terminate the merger. Defendants have
locked up the deal and have precluded other bidders from making
successful competing offers for the company, says the complaint.

AdvancePierre is a producer and distributor of value-added,
convenient, ready-to-eat sandwiches, sandwich components and other
entrees and snacks to a wide variety of distribution outlets
including foodservice, retail and convenience store providers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800

            - and -

      John C. Camillus, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
      P.O. Box 141410
      Columbus, OH 43214
      Tel: (614) 558-7254
      Fax: (614) 559-6731
      Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com


AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ponte" Securities Suit Over Coversin
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK DA PONTE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AKARI THERAPEUTICS, PLC, GUR
ROSHWALB, and DOV ELEFANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03577
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017), alleges that 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 in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act.

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, and possibly other executives,
were involved in publishing false information about the
Company, including false information about the Phase 2 PNH trial
of Coversin; (2) that the Company lacked adequate checks and
protections to prevent such behavior; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Akari's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

AKARI THERAPEUTICS, PLC is purportedly a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: 212 682 5340
     Fax: 212 884 0988
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

        - and -

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Hennings" Partly Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAMELA HENNINGS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP
f/k/a J.C. CHRISTENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-
1561 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Nancy Joseph of the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") based on actions
taken by Alltran in the course of collecting a debt owed to
American General Finance, formerly known as Springleaf Financial.

Hennings alleges in her complaint that she incurred a consumer
debt to American General Finance ("AGF").  She alleges that she
filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and received a discharge on the debt
owed to AGF on March 12, 2012.  Hennings alleges that sometime
after discharge, AGF sold her account to LVNV Funding, LLC.  LVNV
sued Hennings' ex-husband regarding the AGF debt in 2014 and was
granted a judgment against Hennings' ex-husband.  She was not
named as a defendant in the action.

Hennings alleges that LVNV sold or assigned Hennings' discharged
account to the Defendant, J.C. Christensen and Associates.  She
alleges that the Defendant is attempting to collect on the
judgment from Hennings despite the fact that it knew or should
have known that Hennings was not a judgment debtor and that she
previously discharged the debt in her bankruptcy.

Hennings alleges that in attempting to collect the judgment from
her, the Defendant sent a collection letter on July 19, 2016.
Hennings alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA because the
collection letter is confusing to the unsophisticated consumer as
it demands a payment within the statutory 30 day validation period
or shortly thereafter, and fails to explain how the validation
notice and the settlement "deadline" fit together.  She further
alleges the defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect
on a judgment that was not against Hennings.

Alltran has filed a motion to dismiss Hennings' amended complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that she has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to her
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g and 1692e claims, and that she does not
have Article III standing to bring this lawsuit.

As an initial matter, Alltran argues that Hennings has not
satisfied her burden of establishing Article III standing because
she did not plead that she qualifies as a consumer under the FDCPA
or that she has suffered an actual injury.  Hennings alleges that
she incurred a "consumer debt as that term is defined at 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692a(5) to American General Finance formerly known as
Springleaf Financial."  Hennings alleges no facts, however, to
support the allegation that her debt was consumer in nature.  She
makes no more than a "threadbare recital" of the "consumer debt"
element of her FDCPA claims.

Hennings alleges no facts that allow Judge Joseph to draw the
reasonable inference that Alltran is liable for the misconduct
alleged.  Thus, Hennings' entire amended complaint should be
dismissed on this basis.  However, given this failure is easy to
remedy, Judge Joseph finds it more prudent to allow Hennings
another opportunity to amend her complaint and properly allege
that she is a consumer who incurred a consumer debt.

Hennings does not address Alltran's argument regarding standing as
to her Section 1692e claim.  Thus, Judge Joseph will not address
the standing issue as to her Section 1692e claim at this time.

Alltran argues that Hennings' overshadowing claim fails as a
matter of law.  Hennings argues that the collection letter is
confusing to the unsophisticated consumer because it provides a
clear and firm numerically, i.e., 40 day deadline for action that
contradicts and overshadows the consumer's right to request
validation under the FDCPA's 30-day timeline.

Judge Joseph finds nothing confusing about the use of a date
certain in making a settlement offer, even with the date being
close to the expiration of the 30-day validation period.  She
would further note that the letter clearly states that the
"opportunities listed above do not alter or amend your validation
rights as contained in this document."  While Hennings argues that
this statement is "muddled with other information" and fails to
explain "what 'opportunities' they are talking about," it is clear
from the letter that the "opportunities listed above" refer to the
enumerated list described as "the following settlement
opportunities."  For these reasons, Judge Joseph finds that the
collection letter was not confusing, deceptive, or misleading to
the unsophisticated consumer and thus did not violate the FDCPA.
As such, to the extent Hennings alleges in Count I that Alltran
violated the FDCPA through overshadowing, the claim is dismissed.

Hennings further alleges that Alltran violated the FDCPA by
attempting to collect against her when it either knew or should
have known that the judgment was against her ex-husband and not
against her and her debt had been discharged in bankruptcy.

Alltran argues these claims must be dismissed because it was
entitled to reasonably rely upon the assertions of its client, the
creditor, in sending the debt collection letter to Hennings.
Alltran argues that it had no independent obligation to
investigate the debt before collecting but rather permissibly
relied upon its client's "placement of the debt."

While Alltran may have a defense to Hennings' claim, at this
stage, the amended complaint sufficiently states a claim under
Section 1692e and thus the Defendant's motion to dismiss this
claim is denied.

Hennings has not properly pleaded that she was a consumer who
incurred a consumer debt under the FDCPA and her amended complaint
could be dismissed on this ground.  However, Judge Joseph will
allow Hennings to file an amended complaint properly alleging this
element of her FDCPA claim.  Hennings must file her amended
complaint no later than June 9, 2017.  She will not be allowed to
proceed, however, on her overshadowing claim under Section 1692g.
She may proceed on her claim under Section 1692e.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/45xeUI from Leagle.com

Pamela Hennings, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas John Lyons, Jr.,
Consumer Justice Center PA.

Pamela Hennings, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan E. DeLadurantey,
DeLadurantey Law Office LLC & Heidi N. Miller, DeLadurantey Law
Office LLC.

Alltran Financial LP, Defendant, represented by Brent D. Nistler,
Nistler Law Office SC & Shauna D. Manion, Nistler Law Office SC.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Vega" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vega moves the Court to certify the class described in the
amended complaint of the lawsuit titled AMY VEGA, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN CORADIUS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC and CIGPF I CORP., Case No. 2:17-cv-00274-PP
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also wants to be appointed as class representative,
and the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3WqbToD5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN PRO: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Golden" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
amended motion for class certification submitted in the lawsuit
titled Lori Golden v. American Pro Energy, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-
MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies a class of:

     all individuals in the United States who were called on a
     cellular telephone by or on behalf of Defendant American Pro
     Energy, using predictive dialers, between May 3, 2012 and
     the present.

Excluded from the Class are the following person: (1) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their
families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents
have a controlling interest, and its current or former employees,
officers, and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file
a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose
claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits
or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's
counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and
assigns of any such excluded persons.

Because the Defendant does not dispute that it uses an autodialer
to call potential customers on their cell phones without
authorization, there are likely to be few, if any, individualized
issues of fact, Judge Fitzgerald noted in the civil minutes.

Ms. Golden filed a complaint on May 3, 2016, alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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


AMERICAN QUALITY: Faces "Macais" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Macias and Mario Rivas, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. American Quality Parking, Premier
Valet Parking, Ivan Bockelmann, Tammy Aragon, and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC662107 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 22, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime rate
for time worked in excess of 8 hours of work in one day and in
excess of 40 hours in one week.

The Defendants own and operate a valet parking service company
located at 3500 W Olive Ave #300, Burbank, CA 91505. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Genevieve Jenkins, Esq.
      Eliot J. Rushovich, Esq.
      Aanand Mehtani, Esq.
      RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013
      Telephone: (323) 433-9094
      Facsimile: (323) 395-5507
      E-mail: cgjenkins@rmlawpartners.com
              erushovich@rmlawpartners.com
              amehtani@rmlawpartners.com


AMSPEC LLC: "Wyatt" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Wyatt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMSPEC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00162 (S.D. Tex., May 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek with
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses
of this action, including expert witness costs, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant provides inspection, testing and verification services
to its customers in the oil and gas industry where Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant as an inspector covering locations
throughout Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


APEX BEHAVIORAL: Faces "Farrar" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE FARRAR, individually And on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. APEX BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 11, 2017), alleges
that Defendant regularly required Plaintiff to work over forty
hours per week without paying her overtime pay in violation of the
Fair Labor and Standards Act.

Defendant provides services to intellectually and developmentally
disabled individuals, including behavioral services, recreational
services, and respite care.  Defendant hired Farrar on or about
May 5, 2015, and Farrar works as a Lead/Direct Support
Professional.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lauren E. Berger, Esq.
     Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
     BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
     411 Main Street
     Evansville, IN 47708
     Phone: (812) 424-1000
     Fax: (812) 424-1005
     E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com
             lberger@bdlegal.com


AT&T CORP: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Thompson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAMES THOMPSON, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AT&T CORP., Case No.
1:17-cv-03607 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify this
Telephone Consumer Protection Act case as a class action for this
class of similarly-situated persons:

     All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone
     number, on or after four years prior to the filing of this
     action, AT&T or someone on its behalf called using the same
     or similar dialing system used to call Plaintiff, where such
     calling occurred without the person's permission.

Mr. Thompson also asks the Court to appoint his as class
representative, and his counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bk2QhJBe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com


AUSNET SERVICES: Bushfire Victims Call for Inquiry Into Law Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pia Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn is facing calls for a royal commission into its
handling of the Black Saturday fire class actions after a former
client revealed he had warned the firm that a $300 million
settlement for the deadly Murrindindi-Marysville fire was
insufficient compensation for the lives lost and damage.

Amid a growing outcry from victims who signed up to the firm's
mammoth bushfire cases, Don Brown has revealed he is seeking legal
advice with a view to pursuing Maurice Blackburn over its final
assessments for damage to his property and companies.

The former horse breeder and property developer saw his Narbethong
property Tarnpirr Farm severely burned by the February 2009 fire,
the damage eventually driving his business into the ground.

"The unfortunate experience of being present during and after the
bushfire was something I will never forget," Mr Brown said.

"However, even the bushfire doesn't rate compared to the drama and
hardship created by the Maurice Blackburn Murrindindi class action
over the past five years."

His accountants assessed Mr Brown's losses at $7m, following
substantial damage to properties that before the fires were valued
at between $4.5m and $5.7m.

His accountant wrote to Maurice Blackburn in January 2015, warning
the proposed $300m settlement for the Murrindindi fire did not
reflect the true losses of the class action members.

At that stage, Maurice Blackburn's assessor had put Mr Brown's
loss at $800,000.

The law firm announced the settlement three weeks later,
celebrating the amount as a further triumph following a $494m
settlement reached a few months previously for the larger Kilmore
East--Kinglake fire.

The firm has now distributed most of the settlement money to
claimants based on a recovery rate of between 28 per cent and 64
per cent of their assessed losses.

Maurice Blackburn has taken more than $100m in fees for handling
the case and administering the settlement scheme, which unusually
was also exposed to a tax liability of about $20m.

Mr Brown ran a thoroughbred horse-breeding and racehorse training
complex for more than 40 years before the fire on Tarnpirr and
Cloverbrook farms at Narbethong, 90km northeast of Melbourne.

Mr Brown, a property developer, also built glass recycling plants
all over the world, but horses were his passion and eventually he
had a Melbourne Cup frontrunner in his stables.

He said Maurice Blackburn's management of the class actions needed
to be publicly examined.

"The only way to finalise it properly and fairly would be a royal
commission," Mr Brown said.

"I believe both the federal and state governments should involve
themselves in this financial disaster created by an unfunded class
action which had no possibility of achieving a fair and factual
settlement for claimants of both fires, and (they should) ensure
that claimants are not left to the totally unjust settlements
proposed by Maurice Blackburn."

Mr Brown was eventually forced to sell his farm and close his
building business to avoid trading while insolvent.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said Mr Brown had received three
independent reviews of his claim and was one of 5800 claimants.

"We stand by the process that has now distributed the record
compensation to survivors," the spokesman said.

Other Murrindindi-Marysville class action group members have
similarly called for a government or judicial review, with one man
sending back his $120,000 settlement in protest against the firm.
[GN]


AVINGER INC: Grotewiel Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Grotewiel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Avinger, Inc., Jeffrey M. Soinski, Matthew
B. Ferguson, Donald A. Lucas, John B. Simpson, James B. McElwee,
James G. Cullen, Thomas J. Fogarty, Canaccord Genuity, Inc., Cowen
and Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co., BTIG, Stephens, Inc., and
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 17cv02240 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 22, 2017), alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus made by the Defendants for the initial public stock
offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted
to state material facts required to be disclosed.

Avinger, Inc. is a California-based medical device company that
has developed an image-guided, catheter-based system to treat
peripheral arterial disease.

The Defendants Canaccord Genuity, Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC,
Oppenheimer & Co., BTIG, and Stephens, Inc. are investment banking
firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO, helping to draft and
disseminate their IPO documents. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com
              ykolesnikov@bottini1aw.com


BAL HARBOUR: Faces "Bocskai" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALEXANDER BOCSKAI, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff,
vs. BAL HARBOUR TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21744-RNS (S.D. Fla., May
11, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act in that Plaintiff performed services and
worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no
provision was made by the Defendant to properly pay him at the
rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty
(40) per workweek.

The Defendant is a condominium association that operated a
restaurant which regularly transacted business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Plaintiff JOHN ALEXANDER BOCSKAI was employed by the Defendant as
a kitchen employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

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


BARRICK GOLD: July 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on May 21 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Barrick Gold Corporation
('Barrick or the 'Company) concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between February 16, 2017 through
April 24, 2017 inclusive (the 'Class Period).  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the July 10, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033.

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 do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Barrick
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose: that the pipes and safety systems at the Veladero mine
were not robust enough to prevent gold-bearing solution spills;
that Argentinian authorities would restrict the addition of
cyanide to the Veladero mine's heap leach facility and require
remedial work; that these developments would impact the production
capacity of the Veladero mine; that as a result of the above,
Barrick's eladero mine production guidance and total gold
production guidance were overstated; and that as a result of the
above, the Company's statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On April 24, 2017, Barrick revised its full year guidance, stating
that "[f]ull-year gold production is now expected to be 5.3-5.6
million ounces, down from our previous range of 5.6-5.9 million
ounces."  Barrick attributed about two-thirds of the decrease to
the planned sale of 50% of its Veladero mine. The Company also
revised Veladero-specific guidance, forecasting full-year
production at Veladero of 630,000-730,000 ounces, compared to its
previously-issued guidance of 770,000-830,000 ounces.  Upon
release of this information, Barrick shares dropped 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. [GN]


BROOKSTONE STORES: "Cribbs" Suit Calls Gift Card Policy Unlawful
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Cribbs, on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated v. Brookstone Stores, Inc. and Does 1
through 20, Case No. BC662143 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 22, 2017),
arises from the Defendant's ongoing policy and practice of failing
to provide cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a
cash value less than $10.

Brookstone Stores, Inc. owns and operates multiple retail stores
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
      Neil B. Fineman, Esq
      FINEMAN POLINER LLP
      155 North Riverview Drive
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
      Telephone: (714) 620-1125
      Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
      E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
              Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


CAREGIVERS INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Unpaid OT Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LISA EVANS and DENISE STARKS, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
CAREGIVERS, INC., and ROBERT DEBLASIO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-0402 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss First
Amended Complaint; and granted the Plaintiff's conditional
certification, Notice and Consent forms, and the disclosure of
contact information for current and former employees.

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants Caregivers
and DeBlasio.  Caregivers is a home care staffing company that
employs and places "caregivers" in private homes throughout the
Middle Tennessee area to provide "lifestyle support" services for
the aged and disabled, including assistance with dressing and
bathing, light housekeeping, shopping, errands, meal preparation,
assistance with medical appointments and medications, and other
services.  The Plaintiffs allege that Caregivers failed to pay
them and other similarly situated employees overtime pay as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") beginning Jan.
1, 2015.

In its motion, Caregivers argues that the rule amending FLSA
regulations to remove the overtime-pay exemption for home health
aides employed by third parties did not go into effect until Nov.
12, 2015 or, at the earliest, Oct. 13, 2015.  It argues on that
basis that the claims brought by plaintiff Starks, whose
employment terminated on Sept. 11, 2015, must be dismissed in
their entirety.  Caregivers further argues that plaintiff Evans'
employment terminated on Feb. 26, 2015, such that her claims for
overtime pay are limited to the three-month period between Nov.
12, 2015 and Feb. 26, 2016.

In 1975, the Congress enacted amendments to the FLSA that exempted
from the Act's overtime provisions those employees engaged in
"companionship services," that is, persons "employed in domestic
service employment to provide companionship services for
individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care
for themselves."  In October 2013, the Department of Labor issued
a final rule amending its regulations to preclude third-party
employers like Caregivers from claiming the companionship services
exemption.  On Dec. 22, 2014 -- before the planned Jan. 1, 2015
effective date -- the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia issued an opinion holding that the Department
of Labor had exceeded its rule-making authority and vacating the
rule as applied to third-party employers.  On Aug. 21, 2015, the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the
district court's vacatur.  After the circuit court's decision, the
Department of Labor issued guidance stating that it would not
institute enforcement proceedings for violations of the amended
regulations until 30 days after the Court of Appeals issued a
mandate making its opinion effective, which the appellate court
subsequently did on Oct. 13, 2015.  The Department of Labor began
enforcing the amended regulations on Nov. 12, 2015.

Caregivers does not dispute that it is a "covered employer"; that
the plaintiffs provided companionship services; that they worked
more than 40 hours per week on occasion; and that, under the
amended regulations, the plaintiffs are no longer exempt
employees. The parties dispute only the effective date of the new
rule.

As of the May 19, 2017, no circuit court of appeals has addressed
the issue, and the district courts are somewhat split on whether
the effective date of the new rule is Jan. 1, Oct. 13, or Nov. 12,
2015. Those district courts directly confronted with the question
of the new rule's effective date have uniformly adopted that of
Kinkead v. Humana, Inc. (2016), and concluded that the rule went
into effect on Jan. 1, 2015.  The Nashville Division Court is
likewise persuaded by the reasoning in Kinkead and finds that the
effective date of the new rule is Jan. 1, 2015.  Caregivers'
motion will therefore be denied.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to (i) conditionally
certify this case authorizing it to proceed as a collective action
for overtime violations under the FLSA on behalf of employees of
Defendants who worked as caregivers (or those who performed
similar duties, however titled) from Jan. 1, 2015, through the
present; (ii) issue an Order directing the Defendants to
immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, last
known telephone numbers and email addresses for all putative class
members from Jan. 1, 2015, through the present; (iii) issue an
Order approving the proposed Notice and Consent forms filed as
Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to their motion, respectively; and (iv)
order that the Notice be prominently posted at the Defendants'
office location, attached to current employees' next scheduled
paycheck, and mailed and emailed to current and former employees
who worked as caregivers from Jan. 1, 2015, through the present so
those interested may assert their claims on a timely basis as part
of this litigation.  Caregivers has not filed a response to the
motion, timely or otherwise, as a result of which the Court finds
that the motion is unopposed.

In any event, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have met the
fairly lenient standard for conditional certification by showing
that the named plaintiffs are similarly situated to the potential
class members.  The Plaintiffs' motion is supported by the
Declarations of named plaintiffs Lisa Evans and Denise Starks.
Evans and Starks attest that they regularly worked more than 80
hours per two-week pay period while they were employed by
Caregivers, and they have submitted sample paystubs for a pay
period in August 2015 in which they worked, respectively, 125 and
86 hours.

The Court therefore granted (i) conditional certification of a
collective action by a class defined as all caregivers (or those
performing similar tasks, whatever their job title) presently or
formerly employed by Caregivers in the Middle Tennessee area for
any period of time from Jan. 1, 2015 through the present; (ii)
approved the proposed Notice and Consent Form, as modified to
reflect that potential class members must return the Consent Form
to plaintiff's counsel within 90 days of the date that this
Memorandum and accompanying Order are entered; (iii) ordered
Caregivers to provide the plaintiffs with the names, last known
addresses, and email addresses of which it has records for all
putative class members within 7 days; and (iv) directed
distribution of the Notice and Consent Forms by means of first-
class mail and email, as well as by posting the forms at
Caregivers' office locations and by enclosing copies of the forms
with the next regularly scheduled paycheck for still-employed
potential class members.

A full-text copy of the Coourt's May 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QU1E73 from Leagle.com.

Lisa Evans, Plaintiff, represented by James W. Bewley, James
Bewley Law PLLC.

Lisa Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Jenni Bryant, James Bewley
Law PLLC, Peter F. Klett, III, Dickinson Wright PLLC & R. Cameron
Caldwell, Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Denise Starks, Plaintiff, represented by James W. Bewley, James
Bewley Law PLLC, Jenni Bryant, James Bewley Law PLLC, Peter F.
Klett, III, Dickinson Wright PLLC & R. Cameron Caldwell, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.

Caregivers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith C. Dennen,
Farris Bobango, PLC.

Robert DeBlasio, Defendant, represented by Keith C. Dennen, Farris
Bobango, PLC.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Williams" Sues Over Post-payment Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carrington Mortgage Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00376 (W.D. Mo., May 15, 2017),
seeks forfeiture and refund of the amount of all post-payment
interest collected in connection with Plaintiff's payoff or
refinance of their interest on loans insured by the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) without first complying with the
uniform provisions of the promissory notes and the regulations
governing these loans, pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate
permitted by the law, all costs incurred in connection with this
action, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief for breach of contract.

Plaintiff obtained an FHA-insured mortgage on October 27, 2004 in
the amount of $104,176 with interest in the amount of 6%. In April
2015, Plaintiff's FHA-insured loan was sold to Carrington.
Plaintiff requested and received a payoff statement from
Carrington to refinance her loan. It did not state the principal
or interest amount outstanding on her loan but mandated that she
would pay post-payment interest if she paid off the mortgage on
any day other than the first of the month. Carrington is allegedly
in breach of contract for not providing borrowers with the
disclosures in an FHA-approved form before charging post-payment
interest on FHA-insured loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 300
      San Antonio, TX 78257
      Phone: (210) 447-0500
      Fax: (210) 447-0501
      Email: rthompson@wattsguerra.com

             - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
      Sue Becker, Esq.
      PAUL LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Phone: (816) 984-8100
      Fax: (816) 984-8101
      Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
             Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
             Sue@PaulLLP.com


CCMC CORP: "Canedy" Suit Alleges FLSA, Conn. Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN CANEDY and SUZANNE WALKER, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, V. CCMC, CORP.,
CONNECTICUT CHILDREN's MEDICAL CENTER, and CONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S
SPECIALTY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00782 (D.
Conn., May 11, 2017), alleges that despite Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or
pediatric Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) and
Physician's Assistants (PAs) regularly working in excess of 40
hours per workweek, Defendants paid their neonatal or pediatric
APRNs and PAs their straight hourly rate for their work performed
in excess of 40 hours per workweek (plus applicable shift
differentials), thus, denying Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated current and former neonatal and/or pediatric
APRNs and PAs owed overtime premiums.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Connecticut Wage Statute.

Defendant Medical Center is a not-for-profit children's hospital.
Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs
to perform skilled care in the various neonatal and pediatric
units located within Waterbury Hospital, and on occasion, within
Saint Mary's Hospital.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Deborah M. Garskof, Esq.
     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     883 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06824
     Phone: 203-610-6393
            203-610-6399
     E-mail: Deborah@urymoskow.com
             neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     David H. Grounds, Esq.
     Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     E-mail: jrusch(mjohnsonbecker.com
             dgrouncls(a)johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@iolmsonbecker.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Brown" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERI BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff against CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a
SPECTRUM and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00392
(E.D. Cal., May 15, 2017), results from the alleged illegal
actions of CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Charter Communications, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
cable services to residential and commercial customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHELSEA, MI: Citizens Allowed to Amend Suit Over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SHAUNA M. MOTE, DEBORAH CLARK, CARLOS GRAY-
LION, BRENDA BARANIAK, KAREN STREET, MERLYN STREET, LEE BENTON, by
his next friends RONALD M. BENTON and MARION BENTON, J.N., a
minor, by his next friends DANIEL and MARY JANE NELSON, ANN ARBOR
CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, INC., and JENNIFER KUNDAK,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHELSEA, CHELSEA DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, and MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants,
and CITY OF CHELSEA, Third-party plaintiff, v. WASHTENAW COUNTY
ROAD COMMISSION, Third-party defendant, Case No. 16-11546 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied
the motions for judgment on the pleading; and granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to (i) approve the settlement and (ii) file a
second amended complaint.

The case concerns the sidewalks, curbs, and intersections in the
City of Chelsea, Michigan, and their accessibility to persons with
disabilities.  The Plaintiffs -- Shauna Mote and several other
disabled individuals, joined by the Ann Arbor Center for
Independent Living -- filed the lawsuit under the Americans With
Disabilities Act alleging that the City of Chelsea and its
Downtown Development Authority, along with the Michigan Department
of Transportation, have created or facilitated violations of the
ADA within certain public pedestrian areas in the City by allowing
businesses to renovate storefronts without including appropriate
accessibility measures, and by removing previously constructed
physical accommodations for wheelchair users, such as curb ramps
at some intersections.

The Plaintiffs initially sued the public entities they believed
have jurisdiction over the facilities in question.  Chelsea
obtained leave to file a third-party complaint against the
Washtenaw County Road Commission, alleging that the responsibility
for regulating and maintaining one of the main roadways through
the City, which is the locale of certain alleged accessibility
defects described in the complaint, rests entirely with that
agency and is beyond the purview of the City or its zoning
authorities.  In the meantime, the Plaintiffs and Chelsea and its
DDA have reached a settlement, which they have presented as a
proposed consent decree.

The MDOT takes no position on that request, but the WCRC opposes
it.  The WCRC opposes the request on the grounds that it believes
the claims in the amended complaint are without merit, the
proposed settlement agreement is ambiguous and indefinite in
scope, and entry of the consent decree may impair its ability to
defend against the claims raised in the third-party complaint and
proposed second amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs assert that the decree does not purport to bind
either the State or the County, and it does not resolve any claims
other than those against the City itself.  They point out that the
decree contemplates that the parties to it will engage in
discussions with the County and the State before implementing or
attempting to implement any measures that compliance with it may
require.  But if those entities remain uncooperative, the
Plaintiffs fully are prepared to proceed with the litigation
against them concerning the roadway areas that are under their
exclusive purview, and over which the City has no control.

Presently before the Court are motions (i) for judgment on the
pleadings by the Defendant MDOT; (ii) for judgment on the
pleadings by the third-party defendant WCRC; (iii) for entry of a
consent decree filed jointly by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
City of Chelsea; and (iv) for leave to file a second amended
complaint by the plaintiffs that would add the WCRC as a principal
defendant and elaborate claims directly against that entity
premised on the same facts alleged in the original complaint
concerning certain roadways within the City of Chelsea.

The Court heard argument on Jan. 5, 2017.  The Plaintiffs have
stated valid claims in their first amended complaint under Title
II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Michigan's
Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the Court concluded.
There is no good reason why the Plaintiffs should not be able to
amend their complaint once again to plead their claims directly
against the WCRC, the court said.  Likewise, there is no valid
reason for refusing the proposed consent decree between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant City of Chelsea.  Accordingly, the
Court ordered that the motions for judgment on the pleadings are
denied.

The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint is granted.  The Plaintiffs must
file their second amended complaint on the docket on or before May
23, 2017.  It is further ordered that the joint motion to approve
the consent decree is granted.  The Plaintiffs and the Chelsea
defendants must present their proposed decree to the Court.  The
parties should include a proposed date for termination of the
Court's jurisdiction to enforce the decree, or an explanation why
such a termination date is impractical.  The Court further ordered
that the parties must appear for a status conference to discuss
what adjustments, if any, should be made to the Case Management
and Scheduling Order, as amended.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19 order is available at
https://is.gd/8UUHql from Leagle.com

Shauna M Mote, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus.

Shauna M Mote, Plaintiff, represented by John Mark Finnegan,
Heberle & Finnegan.

Deborah Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle &
Finnegan.

Carlos Gray-Lion, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle &
Finnegan.

Brenda Baraniak, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle &
Finnegan.

Karen Street, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle &
Finnegan.

Merlyn Street, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law
Office of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle &
Finnegan.

Lee Benton, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law Office
of Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle & Finnegan.

JN, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law Office of
Kenneth V. Klaus & John Mark Finnegan, Heberle & Finnegan.

Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Kenneth V. Klaus, Law Office of Kenneth V. Klaus &
John Mark Finnegan, Heberle & Finnegan.

City of Chelsea, Defendant, represented by Peter C. Flintoft.

Chelsea Downtown Development Authority, Defendant, represented by
Peter C. Flintoft.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Defendant, represented by
John L. Tuttle, John L. Tuttle Assoc. & Michael J. Dittenber,
Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Washtenaw County Road Commission, Defendant, represented by Thomas
H. Derderian, Michael R. Kluck Assoc. & Wendy S. Hardt, Michael
Kluck Assoc..

City of Chelsea, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Peter C.
Flintoft.

Washtenaw County Road Commission, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Thomas H. Derderian, Michael R. Kluck Assoc. &
Wendy S. Hardt, Michael Kluck Assoc..

City of Chelsea, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Peter C.
Flintoft.

Washtenaw County Road Commission, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Thomas H. Derderian, Michael R. Kluck Assoc. &
Wendy S. Hardt, Michael Kluck Assoc.


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Wants Certification Deadlines Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHAON ROBINSON, SEAN
CLARK, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
the general public v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.), renew the request that their
certification-related deadlines be extended six months due to
further unanticipated delays during the discovery process.

The Plaintiffs contend that they will be substantially prejudiced
if the extension is denied because they would not have been given
enough time to investigate the class claims.  If their motion for
certification is denied for any reason, the Plaintiffs argue, they
will need to appeal the order on the basis they were denied the
right to conduct meaningful discovery prior to the Motion
deadline.  The Plaintiffs point out that the prejudice is lack of
the due process right to conduct discovery prior to a
certification order.

The Court has already found that discovery in this litigation has
been unreasonably delayed because of "gamesmanship on Defendant's
part . . . which surely runs afoul of the Northern District's
Guidelines for Professional Conduct," the Plaintiffs remind the
Court.  After exhaustive efforts to meet and confer, the
Defendants still refuse to stipulate to an extension, the
Plaintiffs also inform the Court.

Hence, the Plaintiffs ask the following revised schedule:

                         Original          Proposed
   Event                 Deadline          Deadline
   -----                 --------          --------
   Motion for Class      June 2, 2017      December 4, 2017
   Certification

   Class Certification   August 1, 2017    February 1, 2018
   Opposition Brief

   Class Certification   August 31, 2017   February 28, 2018
   Reply Brief

   Hearing on Class      Sept. 21, 2017    March 22, 2018
   Certification                           at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Second Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k6GhUMrL

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          580 California Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  lemma@employment-lawyers.com
                  silg@employment-lawyers.com


CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Suit Over Weed Control Ordinance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed
without prejudice the case captioned NANETTE TUCKER, Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, and SONYA CAMPBELL,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1894 (N.D. Ill.).

The amended complaint alleged violations of the Plaintiff's right
to due process through their enforcement of the City's ordinance
governing weed control.

In 2015, the Plaintiff owned a small, vacant lot at 6132 S. Bishop
Street on the south side of Chicago.  On Dec. 4, 2015, she
received a notice of violation from the City concerning conditions
on her property.  Specifically, the Notice, which was based on a
June 3, 2015 inspection of the property performed by Campbell,
indicated that "weeds are greater than 10 inches in height," in
violation of the Weed Ordinance.

Following receipt of the Notice, the Plaintiff filed a written
request for a hearing to contest the violation with the Department
of Administrative Hearings; that hearing was held on Dec. 29, 2015
before an administrative law judge. As evidence of the violation,
the City submitted the Notice and photographs allegedly taken by
Campbell on the date of the violation.  In response, the Plaintiff
testified that the weeds on her property were not "in excess of an
average of 10 inches," and she "raised several Constitutional
defenses" to the violation, including that the City violated the
Due Process Clause through (i) its "policies of ignoring the
average height requirement" of the Weed Ordinance, and (ii) the
delay in "issuance of Notices of Violation."  Ultimately, the ALJ
found against Plaintiff and imposed a fine of $640-$600 for the
violation of the Weed Ordinance and $40 in court costs.  Although
Plaintiff acknowledges that she had the opportunity to appeal the
order of the ALJ, she instead chose to pay the fine on Feb. 2,
2016 "under protest."

That same day, Plaintiff initiated this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
putative class action against the Defendants alleging due process
violations.  After her original complaint was dismissed, the
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  She complains that the
City's practices of assessing fines under an incorrect
interpretation of the Weed Ordinance and after the delayed
issuance of violation notices violated her rights to due process
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  She further alleges
that Campbell, "in her individual/personal capacity," violated
Plaintiff's due process rights for the same reasons.  As relief,
the Plaintiff seeks a refund of the fine, compensatory damages for
"emotional distress and anxiety associated with illegal citation
for violation of said ordinance," exemplary (or punitive) damages,
and costs.  The Plaintiff asserts her claims on behalf of a City-
wide class consisting of individuals who were "charged and/or
convicted of violation" of the Weed Ordinance "without
consideration of or reference to the 'average' height" language
and who were not "promptly notified of their alleged violations."
The Defendants again have moved to dismiss all claims.

Beginning with Counts II, III, and IV, the Plaintiff alleges that
the City violated her due process rights by (i) not accurately
enforcing the Weed Ordinance as written (Count II), and (ii)
failing to issue her Notice in a timely fashion (Count III).  She
also contends that the City violated her due process rights by
failing to train its employees to accurately enforce the Weed
Ordinance and to issue timely violation notices (Count IV).

The Court notes that the prior judge dismissed Count IV in the
Plaintiff's original complaint, finding that it was dependent on
Counts II and III, which were also dismissed.  The Plaintiff's
amended complaint nevertheless re-alleges this count without any
material difference; she merely has added one allegation to this
count claiming that the City failed to train its employees "in the
need for prompt and timely issuance of notices of violation" of
the Weed Ordinance.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not provided
the Court any reason to depart from the prior holding on Count IV,
especially in light of the Court's analysis of Counts II and III
and conclusion that the Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to
allege a constitutional injury.  The Defendants highlighted this
pleading deficiency in their motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiff
failed to respond to the argument.  Where a litigant effectively
abandons an aspect of litigation by not responding to alleged
deficiencies in a motion to dismiss, the court considers arguments
on that point waived.  For these reasons, Count IV is dismissed.

Finally, Count I of the Complaint alleges a Section claim against
Campbell in her individual capacity for arbitrarily issuing the
Notice without strict adherence to the "average height" language
and also failing to issue it in a timely fashion.  The Defendants
again seek dismissal of this count based on the defense of
qualified immunity.  The amended complaint fails to satisfy either
prong of this analysis.

The Court held that the Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to
allege an actionable constitutional violation.  Not only that, and
despite the order dismissing her original complaint, she still has
not attempted to overcome qualified immunity by citing to any
Supreme Court or Seventh Circuit case law (or any case law at all
for that matter) that would have informed Campbell about the due
process requirements for either measuring and calculating the
average height of Plaintiff's weeds before issuing the Notice or
sending the Notice within a particular timeframe.  Instead,
Plaintiff claims that the prejudice to her due process rights on
account of the delayed Notice is "self-evident."  This is
insufficient, particularly in light of the Seventh Circuit's
decision in Discount Inn v. City of Chicago, which declined to
find the Weed Ordinance's lack of a statute of limitations
unconstitutional.  Accordingly, Count I is dismissed.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice at this time.
Although the Court is skeptical that the Plaintiff will be able to
state a claim, in an abundance of caution, she is given one final
opportunity to file, within 21 days, a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint if she believes in good faith that she
can cure the pleading defects identified.  If Plaintiff files such
a motion, the Defendants need not file a response brief unless the
Court directs otherwise after reviewing Plaintiff's motion and
proposed amended complaint.  If no motion for leave to amend is
filed -- or if leave to amend is denied -- the Plaintiff's claims
will be dismissed with prejudice, a final judgment will be
entered, and this case will be closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/vbhYsy from Leagle.com

Nanette Tucker, Plaintiff, represented by James Russell Fennerty,
James R. Fennerty & Associates, LLC.

Nanette Tucker, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Bowers.

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Ellen Wight Mclaughlin,
City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Thomas P. McNulty, City of
Chicago Department of Law.

Sonya Campbell, Defendant, represented by Ellen Wight Mclaughlin,
City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Thomas P. McNulty, City of
Chicago Department of Law.


COLONY HOTEL: "Martinez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Anibal Martinez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. The Colony Hotel Inc., Columbus Restaurant LLC and
MMPB Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21814, (S.D. Fla.,
May 17, 2017), seeks actual damages for unpaid wages and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly, an equal
amount in double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit and such other and further relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own/operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida
called "Columbus" where Plaintiff worked as a cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned IN RE COMMVAULT
SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-05628-PGS-
LHG (D.N.J.), asks for entry of an order granting class
certification and appointing class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 7, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FQicOZ9F

Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is represented
by:

          James E. Cechi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          James A. Harrod, Esq.
          Jai K. Chandrasekhar, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: Jim.Harrod@blbglaw.com
                  Jai@blbglaw.com
                  Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: "Coda" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CODA, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSTELLATION ENERGY POWER CHOICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03437-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 15, 2017),
alleges that Defendant engages in a classic bait-and-switch
deceptive marketing scheme aimed at consumers hoping to save on
the cost of electricity by offering consumers an initial rate that
is fixed for a limited number of months and initially lower than
local utility rates for electricity.  Allegedly, once that initial
rate expires, unless the customer signs up for another fixed rate,
Defendant switches its customers over to a variable rate
established each month "based upon such factors as electricity
market pricing, transmission costs, utility charges and other
market related factors."

The case was brought pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

The Defendant is a retail energy supplier, providing electricity
services to residential customers in the United States, including
New Jersey where it is currently licensed to operate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
     MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07922
     Phone: (973) 228-9898
     Fax: (973) 328-0303 mmendelsohn@mskf.net

        - and -

     Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 824-1561
     E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Scott Moves for FLSA Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting conditional
certification of his collective action captioned ROY JAMES SCOTT,
SR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. COWLEY
DISTRIBUTING, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-04307-NKL (W.D. Mo.), under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Scott seeks conditional class certification regarding his
claim under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for:

     All individuals who were employed as Drivers/Merchandisers
     (or like positions) for Defendant Cowley for the period of
     three (3) years back from the date of the Court's Order
     granting certification, who were paid on a set weekly salary
     basis, and who worked over forty hours in any workweeks
     during the time period applicable to the claim.

Mr. Scott also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and his counsel as class counsel.  He further asks
the Court to approve his proposed Notice and Consent to Join form,
and to direct the Defendant to provide a list of all persons, who
worked for the Defendant as Drivers/Merchandisers and other
potential class members, along with their last known residential
address, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3zCn9vuc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          6614 Clayton Road, #320
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 297-8385
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arturo A. Hernandez, Esq.
          GIBBS POOL & TURNER, P.C.
          3325 Emerald Lane, Suite A
          Jefferson City, MO 65109
          Telephone: (573) 636-2614
          Facsimile: (573) 636-6541
          E-mail: hgibbs@gptlaw.net
                  ahernandez@gptlaw.net

               - and -

          Charles A. "Chip" Gentry, Esq.
          Jason L. Call, Esq.
          Blake I. Markus, Esq.
          CALL & GENTRY LAW GROUP, LLC
          3218 Emerald Lane, Suite C
          Jefferson City, MO 65109
          Telephone: (573) 644-6090
          Facsimile: (573) 644-6922
          E-mail: chip@callgentry.com
                  jason@callgentry.com
                  blake@callgentry.com


DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., and
DAYTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., dba INXPRESS CHICAGO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03605 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2017), alleges that
Defendants initiated telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone
number for the purposes of advertising their goods and services,
using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant DHL Express (USA), Inc. is a company providing
international courier, parcel, and express mail services and
utilized InXpress Chicago to promote its services and act as its
only authorized Global Reseller.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Lauren E. Snyder, Eq.
     1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
     Chicago, IL 60610
     Phone: (419) 344-1146
     E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


DICK SMITH: Class Action Mulled Against Former Directors
--------------------------------------------------------
Brendon Foye, writing for CRN, reports that the NSW Supreme Court
has told NAB and HSBC they'll have to get in line if they want to
get their hands on compensation from directors' indemnity
insurance held by Dick Smith's former directors.

The two banks were among the largest creditors of Dick Smith
before the retailer collapsed in spectacular fashion, sinking into
administration in January 2016 with an estimated $400 million in
debt.

In April, Dick Smith's liquidators Ferrier Hodgson began legal
proceedings against eight of the retailer's former directors, most
notably former chief executive Nick Abboud and chief financial
officer Michael Potts, as well as a consortium of 11 insurance
firms that provided liability insurance to the former directors.

The primary claim from the liquidators is that Dick Smith's former
directors breached their duties to exercise reasonable care and
skill in allegedly inflating the company's reported profit in
order to receive financing from the banks.

NAB and HSBC allege that Messrs. Abboud and Potts failed to
disclose information about the company, including the
controversial 'Rebate Uplift Practice', in which Dick Smith is
accused of purchasing stock based on maximising rebates rather
than customer demand, leading to a build-up of redundant product.

The banks claim that had they known this, they would not have
extended finance to Dick Smith in June 2015, and extended by HSBC
in November 2015.  NAB is seeking to reclaim $75 million, and HSBC
is looking for $50.4 million.

The combined liability insurance policies for the directors is
limited to $150 million.  The banks sought to secure priority for
any insurance payout.

However, court documents reveal that former shareholders are
"fairly close" to launching a class action lawsuit against the
former Dick Smith directors, which could compete against the
banks' claims for compensation.

Unsecured creditors were estimated to be owed upwards of $260
million, but were told there was no likelihood they would be
compensated.

As a result of the competing claims, the presiding judge denied
the liquidators and banks leave to commence legal proceedings
ahead of shareholders.

"The first party to have its claim determined (whether by
judgment, award or settlement) will prevail," the judge said.

Allegations from the liquidators arose during public examinations
Abboud and Potts, as well as former directors Bill Wavish, Phil
Cave, Rob Murray and Jamie Tomlinson.

Other claims include the 'Dividend Claim', in which Dick Smith
allegedly paid a dividend estimated to total $28.3 million to
shareholders in 2015 despite not being able to afford the cost,
and the 'Bad Stock Claim', where Dick Smith had accumulated
unsellable stock totalling $60 million as a result of the 'Rebate
Uplift Practice'. [GN]


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in CreditBuilder Suit Has Partial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas S. Zilly granted in part, denied in part and
renoted the case entitled, O&R CONSTRUCTION, LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN &
BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DIE-
MENSION CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. VINOTEMP INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ALTAFLO, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN &
BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. FLOW
SCIENCES INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Nos. C12-2184 TSZ, C14-855 TSZ, C14-1021 TSZ,
C14-1288 TSZ, C14-1404 TSZ

The parties propose a settlement pursuant to which defendants will
fund an escrow account in the amount of $2.75 million, from which
notice and claims administration fees of $187,000, taxes and tax-
related expenses of $10,000, attorney's fees of $302,500,
litigation expenses of $425,000, and incentive awards to named
plaintiffs in the aggregate amount of $17,500 will be deducted
before the balance or Net Settlement Fund of $1,808,000 is
distributed to class members on a pro rata basis. On the parties'
draft agreement, each class member will be entitled to receive an
award equal to the percentage of the Net Settlement Fund that such
class member's Net Purchase Amount, defined as the total paid for
CreditBuilder products minus all refunds and credits, bears to the
aggregate of all Net Purchase Amounts. The settlement also
requires defendants The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and/or Dun
and Bradstreet, Inc. to add, for a period of at least two years, a
full-time employee whose primary responsibility shall be
responding to and enhancing the quality of responses to trade
disputes. The parties seek certification, for settlement purposes,
of:

     "All persons in the states of California, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, and Washington who purchased a CreditBuilder
product between August 1, 2010, and January 24, 2017."

Plaintiffs in Case No. C12-2184 had filed a third unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which the
court docketed the same as docket no. 238.
Judge Zilly granted in part, deferred in part, and renoted the
motion to June 2, 2017 and ordered that Case Nos. C12-2184, C14-
855, C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404 are consolidated into Case
No. C12-2184 and directed the clerk to close Case Nos. C14-855,
C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404. All future filings shall bear
the cause number C12-2184 TSZ and shall be captioned as:
O&R CONSTRUCTION, LLC; DIE-MENSION CORPORATION; VINOTEMP
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; CPRINT, INC.; ALTAFLO, LLC; and FLOW
SCIENCES INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, C12-2184 TSZ v. DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY
CORPORATION; DUN & BRADSTREET CORPORATION; and DUN & BRADSTREET,
INC., Defendants.

The court certified for settlement purposes:

All persons in the states of California, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, and Washington who purchased a CreditBuilder
product between August 1, 2010, and January 24, 2017.

The Gilardi & Co. LLC, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, also known as
KCC LLC, Computershare Ltd., and any person who timely submits an
executed opt-out form are excluded from the class. O&R
Construction, LLC; Die-Mension Corporation; Vinotemp International
Corporation; CPrint, Inc.; Altaflo, LLC; and Flow Sciences Inc.
are appointed as class representatives. Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP; Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore Kahler;
Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP; and Landskroner Grieco Merriman,
LLC, are appointed as class counsel. The law firm of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is APPOINTED as Escrow Agent. The Escrow
Agent shall maintain the settlement funds in a segregated account.

Gilardi & Co LLC is appointed as settlement administrator. The
settlement administrator shall treat as confidential the records
provided by defendants concerning the class members and shall not
disclose such records to any person or entity unless authorized to
do so by the court. The settlement administrator shall use such
records solely for the purposes of providing notice to class
members, for distributing awards to class members, and for
corresponding as necessary with class members to administer the
settlement on the matter. The settlement administrator shall not
copy such records or use them for any purpose other than to
administer the settlement. Within thirty (30) days after the
completion of its obligations to administer the settlement, the
settlement administrator shall destroy the above-mentioned records
and certify in writing to class counsel and defendants' attorneys
that the records have been destroyed.

The court concludes that the prerequisites set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) are satisfied.

On or before June 2, 2017, the parties shall file a supplemental
brief, not to exceed twelve (12) pages in length, addressing the
issues outlined in the order, along with revised proposed forms of
notices to class members, a revised stipulation of settlement, and
any proposed opt-out form. The revised proposed forms of notices
should reflect the consolidation of the five cases at issue and
provide class members only the active case number. The parties
shall indicate what specific dates they propose for a final
settlement approval hearing and related deadlines.

A copy of Judge Zilly's order dated May 5, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/UtXeB2 from Leagle.com.

O&R Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron A. Bartz --
Ross E. Shanberg -- at SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP; Bradley
Jerome Moore -- brad@stritmatter.com -- at STRITMATTER KESSLER
WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER; Christopher Collins --
chrisc@rgrdlaw.com -- Frank J. Janecek, Jr. -- frankj@rgrdlaw.com
-- Holly W. Kimmel -- hkimmel@rgrdlaw.com -- Lea Malani Bays --
lbays@rgrdlaw.com -- Stuart A. Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -
- Theodore J. Pintar -- tedp@rgrdlaw.com -- Thomas E. Egler --
tome@rgrdlaw.com -- at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP; Drew
Legando -- Jack Landskroner -- at LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN,
LLC

Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron A. Bartz -- Ross E.
Shanberg -- at SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP; Bradley Jerome Moore
-- brad@stritmatter.com -- at STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER
MOORE KAHLER; Christopher Collins -- chrisc@rgrdlaw.com -- Frank
J. Janecek, Jr. -- frankj@rgrdlaw.com -- Holly W. Kimmel --
hkimmel@rgrdlaw.com -- Lea Malani Bays -- lbays@rgrdlaw.com --
Stuart A. Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Theodore J. Pintar
-- tedp@rgrdlaw.com -- Thomas E. Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- at
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP; Drew Legando -- Jack Landskroner
-- at LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Timothy W.
Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Zathrina Zasell G. Perez --
zperez@gibsondunn.com -- at GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP; Thomas
Matthew Brennan -- tmb@mckay-chadwell.com -- Michael D. McKay --
mdm@mckay-chadwell.com -- at MCKAY CHADWELL

Dun & Bradstreet Inc. and Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mikael A. Abye -- mikael.abye@shearman.com --
Richard F. Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- at SHEARMAN &
STERLING LLP; Carson R. Cooper -- cooperc@lanepowell.com --
Charles C. Huber -- huberc@lanepowell.com -- at LANE POWELL PC


EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned BLAKE BAUER, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and SCOTT TARRIFF, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-3091 (JLL)
(D.N.J.).

Although Eagle is a pharmaceutical company, it does not focus on
developing new drug therapies.  Rather, its business model focuses
on "developing proprietary innovations that improve upon short-
comings of existing FDA-approved, injectable drugs."  Under this
model, Eagle seeks to utilize the FDA's 505(b)(2) New Drug
Application regulatory pathway.

This action pertains to a particular product developed by Eagle
Scott Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which was originally known as
"Kangio."  Consistent with Eagle's business model, the Product was
not a novel drug.  Rather, the drug was based off of a pre-
approved drug called "Bivalirudin," which was developed by the
Medicines Company and is marketed under the brand name "Angiomax."
In industry terms, Bivalirudin is the "reference drug" to Eagle's
Product.

The Plaintiffs, the purchasers of Eagle common stock, bring this
action on behalf of a putative class "of all persons who purchased
Eagle common stock between May 12, 2015 and March 18, 2016,
inclusive.  They assert claims of securities violations against
the Defendants pertaining to an alleged "series of materially
misleading statements and omissions concerning the Defendants'
failed attempt to secure FDA approval of its ready-to-use liquid
Bivalirudin product," which product Eagle unsuccessfully sought to
introduce into the market through the 505(b)(2) pathway.

Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that investors were misled into
purchasing Eagle stock at inflated prices due to material
misrepresentations and omissions made by Eagle and its CEO, Scott
Tarriff, specifically relating to the Product and its likelihood
of receiving FDA approval.  These alleged misrepresentations can
be classified, as in Plaintiffs' opposition brief, into two main
categories: (i) the Defendants' representations that the Product
was simply a liquid, 'ready to use' version of Angiomax; and (ii)
the Defendants' representations that FDA approval of the Product's
NDA was imminent based on a continuing dialogue with the FDA.

Eagle and its investors were excited about the prospect of FDA
approval of the Product.  On May 19, 2015, Eagle submitted an NDA
to the FDA, seeking approval through the 505(b)(2) regulatory
pathway.  The Plaintiffs allege that "by June 30, 2015, the
Company had announced that the NDA had been accepted as filed by
the FDA and that the FDA action was due by March 19, 2016."  They
further allege that in the months following their filing of the
FDA, "Eagle assured investors that the Company was engaged in an
ongoing, positive dialogue with the FDA."  Moreover, according to
them, "in the weeks leading up to an anticipated FDA decision,
Defendant Tarriff, and Eagle created a materially misleading
impression to investors that FDA approval of Kangio was highly
likely, if not a fait accompli."  However, on March 18, 2016,
Eagle announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter
from the FDA, which letter, in short, advised the Company that it
would not approve Eagle's NDA relating to the Product in its
present form.

According to the Plaintiffs, "the share price of Eagle stock
reacted sharply to the news, declining by $10.18 (or 18.9%) from
the March 17, 2016 closing price of $53.68 to close at $43.50."
Citing to a research note from Piper Jaffray issued the same day
that Eagle announced its receipt of the CRL, the Plaintiffs state
that the decline in share pricing is directly attributable "to the
unexpected denial" of the Product NDA.

Against this backdrop, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class
action asserting securities violations under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, in Count I of the Amended
Complaint, they assert a violation of Section 10(b) of the Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In Count II, the
Plaintiffs assert a derivative claim against Defendant Tarriff for
violation of Section 20(a) of the Act.

The Defendants now move for a dismissal of this action for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  They argue that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
should be dismissed because it fails to meet the heightened
pleading standards of a securities fraud claim.  Among other
arguments, they maintain that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
pled the first element of a 10(b) claim -- namely, a material
misrepresentation or omission.

The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have
failed to plead with sufficient particularity any facts tending to
support their theory that the Defendants' statements relating to
the characteristics of the Product were false.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff has not met the heightened pleading standard of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act with respect to these
particular challenged statements.  Therefore, these statements
cannot form the basis of Plaintiffs' claims.  Thus, to the extent
the Plaintiffs' claims are premised upon statements regarding the
composition of the Product, those claims are not actionable.

In summary, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead the first element of their claim of a violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act.  Because they fail to
sufficiently plead this primary violation, the Plaintiffs' claim
for individual liability as against Defendant Tarriff pursuant to
Section 20(a) also fails.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2917 order is available at
https://is.gd/Dt8KhZ from Leagle.com

Brent Kawamura, Movant, represented by THOMAS W. ELROD, KIRBY
MCINERNEY LLP.

GUARANG PATEL, Movant, represented by THOMAS W. ELROD, KIRBY
MCINERNEY LLP.

BLAKE BAUER, Plaintiff, represented by THOMAS W. ELROD, KIRBY
MCINERNEY LLP.

EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by NATHAN
WELLS POULSEN, COOLEY LLP.

SCOTT TARRIFF, Defendant, represented by NATHAN WELLS POULSEN,
COOLEY LLP.


EAT CLUB: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Costs, Laufer & Weber Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Laufer and Brian Weber, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
Eat Club Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 17CV310764 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to reimburse food delivery drivers' business expenditures
incurred by the Plaintiffs and Class Members for business use of
their personal smart phones and personal vehicles in performing
their job duties.

Headquarters in Palo Alto, California, Eat Club Inc. is in the
business of providing corporate catering services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Allen, Esq.
      Daniel Velton, Esq.
      VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
      525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
      Sunnyvale, CA 94087
      Telephone: (408) 505-7892
      Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
      E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
              dvelton@vzfirm.com


EVERALBUM INC: Faces "Aloise" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domenic Aloise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. EVERALBUM, INC., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00837-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla., May 11,
2017), stems from Defendant's alleged conduct of deceiving users
of its mobile application, Ever, into providing Defendant with the
contact numbers on their mobile devices.

The complaint alleged that, "Once in possession of users' contact
numbers, Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system,
transmits generic telemarketing text messages to the users'
contacts from spoofed telephone numbers.

"Defendant transmits its telemarketing texts without first
obtaining the express consent of recipients."

The case alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is a mobile application designer, developer and
operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


EXPRESS MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "LaCurtis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   (a) designate the action styled MICHAEL LaCURTIS, on behalf of
       himself and others similarly situated v. EXPRESS MEDICAL
       TRANSPORTERS, INC. (an Missouri Corporation), et al.,
       Case No. 4:15-cv-00427-AGF (E.D. Mo.), as a class action
       under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for:

       All persons from March 9, 2013 to the present who (i)
       performed work as drivers or helpers, while employed by
       Defendants in the State of Missouri who, in whole or in
       part, (ii) operated a motor vehicle as depicted in
       Exhibits E and F to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
       Judgment (Docs. 38-5, 38-6), or any other paralift vans
       that had a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 lbs. or less and
       were designed to seat 8 or fewer total passengers, and
       (iii) were not paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay
       for hours worked over forty in any workweek;

   (b) approve the Notice to Class Members and Opt-out Form
       attached as Exhibits B and C to the supporting memorandum;

   (c) require the Defendants to produce the last known mailing
       address for the class members within 14 days of the order;

   (d) designate Michael LaCurtis as Representative Plaintiff for
       the Class; and

   (e) designate Brendan J. Donelon, Esq., and Daniel W. Craig,
       Esq., of the law office of Donelon, P.C. as the attorneys
       representing the Class.

On May 31, 2016, the Court consolidated the LaCurtis Case with the
lawsuit titled Kris Daniels and Gerald Young v. Express Medical
Transporters, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00101-AGF.  The Daniels Case
was then administratively closed.

A copy of the Pleading is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2HzT6Sxs

Plaintiff MICHAEL LaCURTIS is represented by:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          6614 Clayton Road, #320
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 297-8385
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

Plaintiffs Kris Daniels and Gerald Young are represented by:

          Brandy B. Barth, Esq.
          Talmage E. Newton IV, Esq.
          NEWTONBARTH, LLP
          7515 Delmar Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63130
          Telephone: (314) 272-4490
          Facsimile: (314) 762-6710
          E-mail: bbarth@newtonwrightlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John J. Gazzoli, Jr., Esq.
          Jessica C. Gittemeier, Esq.
          ROSENBLUM GOLDENHERSH
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., 4th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 726-6868
          Facsimile: (314) 726-6786
          E-mail: jgazzoli@rgsz.com
                  jgittemeier@rgsz.com


EZCORP: Court Partly Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, (J&W) is
investigating potential violations of federal and state laws by
certain officers and directors of EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ: EZPW).  On
May 5, 2017, a federal court denied in part a motion to dismiss a
securities fraud class action filed against EZCORP and the
Company's former CEO/CFO. EZCORP provides pawn loans in the United
States, Mexico, and Canada.

The class action complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period defendants issued false and misleading statements to
investors and failed to disclose that EZCORP's lack of internal
controls over its financial reporting gave rise to two primary
accounting errors: (1) the failure to properly account for the
sale of certain non-performing loans to third parties (Loan
Sales), and (2) the failure to properly account for Grupo
Finmart's non-performing payroll loans When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you have held EZCORP shares continuously since at least
November 20l3, you may have standing to hold the Company harmless
from the damage the officers or directors are alleged to have
caused the Company.  You may also be able to assist in reforming
the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are an EZCORP shareholder, continuously since at least
November 20l3, and are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-
4471.  If you email, please include your phone number.

                  About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- 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. [GN]


FLORIDA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Venkataram" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White denied the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit styled
NATARAJAN VENKATARAM v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-24502-RNS (S.D. Fla.).

Natarajan Venkataram is currently an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institution, in Miami, Florida.  He filed this pro se
civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).  He sues these Defendants:
the Bureau of Prisons, Florida Prison Camp Warden, B. Romero;
Thomas R. Kane, the BOP Acting Director; H. J. Marberry, the BOP
Regional Director; and Tracie Jenkins, the FPC Supervisory
Chaplain.

Judge White noted that after screening pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, the Complaint has been allowed to proceed
against the named defendants on claims of a violation of First
Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and declaratory
relief.  However, Judge White opined, the record does not reflect
that the Plaintiff would be an adequate class representative.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XKaMr9wq

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-CIVIL
          99 NE 4th Street, Suite 335
          Miami, FL 33132
          E-mail: anthony.pogorzelski@usdoj.gov


FLOWERS FOODS: "Green" Suit by Distributors Claims FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GREEN, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and FLOWERS BAKING
CO. OF BIRMINGHAM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00784-MHH
(N.D. Ala., May 11, 2017), was filed on behalf of the named
Plaintiff and those similarly situated who operate(d) as fresh
bakery product employees and/or were employees classified as
"distributors" for Defendants.

The case alleges that Defendants either classify or classified
Plaintiffs as independent contractors or failed to pay overtime
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Named
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Flowers Foods is a corporation whose business consists
of distributing bakery and snack food products to retail
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberly E. Linville, Esq.
     Larry B. Moore, Esq.
     Ian Michael Berry, Esq.
     MOORE, BERRY & LINVILLE
     211 North Court Street
     Florence, AL 35630
     Phone: (256) 718-0120
     Fax: (256) 718-0251
     E-mail: klinville@mblattorneys.com
     lbmoore@mblattorneys.com
     imberry@mblattorneys.com

        - and -

     Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
     WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM
     112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
     P.O. Box 266
     Jackson, TN 38302
     Phone: (731) 423-5565
     E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

        - and -

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Tel: 615-354-1144
     E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
             eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Winslow Moves to Certify Class & Two Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BARBARA WINSLOW, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. FORSTER & GARBUS,
LLP, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02996-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court
for an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action in
which the umbrella class is defined as:

     (i) Natural persons;

    (ii) who were sued by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
         2005;

   (iii) in a New York state consumer collection action;

    (iv) in an action in which Defendant Forster & Garbus, LLP
         ("F&G") represented National Collegiate; and

     (v) in which the Compliant states that (a) "Plaintiff is
         authorized to proceed with this action" and/or (b)
         "Plaintiff is the original creditor."

Ms. Winslow seeks certification of a hybrid class combining the
elements of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(classes seeking monetary relief) and Rule 23(b)(2) (classes for
equitable relief).  She also seeks to certify two subclasses:

   (1) The first is a Fair Debt Collection Act subclass
       consisting of all individuals, who meet the class criteria
       above [the umbrella class] and to whom the complaint was
       sent within one year of the filing of this action; and

   (2) The second is a New York General Business Law subclass
       consists of everyone meeting the criteria above [the
       umbrella class] these criteria were met and the complaint
       was sent within three years of filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and her attorneys at Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP, as
class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RL2gezrm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          Benjamin Silverman, Esq.
          KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
          85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 2500-6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
          E-mail: dschlanger@kakalec-schlanger.com


FOUNTAIN HILLS: "Bell" Alleges Nonpayment of All Time Worked
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Bell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fountain Hills Assisted Living, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; Skyline Estate Assisted Living,
LLC; an Arizona limited liability company; Tucson Medical
Supply, LLC; an Arizona limited liability company; Parkers Adult
Care, LLC; an Arizona limited liability company; Ayse's
Specialized Care, LLC; an Arizona limited liability company; Andre
Lampkins; and Ayse Lampkins, Arizona residents, Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00217-DCB (D. Ariz., May 11, 2017), was filed on
behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly-situated current and former
caregiver and/or home care aid employees who were compensated on
an hourly basis, and who were allegedly not paid one-and-one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in a given workweek.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fountain Hills Assisted Living, LLC is a senior lifestyle
community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Zoldan, Esq.
     Jason Barrat, Esq.
     ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 213
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone and Fax: 480.442.3410
     E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
             jbarrat@zoldangroup.com


FXCM: Faces New Securities Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------
Maria Nikolova, writing for Finance Feeds, reports that the volume
of legal actions targeting FXCM in the United States has been
exponentially growing since US regulators announced findings into
the unfair business practices of the Forex broker in February this
year.

The Rosen Law Firm was the first to react then and to set the
stage for a class action securities lawsuit against FXCM.  There
was nothing astonishing that the firm managed to snatch the
leading role in the lawsuit against the broker and a number of its
principals that combines four similar legal actions at the New
York Southern District Court.

There is a new case (1:17-cv-03700) filed against FXCM in this
court.  The plaintiff is Ms Doris Murrah, represented by
Christopher J. Gray, Law Office Of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. On
May 17, 2017, an amended complaint was submitted against Global
Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), FXCM Holdings, Forex Capital Markets
LLC, William Ahdout and Dror Niv.

The case has been referred to Judge Ronnie Abrams as possibly
related to 1:17-cv-00916-RA.  The latter is the caption for the
"mega lawsuit" combining the four securities lawsuits against FXCM
and led by the Rosen Law Firm.  This referral, along with the fact
that the nature of the suit is labelled as
"Securities/Commodities/Exchange" indicates that Murrah v. Forex
Capital Markets, LLC et al is yet another securities action
against FXCM related to the February 2017 events.

In its report for the first quarter of 2017, Global Brokerage Inc
(NASDAQ:GLBR) provided an update on legal actions against it,
saying that "in response to the Company's announcement on February
6, 2017 regarding settlements with the NFA and the CFTC, several
putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed against
Global Brokerage, Inc., Dror Niv, and Robert Lande in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York." Apparently,
Global Brokerage was talking of the combined legal actions against
it.  The company reiterated its intentions to "vigorously defend
against the claims asserted in these actions".

In the report, Global Brokerage also mentioned another case (#
1:17-cv-02729), filed by a customer of US on April 14, 2017. This
is a class action on behalf of customers who traded on the "No
Dealing Desk" platform during the 2010-2016 period.  The
plaintiffs claim that the customers were harmed as a result of
FXCM's relationship and use of Effex Capital, LLC as a liquidity
provider.  The class action alleges (inter alia) breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty by US and other related
claims against Global Brokerage (FXCM), FXCM Holdings, Dror Niv,
William Ahdout, Effex and its principal. [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: Under FBI Investigation Amid Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Kate Feldman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that Ja
Rule and Billy McFarland may be facing federal charges for the
disastrous Fyre Festival.

The festival hosts are being investigated by the FBI for possible
mail, wire and securities fraud, according to the New York Times.

The failed music festival was supposed to be a two-weekend long
music event in the Bahamas; tickets ran about $12,000 and
scheduled performers included Blink-182, Desiigner, Pusha T and
Tyga.

Instead, the millennial promised an Instagram-perfect festival
arrived to a canceled festival, a tent city and meals well below
expectations.

Employees reportedly haven't been paid, including a local
restaurant owner who claims to be owed $134,000.

Blink-182, who was supposed to headline the festival, have their
equipment stuck in "customs limbo," according to the Times.

In early May, the Fyre Festival organizers were slapped with a
$100 million federal class-action lawsuit that claimed the hosts
knew ahead of time that the festival would be a disaster -- and
dangerous.

"The festival's lack of adequate food, water, shelter and medical
care created a dangerous and panicked situation among attendees
-- suddenly finding themselves stranded on a remote island without
basic provisions -- that was closer to 'The Hunger Games' or 'Lord
of the Flies' than Coachella," says the suit.

A second class-action lawsuit, filed days later, accused the
organizers of tricking ticket-holders into spending ludicrous
amounts of money with "false promises."

The festival hosts face a number of lawsuits, including one that
accused them of tricking ticket-holders into spending ludicrous
amounts of money with "false promises."

Advertising for the Fyre Festival centered around celebrities
including Kendall Jenner, Hailey Baldwin, Bella Hadid and Emily
Ratajkowski.

A third lawsuit, from money-lending company EHL Funding, claims
that the founders were late on their $3 million loan payments.

In the days following the disastrous event, Ja Rule issued a
personal apology, but deflected blame.

"I'm heartbroken at this moment.  My partners and I wanted this to
be an amazing event.  It was NOT A SCAM as everyone is reporting,"
he wrote on Twitter.

"I don't know how everything went so left but I'm working to make
it right by making sure everyone is refunded . . . I truly
apologize as this is NOT MY FAULT . . . but I'm taking
responsibility.  I'm deeply sorry to everyone who was
inconvenienced by this." [GN]


G & D TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Castillo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ayala Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. G & D Transportation, Inc. and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC662285 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, and
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.

G & D Transportation, Inc. provides logistics, supply chain, and
asset-based transportation company services in the United States
and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
      Casparji Vaiagian, Esq.
      KJT LAW GROUP LLP
      230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306.
      Glendale, CA 91206
      Telephone: (818) 507-8525
      E-mail: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
              caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
      ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
      4740 Calle Carga
      Camarillo, CA 93012
      Telephone: (818) 425-1437
      E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCoiinsel.com


HARDLINE CONSULTING: "Starling" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bradrick Starling, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hardline Consulting Group
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00097 (W.D. Tex., May 15, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime premiums, an equal amount of unpaid overtime
premiums as liquidated damages as well as attorney's fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hardline Consulting Group LLC is an oilfield services company that
provides staffing services where Starling was assigned as a
completions consultant to do monitoring and on-site supervision of
drilling completions and work-over of oil and gas wells for
various drilling companies throughout West Texas. Defendant
classified its employees as independent contractors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


HYUNDAI: NHTSA Investigates Theta II Engine Recalls Amid Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that
Hyundai and Kia vehicles equipped with Theta II engines and
recalled because of those engines are the focus of an
investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).

Safety regulators want to know if Hyundai and Kia did enough and
fast enough concerning the recalls of nearly 1.7 million vehicles
with Theta engines prone to a lot of noise and finally locking up.

In September 2015, Hyundai recalled about 470,000 model year 2011-
2012 Sonatas equipped with 2-liter and 2.4-liter Theta II engines.
At the time, Hyundai told NHTSA that manufacturing problems left
metallic debris around the engine crankshaft, causing problems
with oil flow. The pieces of metal interfere with the oil flow
through the connecting rod bearings and damage the connecting
rods.

The automaker blamed the problem on a mechanical "deburring"
process used to remove metallic machining debris from the
crankshaft.

By April 2017, Hyundai expanded the 2015 recall by including
another 572,000 vehicles with Theta II engines, including 2013-
2014 Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe Sport vehicles. Hyundai told
safety regulators the same metal debris problem caused the
expanded recall.

Near that same time, Kia told NHTSA about a recall of more than
618,000 model year 2011-2014 Kia Optima, 2012-2014 Sorento and
2011-2013 Sportage vehicles because the Theta engine bearings wore
out too early and caused the engines to seize.

Kia said it didn't recall the vehicles in 2015 when Hyundai first
recalled its cars because the Theta II engines in the Kia vehicles
were built on a different production line and had different
problems than Hyundai.

In addition to customers complaining about the Theta II engines, a
Korean whistleblower who worked for Hyundai as an engineer let
NHTSA know what he knew.

And then there is the amount of time Hyundai has spent in court
because of the Theta engines.

Owners started suing after the automaker refused to pay the
thousands of dollars to repair or replace the engines, with one
lawsuit from 2015 alleging a dealer wanted $4,500 to do the work.

Kia was also served papers over a class-action lawsuit in 2016
filed by owners of vehicles equipped with Theta engines.

NHTSA says it took action to "investigate both the timeliness and
scope of Hyundai's Theta II engine recalls, and Hyundai's
compliance with reporting requirements." [GN]


IDEAL LUMBER: "Jimenez" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Raul Jimenez and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Ideal Lumber & Hardware, Inc., Luis Crespo, Ariel Crespo,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21843 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2017)
requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' hardware store in Miami-Dade as a
warehouse worker and route delivery driver from on or about
February 16, 1998 through on or about October 8, 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Policy is Not Insurance, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted defendant's motion to
dismiss the case captioned JUSTIN BARE, Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE
AFTERMARKET SYSTEMS, LP, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-11049
(S.D.W. Va.).

Justin Bare purchased a vehicle from a Kentucky automobile dealer
and as part of the sale, Bare also purchased a Protection Plus
policy from Innovative Aftermarket Systems, LP, for $299.  The
policy allegedly guaranteed that the anti-theft system installed
on the vehicle would be an effective deterrent to vehicle theft
and in the event that the product will not deter theft and the
vehicle was not recovered within 30 days or recovered and declared
a total loss as the result of the theft, then Innovative would pay
Bare a sum of $2,500.

Bare filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Logan County and
states that his vehicle was stolen on December 7, 2014, and his
automobile insurer allegedly issued him a settlement check on
April 24, 2015, for $15,239.61 after declaring the vehicle a total
loss. Bare asserts that he made a claim under the policy on
December 15, 2015, and but Innovative denied the claim as untimely
based on the policy's filing requirements. Bare's causes of action
includes an unlawful sale of insurance in violation of West
Virginia insurance law and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act (WVCCPA), a common law breach of contract,
violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act
(WVUTPA), and a common law bad faith. Bare seeks, on behalf of a
similarly situated class of plaintiffs, actual, compensatory, and
punitive damages, a refund of premiums paid, a civil penalty for
statutory violations, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and any other just relief.

Innovative removed the case to the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division court on November 17, 2016, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), (d) and on December 9, 2016,
Innovative filed a motion to dismiss and argues that all of
plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because they all hinge upon
the product being insurance, which Innovative contends it is not.

Judge Johnston granted defendant's motion to dismiss finding that
the policy is not insurance.

A copy of Judge Johnston's memorandum opinion and order dated May
5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/uXyq1K from Leagle.com.

Justin Bare, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher White --
Jcwhite@Wolfelawwv.com -- Steven S. Wolfe -- Swolfe@Wolfelawwv.com
-- at WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES; Jonathan R. Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Sandra Henson Kinney --
skinney@baileyglasser.com -- at BAILEY & GLASSER

Innovative Aftermarket Systems, LP, Defendant, represented by
Alexander Macia -- amacia@spilmanlaw.com -- Charity K. Lawrence --
clawrence@spilmanlaw.com -- at SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE; Douglas
Alan Albritton -- douglas.albritton@akerman.com -- Julian Dayal --
julian.dayal@akerman.com -- at AKERMAN


INTELLICHECK LLC: Calif. Court Trims Delivery Driver's FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the case captioned JAMES CUNHA, Plaintiff, v. INTELLICHECK, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00597-JST (N.D.Cal.).

This putative class action arises out of an employment background
check that IntelliCheck performed on Cunha when he applied to be a
produce delivery driver for ProPacific on April 30, 2016.  On his
first day of employment, Cunha was required to sign a number of
forms, including a "Disclosure and Authorization for Consumer
Reports" form.  After Cunha signed the Disclosure Form,
IntelliCheck prepared a consumer report on Cunha that included
information about misdemeanor convictions that occurred more than
seven years prior to the date of the consumer report and
information about arrests that did not result in a conviction.  As
a result of the information contained in the consumer report,
ProPacific terminated Cunha on May 20, 2016.

Cunha alleges that ProPacific and IntelliCheck violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and California's Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA") by: (i) failing to make
the requisite disclosures prior to obtaining a consumer report on
Cunha; (ii) preparing a consumer report that contained information
older than seven years and terminating Cunha on that basis; and
(iii) failing to provide a copy of the consumer report before
terminating Cunha based on information contained therein.  With
respect to disclosures, Cunha alleges that ProPacific's documents
failed to disclose that Cunha had the right to obtain a copy of
the report, that Cunha had the right to view the consumer report,
and a statement summarizing the provisions of California Civil
Code Section 1786.22.  Cunha further alleges that ProPacific
willfully violated the FCRA and the ICRAA by inserting a liability
waiver in its Disclosure Form.  Additionally, Cunha alleges that
the Disclosure Form violated the FCRA and the ICRAA because it
contained "extraneous information" (e.g. an authorization to
obtain a physical examination and drug and alcohol testing) not
solely related to the disclosure.

Based on these alleged violations, Cunha and putative class
members seek statutory damages under the FCRA, actual damages
under the ICRAA, and injunctive relief and restitutionary
disgorgement under the UCL.

On March 16, 2017, ProPacific moved to dismiss or strike Cunha's
second, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.  On April 14,
2017, IntelliCheck moved to dismiss Cunha's first, fifth, and
seventh causes of action.

Cunha does not oppose IntelliCheck's motion to dismiss his claim
under Section 1681c of the FCRA.  Therefore, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss this claim with prejudice.

ProPacific moves to dismiss or strike portions of Cunha's second
cause of action on the ground that he has failed to state a claim
under Sections 1681d and 1681g(c) of the FCRA because he has not
alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the information
contained in his consumer report was obtained through personal
interviews.  The Court agrees.  The FAC does not allege any facts
suggesting that Cunha's report contained information that was
"obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or
associates" such that it was an "investigative consumer report"
subject to Section 1681d.  Therefore, the Court dismissed the
portions of Cunha's second cause of action that relate to Sections
1681d and 1681g of the FCRA because he has failed to state a claim
under that provision.

Next, ProPacific moves to dismiss Cunha's claim under Section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FCRA.  In his second claim for relief,
Cunha generally asserts a cause of action under Section
1681b(b)(2)(A) that presumably encompasses both subsection (i) and
subsection (ii).  In his fourth claim for relief, Cunha asserts a
cause of action solely under subsection (ii).

ProPacific moves to dismiss the fourth claim for relief on two
grounds: (i) Cunha has failed to allege facts sufficient to
establish willfulness; and (ii) Cunha alleges that he signed
ProPacific's authorization form prior to the background check,
which directly refutes a claim under subsection (ii).  The Court
agrees that Cunha has failed to state a claim under subsection
(ii), and accordingly grants the motion to dismiss his fourth
claim for relief.  Cunha repeatedly alleges in the FAC that he
signed an authorization form on his first day of employment.
These allegations establish that Cunha gave written authorization
for ProPacific to procure a consumer report on him, and therefore
necessarily defeat Cunha's claim under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).

However, the Court notes for the sake of clarity that Cunha has
stated a claim for a willful violation of subsection (i) in his
second claim for relief.  And, because subsection (i) is "not
subject to a range of plausible interpretations," an employer who
includes a liability waiver on a disclosure document willfully
violates that provision "as a matter of law," regardless of their
subjective interpretation of the statute.  Like the plaintiff in
Syed v. M-I, LLC, Cunha alleges that ProPacific included a
liability waiver in its Disclosure Form.  Therefore, the Court
allowed Cunha's second claim for relief to proceed.

ProPacific and IntelliCheck both move to dismiss Cunha's ICRAA
claims on the following grounds: (i) Cunha cannot simultaneously
bring claims under the FCRA and ICRAA that stem from the same
alleged act or omission; and (ii) the ICRAA is unconstitutionally
vague.  ProPacific also argues that Cunha has failed to allege
sufficient facts to demonstrate a  willful violation of the ICRAA.
All of these arguments fail.

Courts have rejected the Defendants' contention that a plaintiff
cannot bring simultaneous FCRA and ICRAA claims based on the same
act or omission, and this Court will do the same.  For this
reason, the Court rejects the Defendants' argument that Cunha is
barred from asserting both FCRA and ICRAA claims in the same
complaint.

California has enacted two statutes that govern consumer reports.
The ICRAA covers reports that contain information about "a
consumer's character, general reputation, personal
characteristics, or mode of living," and explicitly excludes
reports that are "limited to specific factual information relating
to a consumer's credit record."  Meanwhile, the CCRAA covers
reports containing "information bearing on a consumer's credit
worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity," and explicitly
excludes "any report containing information solely on a consumer's
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode
of living."

Based on the statutory framework outlined, the Defendants argue
that the ICRAA is void for vagueness as applied to the conduct
alleged here because Cunha's report contained information related
to the Plaintiff's criminal background history, which could bear
on both his character and his creditworthiness, thus potentially
implicating both the ICRAA and the CCRAA.  Accordingly, the
Defendants argue, they "can only guess as to whether the ICRAA or
the CCRAA applies" and they "did not have sufficient notice that
the ICRAA covered Plaintiff's report."

Aside from this partial overlap between the two statutes, which
does not render the ICRAA unconstitutionally vague for the reasons
outlined, the Defendants otherwise fail to explain how the ICRAA
fails to provide sufficient notice of the conduct it prohibits.
The Court therefore denied the motion to dismiss on this ground.

Cunha has adequately alleged a willful violation of the ICRAA.  He
alleges that ProPacific violated the ICRAA by failing to provide a
summary of the consumer's rights in the disclosure document,
including extraneous documents in the disclosure document, and
conducting investigative consumer reports for an improper purpose.
Here, Cunha alleges that the Disclosure Form contained a liability
waiver and "authorization to obtain a physical examination and
conduct drug and alcohol tests and other matters."  Because this
conduct was clearly unlawful under Section 1786.16 of the ICRAA,
Cunha has adequately alleged willfulness.

The Court denied the motions to dismiss claims five and six.

The Defendants move to dismiss Cunha's UCL claim on the following
four grounds: (i) Cunha lacks standing to seek injunctive relief
under the UCL; (ii) Cunha's UCL claim is federally preempted by
the FCRA; (iii) Cunha has not demonstrated that he lacks an
adequate remedy at law, so he is not entitled to equitable relief
under the UCL; and (iv) Cunha has failed to state a claim under
the UCL.

Cunha's failure to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of future
injury distinguishes this case from the cases that Cunha relies on
in its opposition brief.  Because Cunha fails to establish
standing to seek injunctive relief under Article III, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss Cunha's seventh cause of action
under the UCL.

Because Cunha does not oppose the dismissal of claim one, the
Court dismissed that claim with prejudice.  The Court also
dismissed claim four with prejudice because any amendment would be
futile in light of Cunha's repeated admissions that he gave
ProPacific written authorization to run his consumer report.

The Court dismissed the portions of Cunha's second cause of action
that relate to Section 1681d and Section 1681g of the FCRA with
leave to amend.  Upon amendment, Cunha should allege what facts,
if any, suggest that the information contained in his consumer
report was obtained through personal interviews such that it was
an "investigative consumer report" subject to the FCRA.

The Court also dismissed Cunha's seventh cause of action under the
UCL with leave to amend.  Upon amendment, Cunha should allege
facts that show a sufficient likelihood that he will be wronged
again in a similar way in the future.

Finally, the Court granted Cunha's request for leave to amend to
allege the following claims: (i) a claim against IntelliCheck
under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(1)(A) & (B); and (ii) a claim
against ProPacific under Section 1785.20.5 of the CCRAA.  If Cunha
wishes to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies
noted, he must do so within 30 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/BHz8Cv from Leagle.com

James Cunha, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Nathaniel Keegan,
Keegan & Baker, LLP.

James Cunha, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Treglio,
Keegan & Baker, LLP & Walter Lewis Haines, United Employees Law
Group, P.C..

Intellicheck, LLC, Defendant, represented by Selyn Hong, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Alison H. Hong, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, John Wesley Drury,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice & Pamela Quigley Devata, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, pro hac vice.

Chico Produce, Inc., Defendant, represented by Derek Stanley
Sachs, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


JAL CHEMICAL: "Petty" Suit Seeks Judgment, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Taylor Petty, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JAL Chemical Co., Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00331 (E.D.
Ark., May 17, 2017), seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees, as a result of failing to pay proper overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant operates an automotive detailing business where
Plaintiff worked as a detailing technician. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JC CHRISTENSEN: Seeks Initial OK of $20K Deal in "Carroll" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled JAMES CARROLL, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-06403-BRM-
TJB (D.N.J.), jointly ask the Court for an order granting
preliminary approval of their class action settlement.

The Class consists of:

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent letters and/or
     notices from JCC attempting to collect a debt for LVNV
     Funding LLC that was time-barred by the statute of
     limitations and offered a repayment of monthly payments,
     without disclosing that JCC or LVNV Funding LLC was barred
     from taking any legal action to collect the obligation
     and/or did not disclose that the applicable statute of
     limitations could reset or begin anew upon making the
     payments or upon entering into an agreement to begin making
     payments.

The action was brought by the Plaintiff asserting a claim pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with a
collection letter JCC sent to the Plaintiff, which he alleges
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.  The Defendant denies all of
these factual allegations and the Court has not made a finding of
liability against Defendants.

The key terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement are:

   a. A fund in the amount of $20,000 is established for purpose
      of satisfying the claims of the Class;

   b. Defendant must pay each Class Member, who does not opt out
      a pro rata share of the $20,000 fund;

   c. Defendant must pay $1,500 to the Class Representative for
      his role in this litigation from the fund;

   d. Defendant must pay attorney fees and costs in the total
      amount of $40,000.  The amount is to be paid in addition
      to, and not out of, the amounts paid to the Class
      Representative and the Class Members; and

   e. Defendant will cause Notice to the Class to be mailed
      within 30 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval
      Order.

The parties seek an order: (1) certifying the proposed Class for
settlement purposes; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed
Settlement Agreement; (3) directing notice to the Class; and (4)
setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a hearing under Rule
23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF AND KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon Carnes, Esq.
          ROCK, FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-1000
          E-mail: bcarnes@rockfuscoconnelly.com


JIVE SOFTWARE: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Jazz Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jive Software, Inc.,
Tony Zingale, Elisa Steele, Margaret Breya, Steve Darcy, Phil
Koen, Robert Frankfurt, Tom Reilly, Chuck Robel, Gabrielle
Toledano and Balaji Yelamanchili, Defendants, 3:17-cv-02836 (N.D.
Cal., May 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from closing the acquisition of Jive
Software, Inc. by Jazz MergerSub, Inc., all damages sustained,
costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jive Software, Inc. is to be acquired by Jazz MergerSub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Wave Systems Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of ESW Capital, LLC for $5.25 per share which Plaintiff
deems inadequate given Jive's recent financial performance and
strong growth prospects. The trading price of the stock was $5.32
as of May 15, 2017. Its stock price has increased over 45% in the
past year.

Jive is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Campbell,
California in the County of Santa Clara. It provides software
sales and services. The Jive Platform integrates cloud and
customer-built applications through published application
programing interfaces and software development kits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rrivas@zlk.com

            - and -

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


JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Eisenband" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Eisenband, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
PLLC, d/b/a Lexington Law Firm, a Utah professional limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03404-FLW-DEA
(D.N.J., May 12, 2017), stems from Defendant's alleged practice of
harassing consumers with automated and pre-recorded telemarketing
calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant sells credit repair and monitoring services to
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
     Stephen DeNittis Esq.
     5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
     Mariton, NJ 08053
     Tel.:(856) 797-9951
     E-mail: Sdenittis@denittislaw.com

        - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
     Phone: 954.400.4713

        - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479 2299
     E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


JP MORGAN: "Merryman" Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Valerie Caproni granted defendant's motion to
dismiss the case captioned BENJAMIN MICHAEL MERRYMAN, AMY WHITAKER
MERRYMAN TRUST, and B MERRYMAN AND A MERRYMAN 4TH GENERATION
REMAINDER TRUST, and CHESTER COUNTY RETIREMENT BOARD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, No. 15-CV-9188 (VEC)
(SDNY).

Plaintiffs, Benjamin Michael Merryman, Amy Whitaker Merryman
Trust, B Berryman and A Merryman 4th Generation Remainder Trust
filed a complaint, on behalf of a putative class and asserted
breach of contract claims arising out of all American Depositary
Receipts (ADR) held on deposit by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(JPM), even though the Merryman plaintiffs owned only twelve of
the 107 ADRs held on deposit by JPM. On September 29, 2016, the
court issued an opinion concluding that the Merryman plaintiffs do
not have standing to represent holders of ADRs that the Merryman
plaintiffs do not own.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that and as a
plaintiff the Chester County, which allegedly owned during the
class period forty-one ADRs held on deposit by JPM. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint claims that JPM collected impermissible fees
when converting foreign currency-denominated cash distributions
into U.S. dollars before distributing the cash to plaintiffs.

JPM moves to dismiss the amended complaint to the extent Chester
County's claims predating November 21, 2012, are barred by the
statute of limitations.

The parties agree that, pursuant to New York's borrowing statute,
N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 202, Pennsylvania's four-year statute of
limitations for breach of contract, 42 Pa. Stat. and Const. Stat.
Ann. Section 5525(a), along with any relevant Pennsylvania tolling
rules, applies in the case. The parties dispute, however, whether
the limitations period should be calculated from the date of
plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on November 21, 2016, or from
the date of plaintiffs' original complaint, filed on November 21,
2015. Plaintiffs seek the earlier date, arguing that
Pennsylvania's class action tolling applies, and Chester County's
claims relate back to the date of the original complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). JPM disagrees and argues
that the limitations period should be calculated as of the date of
the amended complaint, November 21, 2016.

Judge Caproni held that Chester County's claims were not tolled
from the date of the original complaint and also the requirements
of Rule 15(c)(1)(C) have not been satisfied, Chester County's
claims do not relate back to the filing date of the original
complaint pursuant to Rule 15(c).

JPM's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted, and
Chester County's claims predating November 21, 2012, are barred by
Pennsylvania's statute of limitations. The parties must appear for
a conference on May 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 443 of
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
New York, NY 10007, at which time the court will set a discovery
schedule. No later than May 16, 2017, the parties must file a
joint case management plan. If the parties wish to raise any
additional issues during the conference, no later than May 16,
2017, they must file a joint letter briefly addressing those
issues.

A copy of Judge Caproni's memorandum opinion and order dated May
5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/10YFxN from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Michael Merryman, Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, and B
Merryman and A Merryman 4th Generation Remainder Trust,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Christopher Mulveny --
dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Ethan J. Barlieb --ebarlieb@ktmc.com --
Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP

Chester County Retirement Board and Chester County Employees
Retirement Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Sharan Nirmul --
snirmul@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Susan Leslie
Saltzstein -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- Jeffrey S. Geier --
jeffrey.geier@skadden.com -- Marco Enrique Schnabl --
marco.schnabl@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP


JSC INC: Court Denies as Premature Boyce's Bid for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes denied as premature all three pending
motions in the lawsuit entitled DEBRA BOYCE, SARAH KING, and
PEYTON MUSGRAVE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JSC, INC., d/b/a BLACKWOOD'S GYROS & GRILL;
BLACKWOOD GRILL, INC.; and JAMES BLACKWOOD, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00031-JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Judge Holmes stated that the parties may renew their motions after
each side has had an opportunity for discovery.

Debra Boyce, Sarah King, and Peyton Musgrave commenced the
putative class action against the Defendants to recover damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that Blackwood did not pay them a
lawful wage.  Additionally, Ms. Boyce alleges that Blackwood
unlawfully retaliated against her.

The Plaintiffs have moved for conditional certification of their
proposed class as well as partial summary judgment on their
federal and state wage claims.  Blackwood moved for summary
judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that it does
not meet the income requirements of the FLSA and, therefore, is
not subject to the requirements of that Act.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c7k28wvC


JUST FOR MEN: Judge Enters Hair Dye Case Coordination Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinne Lincoln-Pinheiro, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that U.S. District Judge David Herndon entered a case
coordination order in litigation against Just for Men hair
coloring products involving approximately 1,200 men in 11 cases in
Illinois.

In June 2016, plaintiffs Davis, Lindsey, Martin, Brownlee, Brim,
Lasley, McCray, Shamburger, Hairston, Washington and Sanders (et
al), were named in a mass-action lawsuit against Just for Men
manufacturers Combe Incorporated and its subsidiaries, alleging
"risk of burns, scarring, allergic reactions, anaphylactic shock
and skin depigmentation," the Record previously reported.

In early May, Judge Herndon ordered that these 11 individual cases
against Combe be coordinated for discovery and pretrial matters
only.  They will be identified and filed in a master docket called
"Just for Men Mass Tort Litigation."  It will serve as the main
file for all related motions and documentation and only specially
appointed counsel (who cannot be substituted) may file in this
case.

Also, future related claims filed after this order including any
associated actions will automatically be coordinated (without
separate motion) into this master file.  However, case-specific
documents will be filed in each individual case.

One case in St. Clair County involved 240 plaintiffs including men
from across the U.S. and Canada, and there are six other lawsuits
against the Just for Men manufacturers in Missouri courts, though
no other class actions have been filed anywhere else in the U.S.
or Canada.

These cases were removed to the federal court because they met the
definition of "mass action" under state requirements and the Class
Action Fairness Act.

Just for Men argued that it has always advised clients to not only
read instructions carefully before using their products and said
in a statement that clients should "consult with our color
experts" with questions regarding their products before doing so.

In a second case management order in July 2016, Herndon appointed
Stephen Strauss -- sgstrauss@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP as
lead counsel and liaison counsel for the defense.

For the plaintiffs, Richard Schulte of Wright & Schulte was
appointed as co-lead counsel.

From Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP, Roger Denton was appointed
as co-lead counsel and Kristine Kraft as the liaison counsel.

John Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm P.C. was also appointed as the
state-federal coordination counsel.

The steering committee consists of Joseph Osborne of Osborne &
Associates; Jon Conlin of Cory Watson Attorneys; Angela Mason of
The Cochran Firm; Jay Urban of Urban & Taylor S.C.; and Tad Thomas
of Thomas Law Offices.[GN]

Southern District of Illinois Master Docket Case No. 3:16-cv-
00638-DRH


KC LODGE: "Enegren" Seeks Back Wages, Uniform Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Enegren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KC Lodge Ventures LLC, St. Louis Lodge
Ventures LLC and PB&J Restaurants, Inc., Defendants, 2:17-cv-02285
(D. Kan., May 17, 2017), seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated
damages in an amount equal to all unpaid back wages, reimbursement
of expenses related to uniforms and associated image and costume
maintenance required by Twin Peaks with liquidated damages, costs
and expenses of this litigation, including attorneys' fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

KC Lodge Ventures LLC owns and operates Twin Peaks restaurants in
Wichita and Olathe, Kansas where Enegren worked as a server and
bartender at the West Wichita Twin Peaks restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
      Paige D. Pippin, Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      1551 North Waterfront Pkwy, Ste. 100
      Wichita, KS 67206-4466
      Telephone: (316) 267-6371
      Facsimile: (316) 267-6345
      Email: bbyers@foulston.com
             ppippin@foulston.com

             - and -

      Tony F. Rupp, Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      9225 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600
      Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
      Telephone: (913) 498-2100
      Facsimile: (913) 498-2101
      Email: trupp@foulston.com


LATE JULY: Court Trims Claims in "Sweargen" Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned MARY SWEARINGEN,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. LATE JULY SNACKS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
13-cv-04324-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Late July Snacks LLC is a producer of retail food products. It
manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold products, such as
Late July's Classic Saltines Crackers, Classic Rich Crackers, Sea
Salt By The Seashore Multigrain Snack Chips, and other varieties
of crackers and snack chips, labeled using the term evaporated
cane juice (ECJ) on their ingredient lists to thousands of
consumers nationwide, including many who reside in California.

Plaintiffs Mary Swearingen and Robert Figy are citizens of
California, bought and purchased Late July products including a
variety of crackers and snack chips labeled with ECJ. Plaintiffs
are health-conscious consumers who wish to avoid added sugars in
the products they purchase.  They would not have bought the
products had they known that these products contained added sugar.

Plaintiffs first filed a class action complaint for equitable and
injunctive relief on September 18, 2013.  On February 3, 2014,
Late July moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing,
in part, that the court should apply the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction based on the FDA's ongoing regulatory proceeding
concerning the use of ECJ on food labels. The court denied in part
the motion to dismiss and stayed the action pursuant to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction on May 29, 2014. On July 22,
2016, following the FDA's issuance of its Final Guidance, the
Court lifted the stay.

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and brought claims
for violations of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (Unfair Competition Law or UCL), violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (California False
Advertising Law or FAL), violations of California Civil Code
Section 1750, et seq. (Consumer Legal Remedies Act or CLRA) and
unjust enrichment. Late July seeks to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Chen held that plaintiffs' allegations meet the reasonable
consumer standard. Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to
show that a reasonable consumer would share plaintiffs' concern
about added sugar and that a reasonable consumer would be misled
by defendant's misrepresentation. Late July's alleged
misrepresentation was material, and plaintiffs' reliance may be
presumed.

Judge Chen denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' UCL,
FAL, and CLRA claims, and their claim for unjust enrichment, but
granted the motion as to plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
and plaintiffs' claim based on out-of state purchases. Judge Chen
dismisses these claims with leave to amend within 30 days.

A copy of Judge Chen's order dated May 5, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/uqDZVg from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F. Gore Pierce --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- at Pratt & Associates; David Malcolm
McMullan, Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- at Barrett,
P.A.; David Shelton -- at David Shelton, PLLC

Late July Snacks LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua L. Solomon
-- jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- at Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP; Rocky C.
Tsai -- Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com -- at Ropes & Gray LLP


LET'S EAT OUT: Court Certifies Two Servers Classes in "Cope" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen R. Bough granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned OLIVIA COPE, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. LET'S EAT OUT, INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-
03050-SRB (W.D. Mo.).

The Court certifies Ms. Cope's claims under Missouri's minimum
wage law and Missouri common laws to be adjudicated as a single
class action.  The certified classes are defined as:

   a. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
      any of Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in
      Missouri who, at any time from February 10, 2014 until
      May 31, 2015, were paid subminimum, tip-credit rates of
      pay; and

   b. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
      any of Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants who, at
      any time from February 10, 2011 until May 31, 2015, were
      paid sub-minimum, tip-credit rates of pay.

Olivia Cope is designated as the Class Representative, and Douglas
M. Werman, Esq., Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq., Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.,
and Steven P. Schneck, Esq., will serve as Class Counsel.

Judge Bough directed the Defendants to provide to a third-party
administrator, a list all potential class members under the
certified MMWL Class and the Missouri Common Law Class, including
their names, last known mailing address, location(s) of
employment, position(s) held, and dates of employment within 30
calendar days of the entry of the Order.

The parties are directed to meet and confer within 30 calendar
days of the filing of the Order to agree on the proposed notice to
potential class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The notice will be submitted to
the Court within 40 calendar days of the filing of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ww9Xgb1U


LOS ANGELES, CA: More Briefing Needed on Bid to Toss Garris Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald entered a ruling regarding the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case titled Brandi Garris, et
al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E
(C.D. Cal.).

In a civil minutes, the Court ordered additional briefing on the
questions of (1) Plaintiffs' standing to pursue their claims, and
(2) the effect of the severability clause in the Inspection
Ordinance on Plaintiffs' claims.

Each party were required to file a Supplemental Memorandum of
Points and Authorities addressing both questions by May 30, 2017.
After the parties file their Supplemental Memoranda, the Court
will inform the parties if further briefing or an additional
hearing is required.

The Court views the additional briefing as answering the concerns
of the City about ambiguity.  Therefore, the request for a more
definite statement is denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs are two landlords and one renter, who challenge
enforcement of certain sections of the City of Los Angeles
Municipal Code as they relate to inspection of rental units.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of people -- one for
landlords and one for renters -- who paid regulatory fees and
fines pursuant to violations of the Inspection Ordinance, which
allows for fines of up to $1,000 per day for as long as the
violation continues.

The Civil Minutes noted that the Plaintiff has filed a motion for
class certification, which is noticed for June 12, 2017.  The
Motion for Class Certification is denied without prejudice to
being renewed after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wiw4b8gS


LTG LLC: Miranda Moves to Certify Class of Front Desk Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Miguel Miranda, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LTG,
LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00143-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to issue an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a collective action of current and
      former front desk employees, who worked for the Defendant
      during the three years prior to the filing of complaint,
      who were not paid at least minimum wages or overtime
      premium for hours worked over 40 in a work week;

   B. directing the Defendant to produce a list containing the
      full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
      e-mail addresses of putative collective action members, who
      worked for the Defendant for the three years preceding the
      filing of Complaint and the present;

   C. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send initial notice
      to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
      by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail;

   D. directing the Defendant to post at all of its business
      locations a copy of the initial notice;

   E. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a follow-up
      notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th
      day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period,
      have yet to opt in to the instant action; and

   F. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendant's counsel a total of ninety days from
      the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent
      to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MFvdjHT5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfc1aw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW, PLLC
          7370 College Parkway, Suite 207
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 600-6200
          Facsimile: (877) 727-4513
          E-mail: richard@richardjohnstonlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Parks" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mildred "Millie" Parks, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00086, (D. Idaho, February 27, 2017),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia on
May 9, 2017, under Case No. 1:17-cv-02806

Plaintiffs seek to obtain damages and injunctive relief arising
from the purchase and installation of Lumber Liquidators' laminate
and engineered wood flooring materials manufactured in China. Said
products allegedly contain formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen,
in excessive levels. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Lutz, Esq.
      THE SPENCE LAW FIRM
      PO Box 548
      15 South Jackson Street
      Jackson, WY 83001
      Telephone: (307) 733-7290
      Facsimile: (307) 733-5248
      Email: orchard@spencelawyers.com

             - and -

      Craig M. Robinson, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      Email: crobinson@hhklawfirm.com


MANCI ENTERPRISES: "Christa" Demands Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joannie Christa, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Manci Enterprises LLC and Harish Demla,
Defendants, Civil Action No: 5:17-cv-00425 (W.D. Tex., May 12,
2017), alleges that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff, and
similarly situated employees, time-and-one-half their regular rate
of pay for the hours that Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked over 40 hours a week. Defendants also forced
employees to work "off-the-clock."  The suit raises claims for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Manci Enterprises is in the hotel business.  Plaintiff worked as
an hourly-paid front desk clerk in one of Defendants hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092-4322
     Phone: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: "E.S." Sues Over Denied Health Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------
E.S., by and through her parents and guardians, To.S. and Ti.S.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and
derivatively on behalf of the Marsh & Mclennan Companies, Health &
Welfare Benefits Program, Plaintiff, v. Marsh & Mclennan
Companies, Inc. Benefits Administration Committee, The Marsh &
Mclennan Companies Health & Welfare Benefits Program, Marsh &
Mclennan Companies, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company
Defendants, 2:17-cv-02910 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017), asserts breach
of fiduciary duty and violation of certain provisions of the
Affordable Care Act.  The Plaintiff seeks payment of plan
benefits, attorney fees and costs under the Employment Retirement
Security of Act of 1974.

Plaintiff E.S. is the seventeen-year-old daughter and dependent of
To.S. and Ti.S. and is a beneficiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies
Health & Welfare Plan. Her health coverage is through To.S.'s
employment.

E.S. sought coverage for medically necessary treatment at a
properly licensed out-of-network residential psychiatric treatment
facility. Defendants denied coverage, claiming that the treatment
was excluded under the terms of the Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Tykulsker, Esq.
      DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
      161 Walnut St.
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Tel: (973) 509-9292
      Fax: (973) 509-1181
      Email: david@dtesq.com

             - and -

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


MASSAGE ENVY: Class Action Over Breach of Contract Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for KOMO News, reports that when you join
a gym, a cosmetic buying club, or any service that calls for a
contract, you often must agree to have monthly payments
automatically taken from your account.

But, some contracts can make cancelling a challenge when you
decide you've had enough.

Mary Walsh thought regular massage therapy would help relieve the
debilitating pain that makes it difficult for her to walk, stand,
and even sit very long.

"I have back issues, which are pretty extreme," Ms. Walsh
explained.

She decided to sign up for a six-month wellness membership at
Massage Envy.

Massage Envy is national franchise that offers monthly massages
and other treatments at special membership rates.  Monthly fees
are automatically taken from your account.  Your unused massages
accrue for later use.

Ms. Walsh's six-month membership, at $59.99 a month, started last
August.  The terms called for the agreement to automatically renew
and continue after the initial six month period, unless she gave
proper cancellation notice.

"I knew in December that I did not want to extend the contract,"
said Ms. Walsh.

So, she called in December and gave notice that she wanted to
cancel at the end of her six month term.

She expected her membership to end in February and the payments to
stop.  But, there was another automatic deduction on her bank
statement the next month.  She called to find out why.

"They said, 'Oh, you have to cancel in writing, to prevent ongoing
debits,'" Ms .Walsh explained.

Ms. Walsh forgot to read all the fine print in her contract.  She
said by the time her written cancellation request was finally
accepted and processed, she narrowly missed having yet another
monthly payment taken from her account.

"I was just under the window," Ms. Walsh explained.  "Because they
have a 10-day processing period."

Consumer law attorney Sheila O'Sullivan said membership and
service contracts in general can be laden with traps.
"Cancellation fees are a biggie," said Ms. O'Sullivan.

Contracts that call for recurring monthly fees or dues can be
especially challenging.

Before you join a gym that calls for a contract with monthly
payments, make sure you won't be stuck paying for a facility you
can't use due to limited access, questionable equipment or poorly
maintained facilities.  Those are common complaints.

Before you sign a home security monitoring contract, dial in to
that cancellation code so you don't get stuck.

"For example, we had one home security contract that had a
provision: if you didn't cancel within 30 days before the end of
the contract, it would renew for five years," Ms. O'Sullivan said.

"Do research ahead of time," urged Ms. Walsh.

It took Ms. Walsh nearly three months to get that extra membership
payment returned to her bank account.  She learned her lesson.

"Read every word of the contract!" stressed Ms. Walsh.  "Don't do
anything in a hurry."

Ms. Walsh is not the only one to complain about Massage Envy's
cancellation policies.  In fact, the company recently settled two
class action lawsuits.

The first suit was filed on behalf of former members who were not
able to use their accrued, prepaid massages after they cancelled
their memberships.

The second class action suit was filed on behalf of current
Massage Envy members to make it easier for them to cancel
memberships without losing their unused massages.

The settlement for both lawsuits was finally approved in January
of this year.  Under the settlement, active ME members in good
standing as of June 2016 will automatically receive 60 days after
cancellation to use or transfer all accrued unused massages.

The settlement provides for people who cancelled their ME
memberships between March 7, 2015 and June 30, 2016 to submit
reinstatement requests to receive their unused massages.

As with all class action cases, the settlement language is quite
detailed, so if you think you might be affected, read the entire
settlement information very carefully.

Since those lawsuits were settled in January, a third class action
suit has been filed, accusing Massage Envy of breach of contract
by arbitrarily raises fees. [GN]


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Town & Country Seeks Prelim. OK of Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the case
entitled TOWN & COUNTRY JEWELERS, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP,
INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-02519-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), to proceed as a
class action; and granting preliminary approval of the parties'
class settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asks the Court for preliminary
approval of the Settlement, on behalf of this class:

     All persons nationwide within the United States who are
     included in Meadowbrook's GoldMine customer relationship
     management database and received any advertisement on their
     telephone facsimile machines from Defendant or its agents or
     employees since April 8, 2011 through preliminary approval.

Town & Country filed the lawsuit pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act alleging that Meadowbrook violated the
TCPA by sending advertisements via facsimile transmittal without
the prior express consent of the Plaintiff and the putative class
members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q9wGeK5D

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 374-3405
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Amin" Sues Over Defects in HVAC System
----------------------------------------------------------
SUNIL AMIN and TRUSHAR PATEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
and DAIMLER AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01701-AT (N.D. Ga.,
May 11, 2017), was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
leased in Georgia certain vehicles equipped with uniform and
uniformly "defective" HVAC Systems.  The HVAC System allegedly
fails to properly evaporate or drain the condensation that
accumulates within the system.

The case alleges breach of Express Warranty and Implied Warranty,
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices
Act, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, fraud by concealment and unjust enrichment.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and DAIMLER AG are vehicle
manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ketan A. Patel, Esq.
     CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC
     PO BOX 1022
     Tyrone, GA 30290
     Phone: (678) 597-8020
     Fax: (678) 826-4700
     E-mail: kp@personalinjury-ga.com

        - and -

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 956-1000
     Fax: (415) 956-1008
     E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com
             jselbin@lchb.com

        - and -

     Annika K. Martin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Fax: (212) 355-9592


METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Decertifies Clothing Deductions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN A. WEIL, MELISSA D. FULK, Plaintiffs,
v. METAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-00016-JMS-MPB
(S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute
Division, (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion as to liability on
Plaintiffs' wage deduction claim under the Indiana Wage Payment
Act, but only as to the period from Jan. 20, 2013 through April
10, 2016; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion as to liability for
the remainder of the claim period; (iii) denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion as to liability on their time-rounding claims under the
Fair Labor Standard Act and IWPA; (iv) granted Metal Technologies'
Motion to Decertify;  and (v) denied as moot Metal Technologies'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

From Jan. 20, 2013 (two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit -
- the lookback period within the applicable statute of
limitations) through the present, Metal Technologies took wage
deductions from employees for work clothing.  These deductions are
reflected on employees' pay stubs.  On April 11, 2016, Metal
Technologies distributed and employees signed an updated "Premiums
and Deductions" form which details the clothing deduction.

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on Jan. 20, 2015 asserting claims
against the Defendant for improper wage deductions and failure to
pay wages under the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA") and the
Indiana Wage Payment Act ("IWPA").  The Court conditionally
certified one subclass under the FLSA and certified two subclasses
under Rule 23 and the IWPA.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a Combined Class Action
and FLSA Collective Action on Sept. 1, 2015 which the Court
granted in part and denied in part.  Following the issuance of
notice, some party plaintiffs have opted in to the collective
action and some potential class members have opted out of the
class action.  The parties have also conducted discovery.

Presently pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment, and Metal Technologies' Motion to Decertify
Plaintiffs' Combined FLSA Collective Action and Class Action with
Respect to the Pre- and Post-Shift Time Claim ("Motion to
Decertify").  The Court addresses the pending motions in the
following order: the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, Metal Technologies' Motion to Decertify, and Metal
Technologies' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability for violations of the IWPA and the FLSA, regarding both
their wage deduction and timekeeping claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that Metal Technologies deducted money from
employees' paychecks to cover the cost of work clothing in
violation of the Indiana Wage Assignment Act and the Indiana Wage
Payment Act.  They contend that under the pre-July 1, 2015 version
of the Wage Assignment Act, a wage deduction for the purpose of
uniform rental or work clothing was not one of the permitted
purposes for a wage assignment, and therefore the wage deduction
was improper.  They argue that even after the statute was amended
to add permissible deductions for the "purchase" of uniforms,
Metal Technologies did not secure a valid wage assignment from its
employees.

Metal Technologies does not dispute liability for deductions taken
between Jan. 20, 2013 and April 10, 2016.  But it does dispute
liability for deductions taken after April 10, 2016, arguing that
it secured valid wage assignments from employees after it
implemented an amended work clothing deduction form on April 11,
2016.  In reply, the Plaintiffs argue that the newly distributed
uniform deduction form is deficient, because it does not indicate
that it has been agreed to, in writing, by the employer.

The Court concludes that the form at issue could be construed to
satisfy the "agreement in writing" requirement of I.C. Section 22-
2-6-2(a)(1)(D).  First, Metal Technologies generated and
distributed the writing -- i.e., it created the form that
describes and memorializes the wage assignment between the
employer and employee.  Second, Metal Technologies received and
maintained the form in its files.  Third, the form affirmatively
describes the wage assignment's terms, which Metal Technologies
proposed and carried out following the form's execution by
deducting the wages at issue.  Under these circumstances, the
Court can, at a minimum, infer Metal Technologies' agreement in
writing to the wage assignment from the written assignment form.
The Court therefore denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to liability for uniform deductions occurring after
April 10, 2016.

For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion as to
liability on the wage deduction claim, but only as to the period
from Jan. 20, 2013 through April 10, 2016.  The Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion as to liability for the remainder of the claim
period.

The Plaintiffs allege that Metal Technologies has failed to pay
them wages that they are due as a result of an "illegal rounding
scheme" in Metal Technologies' timekeeping practices.  They
contend that Metal Technologies failed to adequately compensate
them, because they were paid only for their scheduled shift hours,
and not the hours actually indicated by their clock-in and clock-
out times.  The Plaintiffs argue that this rounding scheme
constitutes a per se violation of the FLSA, because it resulted in
Plaintiffs' hours being rounded down, always in favor of Metal
Technologies.  Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, they are entitled to
summary judgment as to liability under the FLSA and IWPA.

The Plaintiffs allege that, just as Metal Technologies engaged in
illegal rounding by failing to pay employees for pre- and post-
shift clock-ins, it also engaged in illegal rounding by
automatically deducting 30 minutes for meal breaks, even if
employees took less time for meals.  Metal Technologies responds
that the Plaintiffs' lunch break-related rounding claims are
foreclosed by the Court's prior ruling on the class/collective
certification, and that any lunch break rounding claims were not
included in the Court's certification.

The Plaintiffs reply that this claim is distinct from the unpaid
meals claim being raised in Kolish v. Metal Technologies and is
instead a subset of the overall illegal rounding claim discussed.

During the pendency of the Motion, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify filed in Kolish.  In that case, as
here, the Plaintiffs rely on time and payroll records to support
their claim.  The Court concluded that the time records concerning
the Plaintiffs' lunch clock-ins and clock-outs were not
sufficiently reliable to establish their actual lunch breaks.  The
same records are at issue here, and the Court cannot ignore the
evidentiary deficiencies identified in that case, involving
significantly overlapping plaintiffs and the same defendant.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that genuine disputes of
material fact exist regarding the issue of liability on the
Plaintiffs' FLSA and IWPA claims, and therefore the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.

Metal Technologies argues that the FLSA and IWPA classes involving
the alleged rounding violations should be decertified.  Metal
Technologies contends that Plaintiffs have not established that
they are similarly situated, because they have not shown that they
were all victims of a common policy or practice that resulted in
unpaid wages.  Metal Technologies also argues that at least one of
its available defenses would be difficult to prove on a
representational basis, weighing in favor of decertification.  And
Metal Technologies contends that judicial economy would not be
advanced by proceeding to trial on a class-wide basis.

Plaintiffs respond that a motion to decertify is essentially a
motion to reconsider.  They argue that because significant
discovery had already been conducted prior to the Court's
certification, no circumstances have changed, and therefore
decertification is not warranted.  The Plaintiffs contend that
they have demonstrated that they are similarly situated, in that
the time card and payroll records establish that Metal
Technologies rounded their time, resulting in the underpayment of
wages.

As the parties' arguments regarding decertification track their
summary judgment arguments, the Court need not repeat them, or its
own analysis.  For the same reasons detailed regarding the denial
of summary judgment, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
not demonstrated adequate similarity to support class
certification.  As the Court has already concluded, simply
pointing to employees' time and payroll records does not establish
a per se violation of the FLSA and IWPA.  The Court therefore
granted Metal Technologies' Motion to Decertify.

Metal Technologies has cross-moved for partial summary judgment on
the pre-shift time claims of several class members, and on two
damages issues.

Regarding the pre-shift time claims, "when a collective action is
decertified, it reverts to one or more individual actions on
behalf of the named plaintiffs, which is just what happens when a
Rule 23 class is decertified: the unnamed class members go poof
and the named plaintiffs' claims revert to being individual
claims."  In other words, the class no longer exists, and the
named Plaintiffs' claims now proceed as individual actions against
Metal Technologies.  Because Metal Technologies does not seek
summary judgment regarding either of the named Plaintiffs, their
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is rendered moot by the
Court's grant of decertification.

Regarding the damages issues, Metal Technologies argues that the
expert relied upon by Plaintiffs erred (i) in calculating damages
at the overtime rate under the IWPA, when the Plaintiffs
specifically disclaim overtime claims and seek "straight-time"
compensation; and (ii) in erroneously calculating straight-time
damages.  Metal Technologies asks the Court to make several
findings related to specific aspects of the expert report.
Because the Court has decertified the relevant subclasses, leaving
only the two named Plaintiffs to proceed, the Court questions
whether the cited report will remain relevant at all.  That report
pertains to damages calculated on a class-wide basis for classes
that no longer exist.  Calculating damages for the two named
Plaintiffs can perhaps be accomplished with reliance on
testimonial evidence that applies specifically to them.
Therefore, the Court need not make specific findings regarding the
proffered expert report.  For the above reasons, the Court denied
as moot Metal Technologies' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/ngjK4N from Leagle.com

Brian A. Weil, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob H. Miller, Hunt
Hassler Lorenz Kondras LLP.

Brian A. Weil, Plaintiff, represented by Robert F. Hunt, Hunt
Hassler Lorenz Kondras LLP & Robert Peter Kondras, Jr., Hunt
Hassler Lorenz Kondras LLP.

Melissa D. Fulk, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob H. Miller, Hunt
Hassler Lorenz Kondras LLP, Robert F. Hunt, Hunt Hassler Lorenz
Kondras LLP & Robert Peter Kondras, Jr., Hunt Hassler Lorenz
Kondras LLP.

Metal Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa K.
Taft, Jackson Lewis P.C. & Michael W. Padgett, Lewis P.C.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bids to Certify, Dismiss in "Woods" Suit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. R. Gary Klausner entered an order in the lawsuit styled
KEVIN WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00600-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), ruling
that the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification are withdrawn without prejudice.

The Court, however, reserves the right to determine the timeliness
of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On May 9, 2017, the Parties jointly notified the Court that they
have reached a settlement in principle and anticipate filing a
Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss the action, with
prejudice, as to Plaintiff Kevin Woods and, without prejudice, as
to members of putative class, within 60 days.  The Parties also
requested that the Court withdraw, without prejudice: (1) the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Kevin Woods' Motion for Class
Certification.

In addition, Judge Klausner rules that all pleading and filing
requirements applicable to the case, as well as any future
scheduled hearing(s) are vacated while the Parties memorialize and
effectuate the settlement in principle.

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Judge Denies Bid to Arbitrate "Garcia"
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler denied defendant's motion to
compel individual arbitration and granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to seal, in the case RUFINO D. GARCIA,
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 15-6119-
(RBK/KMW)(D.N.J.).

Midland Funding, LLC, filed a complaint against Rufino D. Garcia
on or around September 11, 2014 in Camden County Superior Court
seeking judgment for amounts allegedly owed on a GE Capital Retail
Bank (GECRB now Synchrony Bank) credit card account.  Midland
claimed that Garcia was in default for $1,737.35 on the credit
card account, which Midland had allegedly purchased from GECRB on
February 19, 2014. Garcia denied Midland's allegations and
requested a copy of the original application for a line of credit.

Garcia alleges that Midland did not produce the original credit
application and ultimately dismissed the collection action on the
day trial was to begin.  Garcia filed class-action suit against
Midland on August 11, 2015, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).Garcia alleges that Midland's
practice of filing debt-collection lawsuits without the intention
of proving their claims violates four provisions of the FDCPA.
Garcia alleges that Midland filed debt-collection lawsuits against
him and other consumers in New Jersey without having evidence or
intending to acquire evidence to prove its claims.  Rather,
Midland intended to obtain default judgments or settle claims
without having to prove them.

Midland filed their answer with affirmative defenses and a demand
for arbitration on October 16, 2015.  Defendant submitted a motion
to compel individual arbitration on February 19, 2016, but
Magistrate Judge Williams denied it. Midland submitted a first
amended motion to compel individual arbitration on October 13,
2016. Midland then filed a motion to seal document Number 29-6 on
March 10, 2017, arguing that the agreement is a sensitive,
valuable, and proprietary asset, which the parties intended to
remain confidential per Article IX of the agreement.

Judge Kugler denied defendant's motion to compel individual
arbitration finding that even with a healthy regard for the strong
federal policy in favor of arbitration, the agreement did not
clearly convey the right to demand individual arbitration from
GECRB to defendant. The agreement certainly passed the receivables
and associated rights from GECRB to defendant, but the court does
not find that the agreement transferred all of the rights
associated with plaintiff's account to defendant. The right to
compel arbitration for plaintiff's FDCPA claim is not associated
with legally enforcing, filing suit, collecting, settling, or a
similar action with respect to the receivable.

Judge Kugler granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to seal, as the court finds that defendant has adequately
demonstrated the specific harm that would occur if the entire
confidential document was made public. However, defendant cannot
demonstrate any harm that would come from producing a redacted
version of the agreement featuring only the portions of the
agreement that have already been made public in briefs and other
exhibits. Defendant's motion to seal is granted in part and denied
in part. The court orders that documents 29-6 and 34-4 be sealed.
The court directs defendant to publicly file a redacted version of
the agreement featuring: the Introductory Paragraph; Recitals
Paragraphs A and B; the definitions for the terms "Account,"
"Account Document," and "Receivable"; Section 2.1 of Article II;
and Sections 4.1(d), (i), and (j) of Article IV.

A copy of Judge Kugler's opinion dated May 5, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/WqxeGc from Leagle.com.

RUFINO D. GARCIA, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER MARKOS --
cmarkos@wcblegal.com -- at WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANDREW MICHAEL
SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- RONALD MICHAEL METCHO, II --
rmmetcho@mdwcg.com -- ELLEN E. LAVELLE -- eelavelle@mdwcg.com --
at MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC


MORGAN GROUP: Bobiak Seeks Conditional Certification Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas L. Bobiak asks the Court to conditionally certify the
collective action captioned DOUGLAS L. BOBIAK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE MORGAN GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00142-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), and facilitate notice
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Bobiak seeks payment of alleged unpaid overtime wages owed to
him and other similarly situated hourly employees due to
violations of the FLSA.  He seeks to notify all current and former
employees of the Defendant, nationwide, who work or have worked
for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee, who were paid a
non-discretionary bonus of any kind, and worked over 40 hours in
one or more weeks anytime during the period of Nov. 11, 2013 to
the present.

In his Motion, Mr. Bobiak also asks the Court to approve a 60-day
"opt-in period," during which Potential Plaintiffs may choose to
opt-in to the lawsuit, and to compel the Defendant to produce to
his counsel a computer-readable data file containing the names,
addresses, phone numbers and e-mail address of all Potential
Plaintiffs.  He furthers asks that the "opt-in period" commence
seven days after the Defendant produces the requested document
containing information pertaining to Potential Plaintiffs, so as
to provide his counsel with adequate time to prepare and send the
Court's approved Notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R0rdqZYy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          409 East Boulevard
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
          15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Suite 280
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Moises Liddle Gude, Esq.
          Mary Cabell Clay, Esq.
          Russell F. Sizemore, Esq.
          MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
          100 N. Tryon Street, Suite 4700
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 331-3761
          Facsimile: (704) 409-5672
          E-mail: dannygude@mvalaw.com
                  cabellclay@mvalaw.com
                  russellsizemore@mvalaw.com


MSI INVENTORY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that three employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against MSI
Inventory Service Corporation, I-Fran Inc., James O. McClain,
Sandra B. McClain and up to 20 unknown persons, citing alleged
unpaid wages, violation of applicable minimum wage law and
violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Kim Roush, Sheila Emmerling and Cindy Henderson filed a complaint
on behalf of all others similarly situated on May 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging
that the defendants failed to pay fair wages to the plaintiffs.
Both defendant companies provide inventory accounting services for
retailers and are based in Mississippi.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
regularly worked for more than 40 hours per week without being
paid overtime compensation.  The plaintiffs hold the defendants
responsible because they allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs
overtime premiums for working more than 40 hours per week.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, all legal fees
and any other relief as this court deems just.  They are
represented by Joseph W. Rose and Mehran Tahoori of Rose Law in
Gold River.[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:17-at-00502


NEUROTROPE INC: "Hinshaw" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Sean Hinshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Neurotrope, Inc., Susanne Wilke, Daniel
Alkon and Charles S. Ramat, Defendants., Case No. 1:17-cv-03718,
(S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary
equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Neurotrope is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of therapeutics to treat
neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. Its
most advanced product in treating Alzheimer's was Bryostatin-1
that purportedly repairs damaged synapses between neurons.

However, Bryostatin failed to produce results that were
statistically significant. On this news, the price of Neurotrope
common stock declined from a closing share price of $18.81 per
share on April 28, 2017, to a closing share price of $6.97 per
share on May 1, 2017, a loss of approximately 63% on heavy trading
volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. (0304)
      Meghan Daley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CN 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171



NEWDAY FINANCIAL: Clute et al. Sue Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CLUTE (18 East Fort Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21230,
Resident of Baltimore City), And RYAN SMITH (18 East Fort Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21230, Resident of Baltimore City) And
DIMITRIY VERNIK (7044 Gentle Shade Road Columbia, Maryland 21046,
Resident of Howard County) And DYLAN HALLSMITH (4253 Fox Lake
Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22033, Resident of Fairfax County) And
CHRISTOPHER BRINKER (7233 Carriage Hill Drive Laurel, Maryland,
20707 Resident of Howard County) And KAITLIN SPURRIER (1614 South
Hanover Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230, Resident of Baltimore
City) And SHAUN GREENWALD (8 Grosvenor Court Reisterstown,
Maryland 21136, Resident of Baltimore County) And TREMAINE CRAYTON
(1414 Village Oaks Court, Mt. Airy, Maryland 21771
Resident of Frederick County) And ADAM TRADER (4719 Oglethorpe
Street, Riverdale, Maryland 20737, Resident of Prince George's
County) And CHARLES GLATZ (671 Genessee Street Annapolis, Maryland
21401 Resident of Anne Arundel County) And JORDAN LEWIS
(1155 Ripley Street Apartment 1706 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Resident of Montgomery County) And MARLOWE ROGERS (1155 Ripley
Street Apartment 1706 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, Resident of
Montgomery County) And MYLES HARRIS (1035 West Barre Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230, Resident of Baltimore City) And EDWARD
DENT (118 North Howard Street, Apartment 824, Baltimore, Maryland
21201, Resident of Baltimore City) And NICHOLAS SALEMO (403 North
Upton Court Arlington, Virginia 22203, Resident of Arlington
County), Plaintiffs, v. NEWDAY FINANCIAL, LLC, (8160 Maple Lawn
Boulevard, Suite 300, Fulton, Maryland 20759) Serve: Daniel E.
Sykes, Resident Agent Rosen Hoover, P.A. (One Charles Center
100 North Charles Street, Suite 1010, Baltimore, Maryland 21201)
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01300-RDB (D. Md., May 12, 2017),
alleges that the Defendant willfully and intentionally
misclassified Plaintiffs as salaried employees for the purpose of
not paying overtime compensation for all hours worked.

The case raises claims for violations of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant is a private organization that is in the business of
purchasing home loans, credit card debt and other types of loans
for refinancing.  Defendant hired Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees to work as account executives.

Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class they seek to
represent.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esqu.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: "Nedd" Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Wynette Nedd on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. Northland Group Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02953, (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in bringing
this action and any other relief for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff a consumer debt via a
collection letter. Said letter failed to include a safe harbor
statement, failed to indicate if the total amount due was accruing
and there was no disclosure that indicated otherwise, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor Litvak, Esq.
      THE LITVAK LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Tel: (718) 989-2908
      Facsimile: (718) 989-2908
      E-mail: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com


OAKMONT MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Staff, Chem Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pichanary Chem and Leticia Guerrero, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. Oakmont Management Group LLC,
Oakmont Senior Living LLC, Joseph G. Lin, William Gallaher, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC662434 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime hours; failure
to provide with written notice of their rate of pay and their
regular payday; failure to provide with uninterrupted, off-duty
meal periods; failure to provide with rest periods; (6) provide
with inadequate wage statements; failure to pay employees by the
appropriate pay period; and failure to provide with paid sick
days.

The Defendants operate senior care facilities in Brea, California,
Upland, California, and Chino Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle Todd, Esq.
      Zachary Ritter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (323) 208-9171
      Facsimile: (323)693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com
              zachary@kyletodd.com


OC BURGER: Faces "Ibanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Ibanez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. OC Burger Boys LLC and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC662360 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

OC Burger Boys LLC owns and operates fast food restaurants
throughout Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
      Dean S. Ho, Esq.
      Julia M. Damron, Esq.
      PETRONELLI & HO LLP
      295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201
      Long Beach, CA 90803
      Telephone: (888) 855-3670
      Facsimile: (888) 449-9675
      E-mail: christian@employees-lawyer.com
              ctean@employees-lawyer.com
              pii.ia@employees-lawyer.com


OUHLALA GOURMET: VP for Marketing Sues Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CONNORS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
OUHLALA GOURMET CORP. d/b/a BUDDY FRUITS, and SCOTT ALLSHOUSE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21777-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2017),
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the case, Plaintiff was Vice President of Marketing
for Defendant. Although Plaintiff was treated as exempt from
overtime pay, Defendants had a policy of docking Plaintiff's and
other executives' pay in partial-day increments when they exceeded
their paid time off (PTO). This policy was in violation of the
"salary basis" requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
rendering Plaintiff and all others similarly situated non-exempt
for the period of time that this docking policy was in effect,
says the complaint.

Defendant Buddy Fruits manufactures and sells squeezable fruit
pouches and other ready-to-eat fruit and vegetable-based
snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
     RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
     8551 W. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 303
     Plantation, FL 33322
     Phone: (954) 369-1050
     Fax: (954) 380-8938
     E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com
             assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com


PHENIX TRANS: Jones Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Jones, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Phenix Transportation West,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC622117 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide accurate wage
statements and meal and rest periods as required by California
Labor Law.

Phenix Transportation West, Inc. owns and operates a large
trucking fleet that serves California exporters and importers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
              kyle@bamlawca.com
              aj@bamlawca.com


PHILADELPHIA: ACLU Resumes Prison Mental Health Care Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Wolfram, writing for Newsworks, repots that the ACLU of
Pennsylvania is resuming a previously settled lawsuit demanding
treatment for hundreds of people in state prisons who have been
declared mentally incompetent to stand trial because of
psychiatric illness.

More than 260 of those prisoners are languishing in Pennsylvania
jails when they should be getting legally mandated treatment, said
Vic Walczak, the legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. The
number represents an increase of nearly 50 inmates since the
organization settled its class-action lawsuit against the
Department of Human Services in January 2016.

"These are very, very sick people," Mr. Walczak said.  "By law,
they're not allowed to be in jail, and yet they're sitting in
jails for a year or more before they are accepted at a hospital or
a mental health facility where they can get appropriate
treatment."

In a few cases, the prisoners -- who have yet to be tried on the
charges against them -- have waited more than two years before
getting a bed in a state psychiatric hospital, Mr. Walczak said.

Pennsylvania likely has the worst treatment delays for these
defendants of any state in the country, he contended.

Federal courts have ruled that these defendants should be jailed
for no longer than seven days before being transferred into
treatment necessary to restore their competency, so they can be
tried in court.

But the situation has only gotten worse since the state agreed to
take action in last year's settlement agreement, according to the
ACLU.

A representative of the Department of Human Services said it
cannot comment on specific litigation, but that the state has
taken several steps to reduce wait times and cut down on the
backlog -- including spending $17.6 million to create about 150
new treatment slots.

The ACLU said the department hasn't done enough for prisoners who
urgently need treatment and doesn't know why more of those with
severe mental illness are now in jail even after increasing
treatment capacity.

Mr. Walczak said that jail is harmful to the people he represents.
Many of them are psychotic and can't control their behavior.

"When you're in a prison, you get punished for that," he said.
"And so a lot of these folks end up in solitary confinement, which
just, frankly, makes their mental health situation that much
worse."

The ACLU has asked the court to demand that the state open 100 new
treatment beds over the next six months and hire independent
consultants to analyze why the long waits for psychiatric care
persist. [GN]


PORTLAND, OR: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss Veterans' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anna J. Brown granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the case captioned FRANK HUDSON, an individual, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND,
a public, municipal corporation, dba HOME FORWARD; HOME FORWARD
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; MICHAEL BUONOCORE, Home Forward Executive
Director, in his official and personal capacity; JIM SMITH, Chair,
Home Forward Board of Commissioners, in his official and personal
capacity; and RACHAEL RUSSELL, Human Resources Supervisor, in her
official and personal capacity, Defendants, No. 3:16-CV-02364-BR
(D. Or.).

Plaintiff Frank Hudson, a veteran of the United States Marine
Corps, applied for a job with defendant Home Forward and requested
a veterans' preference.  On June 9, 2015, Home Forward advised
Plaintiff that it had failed to grant him a veterans' preference.

Plaintiff then filed a complaint with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and
Industries (BOLI) alleging Home Forward had violated the Oregon
veterans' preference statute, Oregon Revised Statutes Section
408.230, when it denied plaintiff a veterans' preference.
On July 15, 2016, BOLI issued to plaintiff a Notice of Right to
File a Civil Suit in which it advised plaintiff that he could file
an action against Home Forward for violation of Section 408.230
within 90 days of the date of the Notice.

On December 27, 2016, the plaintiff filed in the District of
Oregon court a putative class action complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against defendants Home Forward, Home Forward
Board of Commissioners, Michael Buonocore, and Jim Smith in which
he alleged they violated veterans' federal due-process rights when
they failed to provide veterans with pre-deprivation hearings
before failing to grant them veterans' preferences in employment
with Home Forward. Plaintiff did not allege a claim for violation
of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 408.230.

On January 30, 2017, before defendants filed a responsive
pleading, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to add further
factual allegations to support his claim for violation of his
veterans' federal due-process rights. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint.

Judge Anna J. Brown held that defendants' failure to provide
plaintiff with a veterans' preference was not foreseeable. The
Oregon Legislature has mandated enforcement of the preference
through Section 408.230. Defendants' failure to follow the mandate
was random and unauthorized, and, therefore, the State could not
have set up pre-deprivation safeguards in such particular
circumstances. The court concludes the legislative provision of a
post deprivation remedy, which plaintiff actually accessed, is
sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Due Process Clause. The
court concludes plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to state
a claim, and, the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's first amended complaint.

In addition, the court concludes that plaintiff cannot remedy the
deficiency in his claim by amendment because although he took
advantage of the post-deprivation remedy provided by Section
408.230, he failed to file a claim for violation of Section
408.230 within 90 days of BOLI's notice. Any attempt at amendment
would be futile. The court denies plaintiff leave to amend his
first amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Brown's opinion and order dated May 5, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/QZWiIB from Leagle.com.

Frank Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Frank E. Hudson, Esq.
     HUDSONLAW LLC
     222 N. Midvale, Suite 28
     Madision, WI 53705
     Tel: 608-237-3034

Defendants, represented by Jonathan M. Hood --
jonathan.hood@harrang.com -- Jeffery J. Matthews --
jeffery.j.matthews@harrang.com -- at Harrang Long Gary Rudnick
P.C.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Cert. of Retiree Subclass Sought in "Amos" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Owens and Robert Ratleff, two of the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit entitled PATRICIA L. AMOS, JAMES S. HUTCHISON, SALLY
JONES, GEORGE OWENS, TERRY TAYLOR, JOHN FOSTER, ALEX OLSZYK, JOHN
W. ZUZIK, ARTHUR RAMOZ, ROBERT RATLEFF, JOHN P. DETTY, VIRGINIA
BAKEMAN, WILLIAM BRISON, MARK BRYAN, SHIRLEY M. BRYAN, RICHARD
FISCHER, LINDSAY T. GRANGER, EDWARD LUCENTE, and RICHARD ROSS, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PPG
INDUSTRIES, INC.; PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC.; PPG RETIREMENT PLANS;
GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION; AXIALL CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1
THROUGH 20, Case No. 2:05-cv-00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), file with
the Court their renewed motion for certification of a Delaware
Retiree Subclass consisting of a subset of persons, who are
included within the definition of the general class, which is
represented by all named Plaintiffs, including Messrs. Owens and
Ratleff.

A renewed motion for class certification of the general class was
filed by Plaintiff Owens, Ratleff and the other named Plaintiffs
on May 9, 2017.  Certification of the Delaware Retiree Subclass is
sought for members of the general class, who are retirees,
spouses, surviving spouses and eligible dependents of persons, who
were employed by PPG at its Delaware, Ohio facility and retired on
and after February 16, 1986, but before February 3, 2014, who were
represented by the UAW during their employment, and who are
eligible for retiree health coverage under the terms of
collectively bargained agreements and provisions between UAW and
PPG.

The Subclass also includes surviving spouses of active employees,
who have died before final judgment in this litigation and who at
the time of their death worked at the Delaware facility on or
after February 19, 1995, were represented by UAW, and had attained
retirement age, making their spouse eligible for retiree medical
coverage pursuant to the terms of collectively bargained
agreements and provisions between UAW and PPG.

Messrs. Owens and Ratleff also ask the Court to appoint them as
Class representatives of the Delaware Retirees Subclass, and
appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Agzcfy7e

The Plaintiffs (Delaware Retirees) are represented by:

          Timothy F. Cogan, Esq.
          Thomas Cunningham, Esq.
          CASSIDY, COGAN, SHAPELL & VOEGLIN, L.C.
          The First State Capitol
          1413 Eoff Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 232-8100
          Facsimile: (304)232-8200
          E-mail: tfc@walslaw.com

               - and -

          Barry A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON LLP
          445 N. Pennsylvania St., Suite 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          E-mail: bmacey@maceylaw.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Ellen Doyle, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Joel Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburg, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
                  edoyle@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Plan Participants Class Certified in "Rozo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge John A. Jarvey granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the lawsuit titled FREDERICK ROZO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRINCIPAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:14-cv-00463-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa).

Frederick Rozo and the proposed class members are or were
retirement plan participants, who invested in Defendant
Principal's Principal Fixed Income Option plan.

Mr. Rozo's three-count first amended complaint, filed October 15,
2015, alleges that Principal breached its fiduciary duty of
loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
engaged in ERISA-prohibited transactions, or, in the alternative,
that the Defendant engaged in ERISA-prohibited transactions as a
party in interest.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nH8Q2MHQ


PROCON ENTERPRISE: Faces "Choi" Wage and Hour Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yeon Mook CHOI (9486 Virginia Center Blvd., Apt 208 Vienna, VA
22181), Joon KIM (8040 Brightfield Rd., Ellicott City, MD 21043,
Kasper), Dong Hyok KO (8917 57th Ave., Berwyn Height, MD 20740,
Kwang Yeoll CHOI, 13431 Wood Lilly Ln., Centreville, VA 20120),
and Gijoong KO (4454 Chase Park Ct., Annandale, VA 22003),
Plaintiff, against Young Chul YOON (a.k.a. Alex YOON, 6714
Rockledge Pl., Centreville, VA 20121), Procon Enterprise, Inc.,
Serve: Young Chul YOON, Registered Agent (1326 Progress Dr.
Front Royal, VA 22630), Procon Electric, Inc., Serve: Young Chul
YOON (Registered Agent, 1326 Progress Dr., Front Royal, VA 22630),
Peter H. KIM, a.k.a. Peter KIM (10486 Ben Tree View
Duluth, GA 30097-4423), and Eastern Corporation (4274 Shackleford
Road, Suite A, Norcross, GA 30093-2952) SERVE: Judy Rah,
registered agent (4274 Shackleford Road, Suite A, Norcross, GA
30093-2952) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00552-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va.,
May 12, 2017), alleges violations of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage
Payment Collection Law, and the Massachusetts General Law.

The suit contends that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated and others for all hours worked.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated and others
were not properly compensated for overtime hours. Through these
unlawful acts, Defendants evaded the payment of wages owed to
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated pursuant to the standards
set forth by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the states' law
including the states of Maryland and Massachusetts.

Defendants are engaged in the construction business. Defendants
hired Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to perform work as
manual laborers (handyman or electrician) for Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
     RYU & RYU, PLC
     Attorney for Plaintiffs
     301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
     Vienna, VA 22180


QUALITY BUILDING: "Morales" Seeks OT Pay, Claims Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro A. Morales and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Quality Building Services Corp. a/k/a QBS and Ana
Maria Trejo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21846
(S.D. Fla., May 17, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants
minimum wages, overtime compensation, retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate QBS, a provider of cleaning, maintenance and
related services to office buildings, shopping malls and other
commercial accounts where Morales worked as a cleaner. He claims
to be paid below minimum wage rates, denied overtime and
terminated for complaining. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: "Howe" Hits Erroneous Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda J. Howe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14167, (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs of the suit and such other or further relief for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Receivables Performance Management is engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts and operates from offices located at
20816 44th Avenue West, Lynnwood, Washington, 98036. Defendant
sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff arising from an
alleged delinquency on a Capital One Bank, N.A. However, the
demand letter identifies "Kohl's Department Stores, Inc." as the
creditor instead of Capital One. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


RECONTRUST COMPANY: Allred Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eric Allred moves to certify a settlement class in the
lawsuit styled ERIC, ET AL., on their own behalf and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01124-BSJ (D. Utah).  The proposed class consists
of:

     all owners of real property in the State of Utah that have
     had their property foreclosed on by the Defendant Recon
     acting as trustee in a foreclosure sale after May 10, 2011,
     who have not already settled claims or litigated claims to a
     final judgment against any Released Person relating to
     ReconTrust having exercised the power of sale.

According to the Motion, the parties have reached a settlement
that provides for substantial relief to the proposed settlement
class.  The relief primarily provides that each class member will
be entitled to a distribution of approximately $1,800, less any
incentive fee, administrative costs, attorney's fees or other
deductions allowed by the Court.  The amount is 90% of the maximum
amount of statutory damages of $2,000.

Mr. Allred also asks the Court to appoint him as Representative of
the Class, and to appoint his counsel as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YfoF04iz

Plaintiff Eric Allred is represented by:

          Tyler Ayres, Esq.
          AYRES LAW FIRM
          12339 S. 800 East, Suite 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 255-5555
          Facsimile: (801) 255-5588
          E-mail: tyler@ayreslawfirm.com


RED DOG: Sued for Failure to Pay Adequate Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing for Northern California Record, reports
an employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ministry of
Taste LLC, Red Dog Restaurant and numerous unnamed individuals,
citing alleged violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Jose Us-Chab, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on April 13 in the San Francisco
County Superior Court against the defendants alleging that they
violated the state labor code.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
regularly worked over 40 hours per week without receiving proper
overtime compensation.  Instead, he was paid at his regular rate
for all hours worked.  The plaintiff holds Ministry of Taste and
Red Dog Restaurant responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to pay overtime premium rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week and failed to provide timely and accurate
wage statements.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory,
punitive and incidental damages, plus penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, costs of suit and such other just and proper
relief.  He is represented by David Yeremian and David Keledjian
of David Yeremian & Associates Inc. in Glendale.[GN]

San Francisco County Superior Court Case number CGC558164


RED PARROT: Camp Drug Store Sues Under TCPA Over Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. RED PARROT DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00502 (S.D. Ill., May 11, 2017), alleges that Defendant
sent Plaintiff at least two advertisements by facsimile in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Red Parrot is a wholesale pharmacy supplier offering
pharmaceuticals, animal pharmaceuticals, vials, diabetic supplies,
and cash and carry products, such as over the counter medications,
first aid products, wound care supplies, candy and cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     P.O. Box 416474
     Miami Beach, FL 3311
     Phone: 312-658-5500
     Fax: 312-658-5555


REMINGTON ARMS: Loses Defective Rifle Personal Injury Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Terrill, writing for Guns.com, reports that a federal judge
ruled against Remington Arms in a personal injury case despite
arguments that the gun maker is protected under Louisiana law.

Judge Ivan Lemelle ruled that the case has merit under the
Louisiana Products Liability Act, saying the law protects gun
makers from lawsuits except in cases involving a defective
firearm.  He awarded $500,000 to the plaintiff, Precious Seguin,
for her claim holding Remington liable for producing a defective
product.

According to court documents, Seguin was injured during a hunting
excursion in October 2013.  As she tracked the blood trail of a
wounded deer with her father, brother and a family friend, her
father's Remington 710 bolt-action rifle discharged as they made
their way through the brush.  The bullet struck her right buttock,
traveled through her hip and exited through her right elbow.

The lawsuit argues the rifle's trigger design, the infamous Walker
Fire Control, a mechanism that has been linked to almost a dozen
deaths and numerous injuries, allowed the gun to discharge without
the pull of a trigger.  In Seguin's case, her father had the rifle
strapped over his shoulder and pointed upward until a branch
knocked it up and backward, at which time the safety moved to the
fire position and unintentionally discharged.  Before Seguin was
injured, they had not experienced an unintentional discharge with
the rifle.

Judge Lemelle noted Remington's challenge to Seguin's use of the
LPLA. Attorneys for the company argued that a branch had caused
the rifle to discharge. They said independent tests showed that
the rifle could only be fired by pulling the trigger, and
investigators concluded that in the incident the trigger had
either caught on an object or had been mishandled. Also, they
cited a statement by Seguin's father who told law enforcement a
tree branch pulled the trigger.

Seguin filed the lawsuit in October 2014, a year after the
accident.  The initial complaint had a broader list of allegations
and plaintiffs, but Seguin filed an amended complaint that
narrowed the scope of her arguments.

Remington's WFC trigger has been the subject of more than 4,000
documented complaints, according to court documents. For about
half a century, Remington has equipped millions of rifles and
shotguns with the design.  In March, the gun maker completed a
settlement with a class action lawsuit in which it had to remove
possible defective rifles out of circulation.  In all, Remington
paid out $12.5 million because of a low claims rate. [GN]


ROYAL BANK: Improves Rights Issue Class Action Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Partington and Jeremy Hodges, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc's trial over its 2008
rights issue was postponed as investors accusing the bank of
hiding its financial woes weigh an improved settlement offer.

The bank doubled its offer as Chief Executive Officer Ross McEwan
staged a last-minute personal intervention, according to a person
with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified
because the details are private.  RBS increased its offer to 82
pence per share, up from earlier settlements of 41.2 pence and
43.2 pence with other claimants in the class action suit, the
person added.

Both sides are "hopeful of making progress" in settlement talks,
Jonathan Nash, a lawyer for the investors, said at a brief court
hearing on May 22.  Later in the day, the judge agreed to push the
trial's start back to May 24, a spokesman for the claimants said.

"Significant progress has been made today as a result of RBS's
greatly increased offer," according to an e-mailed statement.

The trial that was due to start on May 22 could force RBS to
relive an ugly period during the 2008 financial crisis, when it
held a 12 billion-pound ($15.6 billion) emergency rights offering
only to be rescued months later in a record government bailout.
Ex-CEO Fred Goodwin is scheduled to give witness testimony,
marking a rare appearance for the Scottish banker who's become
something of a cartoon villain for many of the U.K. investors who
sued.

The claimants argue in their lawsuit that the bank deliberately
concealed its financial weaknesses before the rights issue.  The
bank will counter that no cover-up took place, the rights issue
prospectus included all the information investors needed, and the
claimants are overlooking how volatile markets were in 2008.

Filed in March 2013, the suit swelled to over 27,000 claimants
seeking as much as 4 billion pounds, but the bank set aside 800
million pounds to settle with as many investors as possible in a
bid to put some distance between current management and decisions
that were made a decade ago.  Although the majority of investors
agreed to settle at the end of last year, one group is holding
out, seeking about 520 million pounds at trial.

Sky News reported details of the offer earlier on May 22.

Last-minute settlements are common before high-profile trials as
seek ways to avoid the cost of going to a full trial which could
result in weeks of difficult publicity for those involved.

In early May, Societe Generale SA agreed to pay 963 million euros
($1.1 billion) to resolve its dispute with the Libyan Investment
Authority two days after the trial was scheduled to start. [GN]


SAN DIEGO, CA: Helicopter Rescue Medics Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Barry Links, Christopher Sovay, Steve Vandewalle, Plaintiffs, v.
City of San Diego, Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00996 (S.D. Cal., May
15, 2017) seeks monetary damages in the form of back pay
compensation, liquidated damages equal to unpaid compensation,
plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and disbursement of this action and such other and
further relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs are helicopter rescue medics of the San Diego Fire-
Rescue Department of San Diego, California and they bring this
action on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly
situated seeking declaratory judgment for overtime compensation
for time worked above 40 hours in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fern M. Steiner, Esq.
     SMITH, STEINER, VANDERPOOL & WAX, APC
     401 West A Street, Suite 320
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 239-7200
     Facsimile: (619) 239-6048
     Email: Fsteiner@ssvwlaw.com

            - and -

     T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
     William W. Li, Esq.
     WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
     1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 833-8855
     Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
     Email: trc@wmlaborlaw.com
            wwl@wmlaborlaw.com


SCOTTRADE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mya Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scottrade, Inc. and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
BC662105 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme
of wage abuse against the Plaintiff and other non-exempt or hourly
employees of the Defendants in violation of applicable California
laws, including, without limitation, failing to provide meal and
rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.

Scottrade, Inc. is an online brokerage company that provides
investment products, online trading platforms, and market research
tools for investors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
      Caspar Jivaiagian, Esq.
      KJT LAW GROUP LLP
      280 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
      Glendale, CA 91206
      Telephone: (818) 507-8525
      E-mail: vachc@kjtlawgroup.com
              caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
      ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
      4740 Calle Carga
      Camarillo, CA 93012
      Telephone: (818) 425-1437
      E-mail: ca@AdamsEmpioymentCounsel.com


SILVER WHEATON: Class Certified in Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder granted the motion to certify
class filed in the lawsuit styled In re Silver Wheaton Corp.
Securities litigation, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146-CAS-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

Lead Plaintiff Joe Elek and Named Plaintiffs Thomas Bartsch, Larry
Brandow, Diana Choi, Ben Potaracke, Jedrzej Borowczyk, and Charles
Remme are appointed class representatives for this class:

     All persons and entities who purchased the publically traded
     securities of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("SW") (i) on a United
     States exchange, or (ii) in a transaction in the United
     States, during the period from March 30, 2011 to July 6,
     2015, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior to
     July 6, 2015.

     Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all present and
     former officers and directors of SW and any subsidiary
     thereof, members of such excluded persons' families and
     their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns
     and any entity which such excluded persons controlled or in
     which they have or had a controlling interest.

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff Chris Masilionis commenced the putative
class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Defendants Silver Wheaton Corp., Randy V. J.
Smallwood, Peter Barnes, and Gary Brown.

On Oct. 19, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with a
related action, Steve Klein, et al. v. Silver Wheaton Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-5173-CAS-JEM, and appointed Joe Elek as lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action.

The Plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended
complaint on December 18, 2016.  The CAC asserts two claims for
relief: (1) violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all Defendants, and (2) violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all individual
Defendants.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i64XJ2W3


STATE COLLECTION: Spuhler Seeks to Certify Class Suit Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Kyle Spuhler and Nichole
Spuhler on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. State Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01149-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to enter an order determining that
this Fair Debt Collection Practices action may proceed as a class
action against State Collection.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5WM6QURD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq.
          Heidi N. Miller, Esq.
          DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC
          330 S. Executive Drive, Suite 109
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (414) 377-0515
          Facsimile: (414) 755-0860
          E-mail: Nathan@dela-law.com
                  Heidi@dela-law.com


STEAK N SHAKE: "Clendenen" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CORINNA CLENDENEN, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. STEAK N SHAKE
OPERATIONS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant (originally
C.D. Ill., Case Number 1:17-cv-01045, January 30, 2017) was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri as Case No. 4:17-cv-01506-HEA, according to a case docket
dated May 15, 2017.

The case alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
forty (40) hours per workweek without receiving overtime
compensation for their overtime hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates over 400 corporate owned retail restaurant
locations.  The case was filed on behalf of current and former
restaurant "Managers" employed by Defendant at their corporate
owned restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
     DONELON, P.C.
     420 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 221-7100
     Fax: (816) 709-1044
     E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     David K. Haase, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC
     Suite 1000
     321 N Clark Street
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: (312) 372-5520
     Fax: (312) 372-7880
     E-mail: dhaase@littler.com

        - and -

     Andrew Cahill Johnson, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     One Metropolitan Square
     211 North Broadway, Suite 1500
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 659-2000
     Fax: (314) 659-2099
     E-mail: anjohnson@littler.com

        - and -

     Catherine Sarah Lindemann, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC
     321 N Clark Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: (312) 372-5520
     E-mail: clindemann@littler.com

        - and -

     Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     One Metropolitan Square
     211 North Broadway, Suite 1500
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 659-2011
     Fax: (314) 659-2099
     E-mail: pmartin@littler.com


STEVEN MATULIS: Wants Judge to Put Multiple Lawsuits on Hold
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
Charleston gastroenterologist is asking a judge to place a hold on
one of the multiple lawsuits his former patients have filed
against him to allow for the completion of both a criminal
investigation and an investigation through the West Virginia Board
of Medicine.

In a motion, attorneys for Dr. Steven Matulis asked to stay all
discovery proceedings in the lawsuit, including a video deposition
of Matulis, which was set to begin on May 23.

"The Supreme Court of Appeals has acknowledged the constitutional
dilemma faced by defendants who are compelled to engage in
parallel litigation in the face of a pending criminal
prosecution," Charleston lawyer Isaac Forman wrote.  Mr. Forman,
along with other lawyers from Bailey & Glasser, represent
Dr. Matulis.  "This occurs most frequently when the defendant must
invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in
the non-criminal proceeding, giving rise to 'the distinct
possibility of unfairness.'"

Putnam County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Sorsaia, who was appointed
to the case when the Kanawha County prosecutor's office stepped
aside, intends to issue grand jury subpoenas for the discovery
materials produced in both the lawsuit and in the Board of
Medicine's investigation, the filing by Dr. Matulis' lawyers
states.  Dr. Matulis has also been made aware, according to the
motion, that Mr. Sorsaia has met with several potential witnesses
in the case.

"Dr. Matulis's fears of imminent prosecution are well-founded,"
the motion states.

Kanawha Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey hasn't yet ruled on the
motion, but a hearing was set in the case for May 25.  The
deposition, which had been set for Tuesday, was automatically put
on hold when the motion was filed.

The Board of Medicine is conducting its own investigation.
Dr. Matulis, who has surrendered his medical license, expects to
be summoned before the board in late June, his lawyers' motion
states.

"Because of the looming criminal prosecution . . . Dr. Matulis has
moved the hearing examiner to continue the administrative
proceedings until September," the motion states.

The lawsuit in which the motion was filed was the first to raise
allegations of sexual misconduct against Dr. Matulis.  The lawsuit
was filed by a 25-year-old woman from Boone County.  She is
identified only through her initials "T. W." in the complaint.

About a week after Dr. Matulis performed a colonoscopy on the
woman, Charleston police informed her that she had been the victim
of a sexual assault by Dr. Matulis.

Charleston lawyer Ben Salango, who represents the woman, said he
planned to argue against a stay in the case.

"Obviously we disagree that this important case should be put on
hold for any reason, much less to accommodate the doctor," Mr.
Salango said.

The lawsuit filed by T. W. is one of nearly 10 lawsuits filed
against Dr. Matulis by former patients.  Two lawsuits have asked
judges to be given class-action status.

Some of the complaints allege, among other things, that they were
sexually assaulted by Dr. Matulis during a medical procedure while
under anesthesia.  Some plaintiffs raise, among other claims, that
they have been harmed by the stress from not knowing whether they
are a victim of an assault because it would've been while they
were under anesthesia.

Others claim Dr. Matulis rushed and incorrectly performed
colonoscopies. [GN]


SWISSPORT SA: Leonard Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Antoine Leonard, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Antoine Leonard, et al. v. Swissport
SA, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-21272-MGC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks recovery of money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Swissport provides ground, cargo and passenger services at the
Miami International Airport where the Plaintiffs worked as non-
exempt hourly aircraft re-fuelers.

The appellate case is captioned as Antoine Leonard, et al. v.
Swissport SA, LLC, Case No. 17-12147, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellants' brief is due on or before June 19, 2017;

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

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before June 7, 2017, as to Appellee Swissport SA, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Fedner Charles Asemy, Jovanny F. Sanquintin
Checo, Jean D. Christian, John Darrel, Christopher Diaz, Fumilayo
Fadipe, Dieuverson Fanfan, Jermaine Finley, Eric Gamarra, Timothy
Green, Fred Joseph, Lesly Joseph, Vilnes Jusma, Antoine Leonard,
Bergilin Jean Louis, Jean G. Louis, Juany Jean Louis, Leeking
Madoo, Jules Makenly, Francisco Morales, Carlos Neira, Omar
Phillips, Roberson Piere, Marc H. Pierre, Duperval Rene, Tvaughn
Rigby, Evens Sael, Yvner Sido, Jonathan Silva, Junior Spencer and
Rodrigue Sylvestre and others similarly situated are represented
by:

          Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, PA
          5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (305) 403-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
          E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SWISSPORT SA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company doing business as Servisair LLC, is represented by:

          Meagan Leigh Martin, Esq.
          Patrick Muldowney, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 649-4000
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
          E-mail: mmartin@bakerlaw.com
                  pmuldowney@bakerlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Court Trims Herbal Supplements Marketing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re: HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, No. 15-cv-5070 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Amy
J. St. Eve of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Defendants' motions
to strike the Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

The Court dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief for lack of standing, and dismissed the
challenged warranty claims without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs broadly alleged that the Defendants sell
supplements "that do not contain what is listed on their labels"
but instead "are packed with cheaper 'filler' ingredients, or
contain substances not identified on the bottles."  The Plaintiffs
based this contention in large part -- or, as Defendants argue,
exclusively -- on letters the New York Attorney General sent to
Target Corp., Target Brands, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. on Feb. 2, 2015.

The letter to Target indicated that the NYAG purchased six up and
up herbals supplements from three different Target locations in
New York state: Ginkgo Biloba, St. John's Wort, Valerian Root,
Garlic, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto.  The NYAG informed Target
that it conducted testing on the supplements, which revealed that
the Ginkgo Biloba, St. John's Wort, and Valerian Root supplements
did not contain the ingredients listed on their labels but instead
contained "adulterants and undisclosed substances that were not
listed on the labels" like rice, garlic, beans, peas, wild carrot,
and dracaena.

The NYAG's test results for Walgreens and Wal-Mart were similar
with respect to certain supplements.  The testing revealed that
five of the supplements -- Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort,
Ginseng, Garlic, and Echinacea did not contain the ingredients
they purported to have and were contaminated with other plant
material or ingredients not listed on the products' labels.  NYAG
also reported that the supplements contained other plants not
disclosed on product labels, like dracaena, wheat, cassava, and
rice.  The NYAG reached the conclusions relayed in its letters and
press release after conducting DNA barcode testing.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of various classes, enumerated the
following causes of action against the Defendants: (i) violation
of state consumer protection laws based on misrepresentation; (ii)
breach of express warranties; (iii) breach of implied warranties;
and (iv) unjust enrichment.

The Defendants sought to strike all allegations regarding the
NYAG's investigation, letters, and press release.  They rely
primarily on the Second Circuit's opinion in Lipsky v.
Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976).  The
Defendants read Lipsky to mean that references to the NYAG's
investigation are immaterial under Rule 12(f) because the
investigation did not result in an adjudication on the merits.
Their contention that this interpretation of Lipsky is "well-
established" is an overstatement.

After reviewing the relevant case law, the Court held that the
cases that read Lipsky narrowly -- that is, the cases conflicting
with Defendants' interpretation -- are most persuasive.  First,
the Court agreed with the district courts that have pointed out
that it makes little sense to bar reference to government studies
simply because they did not ultimately result in an adjudication
on the merits.  Second, the Lipsky court made clear that its
holding was limited to its facts.  Thus, Lipsky -- which is
nonbinding authority -- has limited application to the current
case, which does not deal with a consent judgment.  Third, motions
to strike are disfavored and courts should grant them only when
the allegations at issue are "so unrelated to the party's claims
as to be devoid of merit and unworthy of any consideration" as
well as unduly prejudicial.  The Defendants have not clearly
articulated why they would suffer prejudice, and the allegations
related to the NYAG's study are relevant to the issues in this
case.  Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants' motion to strike.

NBTY, Walgreens, and Walmart argued that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to bring claims under the laws of states with which they
have no connection.  The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants'
argument "improperly conflates the Article III standing inquiry,
which is properly considered at this stage, with the Rule 23
typicality, adequacy, and predominance inquiries, which must be
deferred until the Court considers Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification."  Here, the plaintiffs similarly have established
the elements of standing, and the Court agreed with the many
courts that have concluded that the Defendants' concerns are
better left for the class-certification stage.

NYBT, Walmart, and Walgreens argued that the Court should dismiss
the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief because "once a
consumer fraud plaintiff is aware of allegedly misleading
advertising, she must offer more than conjecture of future harm in
order to receive an injunction."  The Court agreed.  The
Plaintiffs made clear in their complaint that they would not have
purchased the Affected Products had they known the truth about
them.  They cannot pursue injunctive relief because they face no
real immediate threat of future injury.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants breached express and
implied warranties under the laws of every state and the District
of Columbia, although with respect to NBTY, the Plaintiffs alleged
only breach of implied warranties and do so only under the laws of
a certain subset of states.  The Defendants argued that "in each
of the 12 states where the Plaintiffs live, breach of express and
implied warranty claims against retailers may not be asserted
unless the plaintiff previously gave the retailer pre-suit notice
of the claim; and, for suits against manufacturers, all but three
of those states require pre-suit notice."  These Defendants
contended that the complaint names only one Plaintiff, Kaitlyn
Pirtle, who allegedly gave pre-suit notice.

Accordingly, NBTY, Walgreens, and Walmart sought the dismissal of
the express and implied warranty claims of every other plaintiff
except for the Minnesota, Missouri, and New Jersey plaintiffs
(Kardasz, Harris, Chamberlain, Cintron, and Cohn) asserting
warranty claim against NBTY under the laws of those three states.
The Plaintiffs, in contrast, contended that the Defendants'
arguments regarding pre-suit notice are premature because
"compliance with a statutory pre-suit notice requirement is an
affirmative defense" that they need not plead.  Filing a complaint
is insufficient notice for plaintiffs -- like those in this case -
- who did not suffer a personal injury.  Failure to plead adequate
notice results in dismissal.  Accordingly, the Court granted
Defendants' motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' challenged
warranty claims without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs, if they wish
to replead, should lay out specific facts regarding notice.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs have failed to support
their fraud allegations with first-hand information and therefore
fail to satisfy Rule 9(b).  The Plaintiffs did not contest the
Defendants' argument that their allegations concerning the NYAG's
test results are based on "secondhand information" and are
therefore pled on information and belief.  The Court considered
the second prong of the test first and concluded that the
Plaintiffs have adequately provided the grounds for their
suspicions.  The NYAG is the chief legal officer of New York.
Taking the Plaintiffs' allegations as true and viewing the
complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there is no
reason to believe the NYAG inaccurately reported the testing it
conducted, and there is no reason to believe that the NYAG is
anything other than a reliable government source.

Having disposed of the Defendants' arguments regarding pleading
information and belief, the Court turned to Target's arguments
that even if the Court considers the NYAG investigation, the
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.  Target argued that there is
an "obvious alternative explanation" for the NYAG's result: that
DNA from the source material was degraded during the extraction
process used during the creation of the supplements.  The
Defendants are free to challenge the efficacy of DNA barcode
testing later in the litigation, but at the pleading stage, the
NYAG testing is sufficient factual support for Plaintiffs' claims.

Finally, Target argued in a truncated paragraph that because the
NYAG tested only supplements from New York stores they cannot
allege fraudulent activity around the nation.  There is no reason
to believe that the Defendants' manufacturing and labeling
processes vary from one geographical area to another.  In short,
the Defendants' arguments are unavailing.  The Court therefore
denied their motions to dismiss except to the extent stated.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/b6TYqY from Leagle.com.

In re Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
represented by Amanda L. Groves, Winston & Strawn.

In re Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
represented by Ronald Y. Rothstein, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott M.

Ahmad, Winston & Strawn LLP & Scott P. Glauberman, Winston &
Strawn LLP.

Alyssa Clemmons, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Robert Shemin,
Shemin Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Marcus N. Bozeman, Thrash Law
Firm, P.A., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shane Sparks, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Robert Shemin,
Shemin Law Firm, Pllc, pro hac vice, Marcus N. Bozeman, Thrash Law
Firm, P.A., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Paul De La Torre, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Joshua Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt
& Associates, Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Thomas Moors, Plaintiff, represented by Hans G. Poppe, The Poppe
Law Firm, Kirk A. Laughlin, The Poppe Law Firm, Ronald E. Johnson,
Jr., Schachter Hendy & Johnson Psc, Sarah Nicole Emery, Schachter
Hendy & Johnson Psc, Scarlette R. Burton, The Poppe Law Firm,
Warner T. Wheat, The Poppe Law Firm & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Linda Boss, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Charles Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Mary Farrell, Plaintiff, represented by John Joseph Fitzgerald,
IV, The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Tran Hai Thi Nguyen,
The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Trevor Matthew Flynn, Law
Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Jennifer Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Albert
Marron, Law Office Of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Rafael Figueiredo, Defendant, represented by John F. Medler, Jr.,
Medler Law Firm.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Speth,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Llp, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Paikin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP & Matthew Martens, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
Llp.

Target Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Speth,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Llp, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Paikin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice,
Judy Simmons Henry, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP & Matthew
Martens, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Llp.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., Defendant, represented by John P.
Hooper, Reed Smith LLP.

General Nutrition Corp., Defendant, represented by John P. Hooper,
Reed Smith LLP.

GNC Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by John P. Hooper, Reed
Smith LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves,
Winston & Strawn, Kevin Dale Rising, Barnes & Thornburg LLP,

William M. McErlean, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, David C. Allen,
Barnes & Thornburg LLP & David William Nelson, Barnes and
Thornburg LLP.

Walgreen Co., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves, Winston
& Strawn.

NBTY, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves, Winston &
Strawn.

Svc List,, represented by Michael L. Kelly, Kirtland and Packard
LLP.


TEAM ADHOC: "Solomon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Solomon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Team Adhoc, LLC and East West Bank,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03636 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, appropriate equitable relief,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert fees pursuant
to California Labor Code. The suit also seeks pre- and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief.

Team Adhoc, LLC is a staffing company that provides business
services to companies in accounting, financial planning and
analysis, financial reporting and information technology. Team
Adhoc employed Solomon as a BSA analyst to its client, East West
Bank.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
      Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
      DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 614-5830
      Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
      Email: aashish@desai-law.com
             adrianne@desai-law.com

             - and -

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 418-2069
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


TRUCONNECT COMMUNICATIONS: Macias Sues Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lan Macias, as an individual and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Truconnect Communications, Inc. and Does 1 through
100, Case No. BC662355 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 22, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Truconnect Communications, Inc. operates a wireless
telecommunications company in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TWENTY FIRST CENTURY: Able Home Suit Settled; Hearing on July 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 9, 2017, in the case styled
Able Home Health, LLC v. Twenty First Century Health Care
Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00888 (N.D. Ill.),
relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow.

The minute entry states that it is reported that the case is
settled.  Hence, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
withdrawn without prejudice.

Status hearing is set for July 11, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.  If
dismissal paperwork is submitted prior to July 11, no one need
appear, according to the minute entry.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zMtz3Vnk


UNITED STATES: Court Trims FS's Age Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATHLEEN BREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 05-0654
(PLF)(D.D.C.), Judge Paul L. Friedman of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Defendants'
summary judgment motion on the Plaintiffs' disparate treatment
claim but granted their motion on the Plaintiffs' disparate impact
claim.

The Plaintiffs, former flight service ("FS") specialists with the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), brought this suit against
the FAA and the Department of Transportation alleging
discrimination on the basis of age, in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA").  The Defendants
terminated the Plaintiffs' employment pursuant to a reduction in
force ("RIF") that involved outsourcing the FS function to
Lockheed Martin, a private company.  The Plaintiffs allege (i) a
disparate treatment claim -- that the FAA decided to outsource the
FS function because of the age of the FS specialists, and (ii) a
disparate impact claim -- that the FAA's decision had a
disproportionate impact on workers over the age of 40.

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on both theories.
As to the disparate treatment claim, they contend that (i) the RIF
applied to every FS specialist, regardless of age; (ii) the agency
had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for outsourcing the FS
function; and (iii) comments made by FAA managers about age and
the aging workforce were not made by decision makers in the A-76
process or the 2005 RIF decision and, in any event, were
legitimate in the context in which they were made.

The Court agrees with the Defendants that the RIF is the only
adverse employment action about which the Plaintiffs may complain.
But the process by which the Defendants arrived at the RIF
decision is relevant to the Defendants' motives in taking that
action, the Defendants' argument that it had legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and the Plaintiffs'
claim of pretext.  The Court therefore finds that certain
decisions leading up to RIF of the entire FS workforce are
relevant for the fact finder to consider.

In sum, drawing all reasonable inference in the Plaintiffs' favor,
the Court finds ample evidence in the record to create genuine
issues of material fact concerning whether decreased demand for
the work of FS specialists and cost savings motivated the FAA's
decision to subject the Plaintiff FS specialists to a RIF.
Furthermore, based primarily on the Defendants' widespread
comments related to age -- a matter to which the Court next turns
-- a reasonable fact finder could find that the Defendants
intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of
their age.  The Defendants therefore are not entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim.

In sum, the contradiction inherent in the Defendants' explanation
for the RIF and management's widespread comments related to age
create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
Defendants' proffered reasons for the RIF were pretext for
discrimination on the basis of age.  Here, there is more than
sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that
the reason proffered was not the real reason and that the FAA
intentionally discriminated against the employees on the basis of
age.  The Court therefore denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim.

As for the disparate impact claim, the Defendants argue that there
can be no disparate impact claim based on the RIF or,
alternatively, on the 2002 decision to designate the FS function
as "non-core," because neither was a facially neutral employment
policy or practice.

Here, the Plaintiffs identify the employment policy or practice as
"the overall A-76 process" leading to the RIF, as well as "the
subsidiary practices of selection of core and non-core functions
and the selection of [FS] from among the available non-core group
functions."  The Court finds that "the overall A-76 process"
leading to the RIF is not a specific employment policy or practice
under Texas Housing because the RIF is a "one-time decision" that
defendants did not repeat over and over with respect to different
employees.  The Defendants conducted the RIF all at once on Oct.
3, 2005, and did not repeat the RIF with respect to any employees
other than FS specialists.  While it is possible that a different
RIF may constitute a specific employment policy or practice
sufficient to support a disparate impact claim, plaintiffs here
fail to show that this RIF was anything more than a "one-time
decision" that is not "a policy at all."

The Court also finds that the "subsidiary practices" plaintiffs
identify are not specific employment policies or practices under
Texas Housing.  While defendants likely have designated functions
other than FS as core or non-core, plaintiffs did not include any
evidence of other such designations in the record.  There
therefore is no record basis for the Court to conclude that the
2002 decision to designate the FS function as "non-core" while
designating other aircraft separating controllers as "core" was
part of a policy or practice.  The one-time nature of the
Defendants' conduct is even more apparent with respect to the
Plaintiffs' other alleged "subsidiary practice," the selection of
FS for the A-76 process from among the available non-core group
functions.  This decision is not even capable of repetition
because, by design, the Defendants undertook the A-76 process to
RIF a single workforce.  The Court therefore finds that the
Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of disparate impact
on older workers based on "the overall A-76 process" leading to
the RIF or either of the "subsidiary practices" the Plaintiffs
identify.

The Court concluded that the Amended Complaint does not identify a
facially neutral policy or practice that led to or caused a
disparate impact on a protected class.  The Plaintiffs thus have
failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact based
on any of defendants' specific employment practices.  The Court
therefore granted summary judgment to the Defendants on the
Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/BXHrOP from Leagle.com

Kathleen A. Breen, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Kathleen A. Breen, Plaintiff, represented by Shaylyn Capri
Cochran, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon,
Law Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Milton J. Torres III, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Richard C. Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Ronald J. Consalvo, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Mark Jaffee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher Corman,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law Office of
Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Darrell G. Mounts, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

John O'Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Michael J. Sheldon, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Jerry Vanvacter, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Marion C. Blakey, Defendant, represented by Adam D. Kirschner,
U.S. Department of Justice, Brian G. Kennedy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Elizabeth L. Kade, U.S. Department of Justice & Lisa
Zeidner Marcus, U.S. Department of Justice.

Ray H. LaHood, Defendant, represented by Adam D. Kirschner, U.S.
Department of Justice, Brian G. Kennedy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Lisa Zeidner Marcus, U.S. Department of Justice &
Elizabeth L. Kade, U.S. Department of Justice.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Frankfurt-Trust Sues Over Earnings Guidance
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKFURT-TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, GREGORY J. HAYES, and
AKHIL JOHRI, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03570 (S.D.N.Y., May 12,
2017), alleges that throughout the Class Period (between April 21,
2015 and July 20, 2015, inclusive), United Technologies issued and
reaffirmed unfounded and inflated earnings guidance, primarily
based on the planning assumptions in two of the Company's key
business units: UTC Aerospace Systems and Otis Elevator Co.
United Technologies ultimately acknowledged that these planning
assumptions were not fully scrutinized and were far too
aggressive.  The case alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Defendant United Technologies is a manufacturer and servicer of
hightechnology products, including aircraft components, elevators,
escalators, air-conditioning units, and military-missile
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: 212 907 0700
     Fax: 212 818 0477
     Emails: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Amy and Gary G. Sue Over Denied Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy G. and Gary G., individually and as representatives of the
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
UnitedHealthCare and United Behavioral Health, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00413 (D. Utah, May 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
premiums, an equal amount of unpaid overtime premiums as
liquidated damages as well as attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amy and Gary are covered by a group health benefits plan provided
through Amy's employer. Their plan is administered by
UnitedHealthCare while mental health benefits under said plan are
administered by United Behavioral Health. Amy and Gary's son,
A.G., a minor, received treatment for his mental health conditions
at Second Nature Wilderness Family Therapy. He was denied
coverage.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. King, Esq.
      BRIAN S. KING, PC
      336 South 300 East, Suite 200
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 532-1739
      Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
      Email: brian@briansking.com

             - and -

      Robert G. Wing, Esq.
      Brent D. Wride, Esq.
      RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.
      36 South State Street #1400
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 532-1500
      Facsimile: (801) 532-7543


UNIVERSAL TAX: DB II's Bid for Cert. & to Review Judgment Cont'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 10, 2017, in the case entitled
DB II Enterprises LLC v. Universal Tax Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:13-cv-05702 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to reconsider summary judgment order and
      for leave to file amended complaint is entered and
      continued for briefing;

   -- Defendant's combined memorandum up to 25 pages in support
      of summary judgment and response to Plaintiff's motion to
      reconsider is to be filed by or on June 19, 2017;

   -- Reply to be filed by or on July 19, 2017;

   -- Reply in support of summary judgment to be filed by or on
      August 9, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued;

   -- Class certification briefing is stayed;

   -- Motion for leave to file under seal is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional page
      memorandum of law is granted; and

   -- Defendant Universal's motion to stay class certification
      proceedings pending resolution of summary judgment is
      granted.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jlY4p8TB


US BANCORP: "Wert" Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the parties' joint motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the
case styled MONICA R. WERT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANCORP, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-3130-BAS(AGS) (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Monica R. Wert, on behalf of herself and a putative
class, filed claims against defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank
National Association, claiming they failed to provide compliant
itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
Section 226 and were entitled to the recovery of civil penalties
for such violation under the Private Attorneys General's Act, Cal.
Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. Additionally, plaintiff requests
civil penalties under PAGA alleging that defendants violated
California Labor Code Section 512 when they failed to comply with
California's meal-period requirements.

The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement that seeks an order conditionally certifying a
proposed settlement class, preliminarily approving class action
settlement, and setting a hearing for final approval of the
settlement. Movant Charles Rodriguez filed objections to the
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Judge Bashant overruled Rodriguez's objections to the settlement
and granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
the class settlement and conditionally certifies a class for
settlement purposes only.

The class shall consist of four subclasses defined as follows:

   * Exempt Paystub Class: all individuals employed by either
defendant in California as exempt employees who received one or
more paper paychecks and/or paper wage statements at any time
between November 13, 2012 and July 17, 2014 (without regard to the
fact that such individuals had access to Employee Self Service).

   * Non-exempt Paystub Class: all individuals employed by either
Defendant in California as non-exempt, hourly paid employees at
any time from November 13, 2012 to December 31, 2014.

   * Meal Period Provision Class: all individuals employed by
either Defendant in California as non-exempt, hourly paid
employees at any time between November 13, 2012 and December 31,
2016 and who, during that time frame, received pay under the Other
Pay Code.

   * Meal Period Pay Computation Class: all individuals employed
by either Defendant in California as non-exempt, hourly paid
employees at any time between November 13, 2009 and December 31,
2016 and who during that time frame received pay under the other
Pay Code.

The court appoints Monica Wert as class representative, Matthew S.
Dente and Diane E. Richard of Dente Richard LLP, George C. Aguilar
and Brian Robbins of Robbins Arroyo LLP, and London D. Meservy of
Meservy Law P.C., as class counsel to represent the class and
appoints Rust Consulting, Inc. (Rust) as the settlement
administrator. The court preliminarily approves the settlement
agreement and the terms and conditions of settlement set forth
therein, subject to further consideration at a final approval
hearing.

The court will hold a final approval hearing on September 25, 2017
at 10:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable Cynthia Bashant,
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Courtroom 4B (4th Floor - Schwartz), 221 West
Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for the following purposes:

   a. Finally determining whether the class meets all applicable
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and whether the class should be certified for the purposes of
effectuating the settlement,

   b. finally determining whether the proposed settlement of the
case on the terms and conditions provided for in the settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved
and ordered by the court, and

   c. ruling upon such other matters as the court may deem just
and appropriate.

Before the fairness hearing, defendants shall file with the clerk
of the court proof of their compliance with the notice provisions
of the class action fairness act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1715. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3),
the class members will be permitted to exclude themselves from the
class. Any request to be excluded must be made in accordance with
the settlement and instructions on the notice packet, and must be
postmarked no later than forty-five calendar days after the
initial date of the mailing of the class settlement notice. Class
members may object to the settlement by following the instructions
set forth in the class settlement notice. Any objection must be
filed with the Clerk of Court and served on the settlement
administrator no later than forty-five calendar days after the
initial date of the mailing of the class settlement notice. All
objections must include the objector's full name, address, and
telephone number, along with a statement of the reasons for his or
her objection, whether or not he or she intends to appear at the
fairness hearing, and, if the objector intends to appear, whether
he or she will appear on his or her own behalf or through counsel.
Objections that do not contain all required information or that
are received after the objection deadline will not be considered
at the final approval hearing. Any class member who does not file
a valid and timely objection to the settlement shall be barred
from seeking review of the settlement by appeal or otherwise.

Defendants are ordered to provide the settlement administrator
with the class information required by the settlement agreement
within fourteen calendar days of the entry of the preliminary
approval order. The settlement administrator is ordered to mail
the notice packets to class members within thirty-five calendar
days of the settlement administrator's receipt of the class
information. The settlement administrator shall provide the
parties with a declaration of compliance with its obligation under
the settlement seven calendar days after the deadline for class
members to opt out or object.


Class Counsel shall file with the Clerk of Court their application
for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses no later than ten
calendar days before the deadline for Class Members to opt out or
object. Class counsel are to file their motion for final approval
of settlement twenty-eight calendar days before the fairness
hearing. Counsel are to file any responses to any objections seven
calendar days before the fairness hearing and the parties are
ordered to carry out the settlement agreement in the manner
provided in the settlement agreement.

A copy of Judge Bashant's order dated May 5, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/kayz6m from Leagle.com.

Monica R. Wert, Plaintiff, represented by George C. Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP; London D.
Meservy -- london@meservylawpc.com -- at Meservy Law, P.C.;
Matthew S. Dente -- matt@denterichard.com -- Diane Elizabeth
Richard -- diane@denterichard.com -- at Dente Richard LLP

Defendants, represented by Emilie C. Woodhead --
ewoodhead@winston.com -- Joan B. Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com
-- Emily C. Schuman -- Jennifer Zhao -- at Winston & Strawn LLP

Charles Rodriguez, Movant, represented by Jason Hatcher --
jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com -- at The Myers Law Group APC


VLAD RESTORATION: Appeals Ruling in "Alcantara-Flores" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Vlad Restoration Ltd. and Vlad Tomczak filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alcantara-Flores v. Vlad
Restoration Ltd., Case No. 16-cv-3847, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for alleged egregious violations by
Defendants of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

VLAD TOMCZAK owns and operates VLAD RESTORATION LTD.

The appellate case is captioned as Alcantara-Flores v. Vlad
Restoration Ltd., Case No. 17-1509, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Florencio Alcantara-Flores, Edie Argeto
Barrera, Isaias Hernandez Zapata and Benjmain Jimenez,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

Defendants-Appellants Vlad Restoration Ltd. and Vlad Tomczak, an
individual, are represented by:

          Felipe (Phillip) E. Orner, Esq.
          PHILIP ORNER, C.P.A., ATTORNEY AT LAW
          72-29 137th Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 575-9600
          E-mail: felilaw@aol.com


WELLS FARGO: Minnesota Court Dismisses ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Doty of the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice the case captioned
John Meiners, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-3981(DSD/FLN) (D. Minn.) alleging (i)
breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104 against the Benefit Committee; (ii) breach of co-
fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105 against the Human
Resources Committee, Hardison, and Thornton; and (iii) knowing
participation in a breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3) against Wells Fargo.

This ERISA dispute arises out of plaintiff John Meiners'
participation in Wells Fargo's 401(k) retirement plan (Plan).  The
Plan is a defined-contribution plan in which employees may invest
a certain percentage of their earnings on a pre-tax basis.  During
the class period, the Plan offered 26 to 27 investment options.
Twelve of the options are Wells Fargo Dow Jones Target Date Funds,
which are proprietary funds managed by a Wells Fargo subsidiary.
Meiners, on behalf of a putative class, alleges that these funds
both underperformed comparable Vanguard funds and were more
expensive than comparable Vanguard and Fidelity funds.  He claims
that by continuing to keep these funds in the Plan, Wells Fargo
breached its fiduciary duties.  Further, Wells Fargo, in an effort
to generate fees and seed the underperforming funds, allegedly
breached its fiduciary duties by designating the Wells Fargo funds
as the default for participants who enrolled in the Plan but did
not select an investment option.

On Nov. 22, 2016, Meiners filed this class action lawsuit under
ERISA alleging (i) breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 against the Benefit Committee; (ii)
breach of co-fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105 against
the Human Resources Committee, Hardison, and Thornton; and (iii)
knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) against Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo now
moves to dismiss the complaint.

Meiners alleges that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duty by
continuing to invest in its own target date funds when better
performing funds were available at a lower cost.  Wells Fargo
argues that these allegations are insufficient to plausibly allege
a breach of fiduciary duty.  The court agrees.

Central to Meiners's complaint is the allegation that the Wells
Fargo funds consistently underperformed Vanguard funds.  The rate
of return for the Wells Fargo and Vanguard funds are only relevant
insofar as they suggest that Wells Fargo's decision making process
was flawed.  Here, one would expect the Wells Fargo and Vanguard
funds to perform differently because the Wells Fargo funds have a
different investment strategy than the Vanguard funds.
Specifically, Wells Fargo funds have a higher allocation of bond
than Vanguard funds.  Therefore, it does not necessarily follow
that the Wells Fargo funds were substandard compared to the
Vanguard funds, nor does it follow that Wells Fargo's decision
making process was flawed.

Meiners likewise fails to provide a meaningful benchmark against
which the Wells Fargo fund's fees can be compared.  Fees, like
performance, cannot be analyzed in a vacuum.  Wells Fargo argues
that Meiners's complaint merely alleges that it failed to invest
in  the cheapest fund available.  Meiners disagrees and argues
that he has alleged that Wells Fargo acted in self-interest by
choosing higher-cost affiliated funds over lower-cost non-
affiliated funds.  But Meiners's only support of this
interpretation of his complaint is that two funds, Fidelity and
Vanguard, are less expensive.  Nothing in the complaint suggests
that the Vanguard and Fidelity funds are reliable comparators,
offer similar services, or are of similar size, nor does it
contain facts showing that the Wells Fargo funds are more
expensive when compared to the market as a whole.  Without a
meaningful comparison, the mere fact that the Wells Fargo funds
are more expensive than two other funds does not give rise to a
plausible breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Lastly, Meiners claims that Wells Fargo set its target date funds
as the default for participants in order to seed its own funds.
This, too, is insufficient to give rise a breach of fiduciary duty
claim.

Taken as a whole, the complaint merely supports an inference that
Wells Fargo continued to invest in affiliated target date funds
when its rate of return was lower than Vanguard, which had a
different investment strategy, and that was more expensive than
Vanguard and Fidelity funds.  These allegations do not give rise
to an inference of a breach of fiduciary duty, and as a result,
that claim must be dismissed.

Because Meiners has not adequately pleaded an underlying breach of
fiduciary duty, his breach of co-fiduciary duty and knowing
participation in a breach of fiduciary duty claims must also be
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/R3vKkl from Leagle.com

John Meiners, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey A. Graber, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice.

John Meiners, Plaintiff, represented by Greg G. Gutzler, Elias
Gutzler Spicer LLC, pro hac vice, Karen L. Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Rebecca A. Peterson, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP, Richard M. Elias, Elias Gutzler Spicer LLC,
pro hac vice & Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice, Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice,
Kirsten E. Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin,
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice & Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Human Resources Committee of the Wells Fargo Board of Directors,
Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Howard
Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E. Schubert,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Russell
Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen P.
Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Wells Fargo Employee Benefits Review Committee, Defendant,
represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Deidre A.
Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Howard Shapiro,
Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E. Schubert, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Russell Laurence
Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen P. Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Hope Hardison, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E.
Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Justin Thornton, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac
vice, Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten
E. Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer
Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Patricia Callahan, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice, Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice,
Kirsten E. Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin,
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro
hac vice & Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Michael Heid, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E.
Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Timothy Sloan, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E.
Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Lloyd Dean, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E.
Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

John Chen, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Deidre A. Grossman, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Howard Shapiro, Proskauer Rose, LLP, pro hac vice, Kirsten E.
Schubert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lindsey H. Chopin, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


WINDOW NATION: Faces "Cook" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Min. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN COOK (260 East 244th Street, Apt. 101, Euclid, Ohio 44123)
Plaintiff, vs. WINDOW NATION, INC. (c/o Statutory Agent Peter A.
Bellini, CPA, 6563 Wilson Mills Road #102, Mayfield Village, Ohio
44143), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01004 (N.D. Ohio, May 12,
2017), alleges among others that Defendant failed to include the
bonuses paid to Plaintiff and other similarly-situated Field
Marketers in their regular hourly rate of pay for purposes of
computing their overtime compensation.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendant is a sales and home installation company providing sales
and installation of windows, sidings, doors, and roofing.
Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a Field Marketer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINDSOR SURRY: Cover Seeks to Certify Class; Hearing on June 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned McLANE COVER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WINDSOR SURRY
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05262-WHO (N.D. Cal.), moves for
certification of a class consisting of:

     all persons or entities in the state of Rhode Island who own
     or owned homes, apartments, offices, buildings, or other
     structures on which WindsorONE is or was installed on the
     exterior.

McLane Cover has on his home as exterior trimboard the WindsorONE
board, a product designed, manufactured and marketed by Defendants
Windsor Surry and Windsor Mill.  He alleges that WindsorONE
contains a common defect that renders it prone to rot and, thus,
unfit for exterior use.  He contends that this common defect
manifests from Windsor's use of untreated Radiata Pine, a material
lacking in any natural rot resistance and will rot regardless
whether installation instructions are followed or not.  The
Plaintiff's claims include breach of express and implied
warranties based on the Defendants' warranties, representations
and marketing materials.

Mr. Cover also asks the Court to appoint him to serve as class
representative, to appoint the law firms of Ballion & Thome,
Jozwaik, & Wanta LLP, Levin, Sedran & Berman, and Audet &
Partners, LLP, as co-lead class counsel, and to direct the
Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice
within a reasonable time.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 14, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of Motion for Class Certification is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ea91oMKV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Michael McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenues, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: cwoods@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Hans W. Lodge, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  hlodge@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Michael McBride, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds Pumps Could Be Sanctioned in "Jack"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the personal injury asbestos case captioned PATRICK JACK, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., et al., Defendants,
Case No. C17-0537JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an order directing counsel for
Defendant Goulds Pumps, LLC, to show cause why the court should
not issue a $1,500 monetary sanction pursuant to the court's
inherent authority and Local Civil Rule 11(c) for counsel's
violation of the court's May 22, 2017, order, which directed
Goulds to participate in the May 23, 2017, hearing in person or
telephonically.

A full-text copy of the Order to Show Cause dated May 25, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/kfGDPh from Leagle.com.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams, Esq. --
badams@dobllp.com -- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin M. Houser, Esq. --
houser@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H.
Garrett, Esq. -- garrett@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, Esq., SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER &
Thomas J. Breen, Esq. -- breen@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER.

Leslie Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Kristin M. Houser, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & Thomas
J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Asbestos Corporation Ltd, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by David E.
Chawes, Esq. -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com -- PREG O'DONNELL &
GILLETT, PLLC.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
Esq. -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Autosales Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Dana C. Kopij,
WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Madderra, Esq. -- mmadderra@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP &
Richard D. Ross, Esq. -- rross@selmanlaw.com -- SELLMAN BRIETMAN
LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Zeringer,
SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP.

Crosby Valve Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko,
SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & John G. Goller,
VON BRIESEN & ROPER.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS
BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Fucile, Esq.
-- mark@frllp.com -- FUCILE & REISING.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Gardner-Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Hennessy Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Kristine E.
Kruger, PERKINS COIE.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Madderra,
SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP & Richard D. Ross, SELLMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Mackenzie
Brown, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & Katherine M. Steele, BULLIVANT
HOUSER BAILEY.

MeadWestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Mackenzie Brown, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & Katherine M. Steele,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Standard Motor Products Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
M. Odom, LANE POWELL PC & Tim D. Wackerbarth, LANE POWELL PC.

Uniroyal Holding Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert
Youtz, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Brian
Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D. Hicks, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in "Juni" Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-appellant, Mary Juni, etc., having moved for reargument
of, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeals, from the decision and order of Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, entered on February
28, 2017 (Appeal Nos. 2457, 2458).

Upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and
due deliberation having been had, the Appellate Division ordered
that the motion, to the extent it seeks reargument, is denied.
According to the Appellate Division, so much of the motion which
seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted, and the
Appellate Division certifies that the following question of law,
decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen,
which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals:

     "Was the order of Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court,
properly made?"

The Appellate Division further certifies that its determination
was made as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. MARY JUNI,
ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET
AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. THE
COALITION FOR LITIGATION JUSTICE, INC., THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF NEW YORK
STATE AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Amici Curiae,
Motion No. M-1710, Index No. 190315/12 (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated May 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/e0Aa10 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in "Brown" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendant-respondent, Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.,
having moved for reargument of, or in the alternative, for leave
to appeal to the Court of Appeals, from the decision and order of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, entered on January 10, 2017 (Appeal Nos. 205 and 206).

Upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and
due deliberation having been had, the Appellate Division ordered
that the motion, to the extent it seeks reargument, is denied.  So
much of the motion which seeks leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeals is granted, and the Appellate Division certifies that the
following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its
determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be
reviewed by the Court of Appeals:

   "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the
Supreme Court, properly made?"

The Appellate Division further certifies that its determination
was made as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION PHYLLIS BROWN,
AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HARRY E. BROWN, ETC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, Defendant,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant-Respondent,
Motion No. M-869, Index No. 190415/12 (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated May 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/RqID6S from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. JT Thorpe Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury case captioned WILLIAM
ROPER and CAROL ROPER, individually and as a marital community,
Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., et al., Defendants, No.
2:16-CV-01453-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, approved the stipulation under which the
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their claims without prejudice
against defendant, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., and the defendant has
agreed to waive its fees and costs incurred in the matter.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 25, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/LyMRSN from Leagle.com.

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers,
MYERS & COMPANY.

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Tammy C. Barcenilla,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice.

Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers, MYERS
& COMPANY & Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac
vice.

BorgWarner Morse Tec, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard D.
Ross, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Brand Insulations, Inc, Defendant, represented by David A. Shaw,
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS & Malika Johnson, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher,
SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP & Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim,
GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig, GORDON & REES LLP.

Lone Star Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard
(Terry) I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Melissa K. Roeder, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD & Zackary A. Paal, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Metalclad Insulation, LLC, Defendant, represented by Katherine M.
Steele, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Saberhagen Holdings, Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, Esq. -- thorson@carneylaw.com -- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, formerly known as Square D Co.,
Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co Inc, Defendant, represented by Aaron P.
Riensche, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Trane US, Inc, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON &
REES & Kevin J. Craig, GORDON & REES LLP.

Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by John Michael
Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Jason H. Daywitt, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.5MM in General Damages Awarded to Couple
------------------------------------------------------------
In the mesothelioma case captioned FRANK S. ROMANO, SR. AND LYNN
ROME ROMANO, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., No.
2016-CA-0954 (La. App.), both the defendant Union Carbide
Corporation and the plaintiffs, Frank Romano, Sr. and Lynn Romano,
appeal a jury verdict entered by the trial court as well as the
trial court's denial of their attempts to nullify the jury's
verdict.  The plaintiffs seek an increase in the quantum of
damages, while the defendant questions liability and causation.

Included in the jury verdict were awards of $566,274.00 in
stipulated past medical expenses; $150,000.00 in future medical
expenses; $250,000.00 for loss of enjoyment of life, past and
future; and $250,000.00 for general damages, including past and
future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental
anguish, and past and future disability.

The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
jury and trial court's decisions regarding liability and
causation.  However, the Court of Appeal reversed the jury's
verdict as to damages only and the trial court's judgment denying
plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the
verdict on damages only, or, in the alternative, motion for new
trial on damages only.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal now
increased the general damages award made to Mr. and Mrs. Romano
from $500,000 to $1,500,000.

The Court of Appeal held that the facts and circumstances
surrounding the injuries sustained by Mr. Romano and how the
injuries specifically impacted him show that the jury abused its
discretion in awarding general damages of only $500,000.  The
Court of Appeal pointed out that Mr. Romano has suffered and will
continue to suffer as a result of his contraction and the
treatment of mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the decision dated May 24, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/JSqCZA from Leagle.com.

LAWRENCE J. CENTOLA III, SCOTT R. BICKFORD, JASON Z. LANDRY,
MARTZELL & BICKFORD, APC, -- info@mbfirm.com -- 338 Lafayette
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. AND

LAWRENCE BLAKE JONES, JOSHUA LEE RUBENSTEIN, PATRICK J. ESKEW,
SCHEUERMANN & JONES, 701 Poydras Street 41st Floor, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70139, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

DEBORAH D. KUCHLER, McGREADY LEWIS RICHESON, ERNEST GEORGE FONDAS,
FRANCIS XAVIER deBLANC III, PERRY S. LEE, LEIGH ANN SCHELL,
KUCHLER POLK SCHELL WEINER & RICESON, LLC, 1615 Poydras Street,
Suite 1300, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supplemental Briefing on Jurisdiction Ordered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICK JACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-
0537JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
issued an order directing supplemental briefing regarding subject
matter jurisdiction.  A full-text copy of the Order dated May 24,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/flI5gJ from Leagle.com.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin M. Houser,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Leslie Jack, husband and wife, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
H. Adams, DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Kristin M.
Houser, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Asbestos Corporation Ltd, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by David E.
Chawes, PREG O'DONNELL & GILLETT, PLLC.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Autosales Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Dana C. Kopij,
WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Madderra, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP & Richard D. Ross, SELLMAN BRIETMAN
LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks,
SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP.

Crosby Valve Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko,
SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & John G. Goller,
VON BRIESEN & ROPER.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS
BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Fucile,
FUCILE & REISING.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Gardner-Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Hennessy Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Kristine E.
Kruger, PERKINS COIE.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Madderra,
SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP & Richard D. Ross, SELLMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Mackenzie
Brown, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & Katherine M. Steele, BULLIVANT
HOUSER BAILEY.

MeadWestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Mackenzie Brown, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & Katherine M. Steele,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Standard Motor Products Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
M. Odom, LANE POWELL PC & Tim D. Wackerbarth, LANE POWELL PC.

Uniroyal Holding Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert
Youtz, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Brian
Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D. Hicks, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Technology Denies Dumping Bags with Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Guillen, writing for Detroit Free Press, reported that
Christian Hauser, a Troy attorney who said he represents Air
Technology Systems, said in an email that the company denies that
it failed to file proper notice to abate the house in question on
Homer Street, and will appeal the violation issued by the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality.  Hauser also said Air
Technology had nothing to do with bags containing asbestos
material that were discovered in a shed on the property.  The
state is investigating the source of those bags.

Several bags of waste discovered at a blight demolition site in
southwest Detroit contained some asbestos, state test results
show.

The bags were removed May 4 from the site on Homer near
Springwells.  Detroit Police and the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality are investigating who dumped the bags,
according to Mayor Mike Duggan's office.

Tests by the state showed the materials in the bags contained
0.25% Chrysotile asbestos. Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality public information officer Melody Kindraka wrote in an e-
mail that the percentage of asbestos in the bags was "well below
the regulatory threshold"  to be considered regulated.

But the state's test results do not mean the material in the bags
should be considered safe, said Dr. Michael Harbut, co-author of
the American Thoracic Society's guidelines on diagnosing and
treating asbestos-related diseases.

"There is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to asbestos,"
Harbut said.

The Farrow Group, a local demolition company, reported finding the
bags May 2 inside a shed at the Homer property while on a job for
Detroit's blight demolition program.  The company halted work and
notified the state and the city about its suspicion the bags could
contain asbestos.

While it remains unclear where the bags originated, the state's
investigation related to the Homer property concluded asbestos was
abated from the house without proper notice to the state.

The state's investigation also identified Air Technology Systems
as the company responsible for abating asbestos at the house
before it was demolished.  It was unclear whether Farrow or
another company was responsible.

MDEQ issued a violation notice today to Air Technology Systems for
failure to provide a 10-day notice prior to the abatement.  An Air
Technology official could not be reached for comment.

The notice also was sent to the City of Detroit, the Detroit Land
Bank Authority and the Detroit Building Authority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Condo Residents Worried of Asbestos Presence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Marvin, writing for CBS12.com, reported that residents near
a condominium complex are concerned the white powdery dust from a
roof repair is toxic.

"My arguing about it, me being upset about it, my telling somebody
is not going to prevent it from going on," Keith Pinder said.

Pinder lives across from the Palm Beach House, the condo building
now being question whether or not it had the proper asbestos
assessment .

"It should've been done.  Because, when you're in the construction
business, you know what you're supposed to do," Pinder said.

The building was built in 1978, before asbestos was completely
banned from use.

A viewer reached out to CBS12 with concerns about dust clouds
being caused by roof renovations, and if any measures were taken
to test and protect against asbestos.

After CBS12 investigates reached out to the health department, we
learned an inspector was sent out that day and reported "the
required asbestos assessment had not been conducted and they are
waiting on the roofing contractor to find out why and more
details."

An asbestos inspection is required under law before the start of
renovations or a demolition.

Now, The Florida Department of Environmental Protections told
residents the state is investigating.

CBS12 asked the health department for an update on testing whether
or not they found asbestos, and they did not call back.

The health department tells us they have not received the asbestos
survey requested May 9, and they continue to operate under a city
permit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake County Commissioners OK Asbestos Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cass, writing for The-News-Herald, reported that The Dorthy
Allen Building in Downtown Painesville is one step closer to
coming down.

The Lake County commissioners approved a $129,405 bid to remove
asbestos from the building ahead of its anticipated demolition in
June.

Lake County purchased the 85 N. Park Place building from the
Painesville Senior Center Inc. for $275,000 in 2015.  The county
is demolishing the building that was damaged in a 2010 fire to
construct a new building connecting to the existing administration
building.

The new building will centralize some of the currently scattered
county departments such as the administrative offices of the
Engineer's Office.  Other departments on the move include the
Department of Utilities, Stormwater Management, Soil and Water
Conservation District and Planning and Community Development.

Bids for the asbestos removal were received through the county's
construction manager for the expansion project A. M. Higley (AMH).
The construction manager received four bids, with Pioneer
Environmental submitting the low bid.  The total guaranteed
maximum price for the asbestos removal is $162,464, which includes
AMH's pre-construction and construction stage services.

The anticipated start date for the project is May 15.  The project
is expected to take two to four weeks.

There have been changes made to the renovation and expansion
project since new Commissioners Jerry Cirino and John Hamercheck
took office in January.

Hamercheck said the project was "fast exceeding" $43 million and
is now under $30 million.

"We have made adjustments to accommodate the sustainability of the
county budget," Hamercheck said.

Tampering down the renovations to the existing administration
building at 105 Main St. is among those changes.

"Most of this building is in pretty good shape," Commissioner
Daniel P. Troy said.  "The windows need to be replaced -- they
leak like a sieve -- and maybe some glazing on the outside and all
that. We kind of decided the existing renovation of this building
is not as needed as initially thought."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Reserve Bank Halts Renovation Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Nightingale, writing for NZHerald.co.uk, reported that
construction work on part of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
building in Wellington had to be halted for several days last
month due to concerns about asbestos.

Worksafe shut down construction on the area for four days until
the Reserve Bank brought on an asbestos expert to help with the
work, which is being done by Construct Wellington.

Asbestos is present in level two of the building, which is a
restricted-access construction zone while renovation work is
carried out, Reserve Bank spokesman Angus Barclay said.

"The health and safety of our staff, tenants and contractors are
our priority, so we've been taking all necessary steps to ensure
that appropriate health and safety processes are followed and
controls are in place to avoid disturbing known asbestos during
renovation," Barclay said.

"In all areas where we're doing renovation work we first survey
for asbestos, test as required, and deal with asbestos before any
further work takes place."

Worksafe confirmed it issued a non-disturbance notice on April 24.

Barclay said the bank engaged the services of an asbestos
management expert, who now conducts the tests and surveys before
the construction company starts work on any areas of the floor.
Previously, the company carried out the tests itself.

Engaging an expert "has provided an added assurance".

"Renovation work only starts when the asbestos management expert
agrees it is safe to do so," Barclay said.

The non-disturbance notice was lifted on April 28.

Barclay said the team follow the correct safety procedures to
assess, contain and remove asbestos from affected areas.

"Where asbestos is present we lock down the affected area until
the potential risk is mitigated."

Asbestos was commonly installed in buildings as a fire retardant
in the early 1970s, including the Reserve Bank building.

"This is similar to many other buildings around Wellington built
in the same era," Barclay said.

"It presents no health risks unless it's disturbed and becomes
airborne.  Areas where asbestos is known to be present are limited
to specific parts of the Reserve Bank building that are
inaccessible without significant demolition of walls, ceilings or
floors."

The Reserve Bank has been working with Worksafe throughout the
renovation process.

Construct Wellington did not want to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ugandan Government to Replace Asbestos Roofs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Karugaba, writing for NewVision, reported that people living
in government houses roofed with asbestos can now breathe a sigh
of relief as government moves to replace.  Prime Minister
Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda yesterday assured Parliament that Government
will soon have all those roofs replaced.

"We have set up an inter-ministerial committee chaired by myself
that will review the situation and then embark on replacing all
those roofs.  The Committee will sit next week," Rugunda said. He
was yesterday reacting to MP Emmanuel Ongiertho ( Jonam County)
about the recent threats by Kyambogo staff reportedly threatening
to sue government in case they get cancer as a result of staying
in asbestos roofs.

Ongiertho noted that most government institutional buildings such
as schools, barracks, hospitals, hospital quotas are roofed with
asbestos sheets.

"Recently in a committee staff of Kyambogo said they will sue
government if they get cancer as a result of staying in such a
house.  What plans does government have to replace these roofs?
He asked.  Most Government institutions which were constructed
between the 1950s and 1960s have asbestos roofs and efforts by the
Ministry of Health calling on the authorities to change the roofs,
have often fallen on deaf ears.  In many barracks, police and army
officers are housed in asbestos-roofed houses, although they are
condemned by the International Labour Organisatio (ILO) convention
162, 1986, which provides for the replacement of asbestos or
certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos with
other materials or products evaluated as less harmful.  According
to experts, materials containing asbestos are hazardous to humans
and pose a public health risk.  They say all forms of asbestos are
carcinogenic to humans - meaning that they can cause different
cancers which include among others cancers of the ovary, lung,
mesothelioma and cancer of the larynx.  This is in addition to
breathing complications and respiratory tract infections.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Exporters Block Move Against Chrysotile
------------------------------------------------------------
REMI Network.com reported that chrysotile, otherwise known as
white asbestos, will not be added to Rotterdam Convention's list
of hazardous substances, after six nations blocked the move during
the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Geneva
(COP-8).

While 157 countries, including Canada, advocated for the listing,
India, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Syria
objected.  The decision must be unanimous.

A recent statement from the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization expressed outrage that six countries blocked the
listing.

"Asbestos-related diseases cause great human suffering.  Death
from difficult to treat cancers and suffocation caused by
asbestosis are terrible ways to die," said Arthur L. Frank MD,
Ph.D., Professor of Public Health and Pulmonary Medicine, Drexel
University.  "The callous disregard of some countries for
educating workers condemns many to unnecessary and painful
deaths."

Canada had previously opposed tough trade restrictions under the
Harper government at a previous meeting.  The move was criticized
by Canada's unions, health and safety advocates and the
international community, as the World Health Organization declared
asbestos a human carcinogen way back in 1987.

However, in the last year, Canada has become more of an advocate
on the issue, announcing it will ban asbestos and asbestos-
containing products in the country by 2018.  In late April,
Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada released
for consultation a proposed regulatory approach for prohibiting
these products.  Those regulations are expected to be published in
December.

The Chemical Review Committee of Rotterdam first recommended
listing of chrysotile asbestos in 2006.  Until 2012, Canada was a
major exporter of chrysotile -- the most common form of asbestos
and the only type not included in the list.

In the last year, organizations and unions have worked with the
government to help secure a comprehensive ban on the import and
export of asbestos in Canada.

"Unions campaigned long and hard for a ban on asbestos to make
workplaces and public spaces safer for all Canadians, but also
people around the world who were being exposed to asbestos," said
Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff.

The next Rotterdam Convention takes place in 2019.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastleigh Man Dies of Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Ella Griffiths, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that a
Hampshire man died of asbestos exposure from his work as an
electrician, an inquest heard.

David Wood from Eastleigh developed a "vicious" tumour from his
past industrial work, Winchester Coroner's Court heard.

The court heard that Mr Wood, of Camborne Road in Bishopstoke, was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and later died at Royal
Hampshire County Hospital on March 26.

In a statement written prior to his death read in court, the 72-
year-old said that his work had involved sweeping asbestos dust
and that he was never provided with any protective equipment.

"There would be huge clouds of dust around me as I cleared up," he
said.

He added that his exposure increased as he progressed up the
ranks.

Assistant coroner Sarah Whitby described Mr Wood's tumour as
"vicious".

"It seems extraordinary now but we just didn't know at the time.
This area sadly does have lots of people who were exposed," she
said.

She recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reported that a Maryland federal court
has retained jurisdiction over an asbestos case, finding that the
removing defendant had "plausibly" alleged the three elements of
the government contractor defense.

In the May 5 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding in
part that the defendant had alleged that the U.S. Navy knew about
asbestos hazards.

Plaintiff John C. Dugger Jr. asserted the claims on behalf of his
father, John C. Dugger Sr., contending that his service in the
U.S. Navy during the 1960s caused him to come into contact with
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that it still defends itself against various
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past.  While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase.  Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal
components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of
this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment.  Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities.  Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute.  While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter.  We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Eki6MY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Mar31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation remains a defendant in
various lawsuits on asbestos-related injuries, 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.

Quaker Chemical states, "The Company previously disclosed in its
Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2016 that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired
in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

"During the three months ended March 31, 2017, there have been no
significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this matter
previously disclosed, aside from on-going claims and routine
payments associated with this litigation.

"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$2.2 million (excluding costs of
defense)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IC4ecx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 592 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 592 outstanding claims related to asbestos-
related matters 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 states, "For the three months ended March 31, 2017,
118 claims were dismissed and 5 claims were settled.  Settlements
totaled approximately US$1.0 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2017.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the
country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos.  We have never mined, milled,
manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to
industrial users a limited number of products that contained
encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products
in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us involve
numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that
are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable.  In
connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos
related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance receivables
that are deemed probable.  Our estimates of asbestos-related
contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based
on an independent actuarial analysis and an independent insurance
usage analysis prepared annually by third parties.  The actuarial
analysis contains numerous assumptions, including general
assumptions regarding the asbestos-related product liability
litigation environment and company-specific assumptions regarding
claims rates (including diseases alleged), dismissal rates,
average settlement costs and average defense costs.  The insurance
usage analysis considers, among other things, applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, the solvency and
historical payment experience of various insurance carriers, the
likelihood of recovery as estimated by external legal counsel and
existing insurance settlements.

"We review our asbestos-related forecasts annually in the fourth
quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially
change during the year, at which time we would analyze these
forecasts.  Currently, these analyses project liabilities and
related insurance receivables over a 10-year period.  It is
probable we will incur additional costs for asbestos-related
claims following this 10-year period, but we do not believe that
any related contingencies are reasonably estimable beyond such
period based on, among other things, the significant proportion of
future claims included in the analysis and the lag time between
the date a claim is filed and its resolution.  Accordingly, no
liability (or related asset) has yet been recorded for claims that
may be asserted subsequent to 2025.

"As of December 31, 2016, the asbestos-related claims and
insurance receivables for the 10-year projection period were
US$52.0 million and US$48.4 million, respectively.  As of March
31, 2017, there have been no changes to these projections.

"The defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation have been substantially covered by insurance.
We have identified continuous coverage for primary, excess and
umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, except
for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to which we have
entered into an agreement for primary, but not excess or umbrella,
coverage.  In addition, we have entered into a cost sharing
agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of
claims by the carriers.  The cost sharing agreement may be
terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects to
terminate it.  As of the filing date for this report, the
agreement has not been terminated.  As previously disclosed,
however, we expect to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected.
Accordingly, while we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur losses and defense costs in excess of our accruals in
the future, we do not have sufficient data to provide a reasonable
estimate or range of such losses and defense costs, at this time.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized.  We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and
believe we have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to
mitigate future costs related to this matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/zZrWUl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana, 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 states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits.

"We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase
agreement with Diamond M Corporation.  We are unable to estimate
our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but
do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from
this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/RwifFi


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that it is analyzing the scope of potential
liability related to its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently
analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to
Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established
an adequate reserve for these cases."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/R75fUO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $62MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., had US$62.0 million of insurance coverage
to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and certain
expense payments 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 states, "The historical business operations of GST LLC
and Anchor resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation
in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as a result
of exposure to asbestos fibers in products produced or sold by GST
LLC or Anchor, together with products produced and sold by
numerous other companies.  GST LLC and Anchor manufactured and/or
sold industrial sealing products that contained encapsulated
asbestos fibers.  Other of our subsidiaries that manufactured or
sold equipment that may have at various times in the past
contained asbestos-containing components have also been named in a
number of asbestos lawsuits, but neither we nor any of our
subsidiaries other than GST LLC and Anchor have ever paid an
asbestos claim.

"Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against GST
LLC in 1975, GST LLC and Anchor have processed more than 900,000
claims to conclusion, and, together with insurers, have paid over
US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over US$400
million in fees and expenses.  Our subsidiaries' exposure to
asbestos litigation and their relationships with insurance
carriers have been managed through Garrison.

"On the GST Petition Date, GST LLC, Garrison and Anchor filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court.  The
filings were the initial step in a claims resolution process,
which is ongoing.  As contemplated by the Joint Plan, on the OldCo
Petition Date, OldCo, as the successor by merger to Coltec, filed
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court.

"During the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo
Chapter 11 Case, certain actions proposed to be taken by GST and
OldCo not in the ordinary course of business are subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court.  As a result, during the
pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo Chapter 11 Case,
we do not have exclusive control over these companies.
Accordingly, as required by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated beginning
on the GST Petition Date and OldCo was deconsolidated beginning on
the OldCo Petition Date.

"As a result of the initiation of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the
OldCo Chapter 11 Case, the resolution of asbestos claims against
these companies is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy
Court.  The filing of the GST Chapter 11 Case automatically stayed
the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily injury and wrongful
death lawsuits, and initiation of new such lawsuits, against GST.
Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order enjoining plaintiffs
from bringing or further prosecuting asbestos products liability
actions against affiliates of GST, including EnPro, Coltec and all
their subsidiaries, during the pendency of the GST Chapter 11
Case, subject to further order.  As a result, except as a result
of the resolution of appeals from verdicts rendered prior to the
GST Petition Date and the elimination of claims as a result of
information obtained in the GST Chapter 11 Case, the numbers of
asbestos claims pending against our subsidiaries have not changed
since the GST Petition Date, and those numbers continue to be as
reported in our 2009 Form 10-K and our quarterly reports for the
first and second quarters of 2010.

"On the GST Petition Date, according to Garrison's claim records,
there were more than 90,000 total claims pending against GST LLC,
of which approximately 5,800 were claims alleging the disease
mesothelioma.  Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the protective
lining of many of the body's internal organs, principally the
lungs.  One cause of mesothelioma is believed to be exposure to
asbestos.  As a result of asbestos tort reform during the 2000s,
most active asbestos-related lawsuits, and a large majority of the
amount of payments made by our subsidiaries in the years
immediately preceding the GST Petition Date, have been of claims
alleging mesothelioma.  In total, GST LLC has paid US$563.2
million to resolve a total of 15,300 mesothelioma claims, and
another 5,700 mesothelioma claims have been dismissed without
payment.

"In order to estimate the allowed amount for mesothelioma claims
against GST, the Bankruptcy Court approved a process whereby all
current GST LLC mesothelioma claimants were required to respond to
a questionnaire about their claims.  Questionnaires were
distributed to the mesothelioma claimants identified in Garrison's
claims database.  Many of the 5,800 claimants (over 500) did not
respond to the questionnaire at all; many others (more than 1,900)
clarified that: claimants do not have mesothelioma, claimants
cannot establish exposure to GST products, claims were dismissed,
settled or withdrawn, claims were duplicates of other filed
claims, or claims were closed or inactive.  Still others responded
to the questionnaire but their responses were deficient in some
material respect.  As a result of this process, less than 3,300
claimants presented questionnaires asserting mesothelioma claims
against GST LLC as of the Petition Date and many of them either
did not establish exposure to GST products or had claims that are
otherwise deficient.

"Since the GST Petition Date, many asbestos-related lawsuits have
been filed by claimants against other companies in state and
federal courts, and many of those claimants might also have
included GST LLC as a defendant but for the bankruptcy injunction.

"We believe that the asbestos-containing products manufactured or
sold by GST could not have been a substantial contributing cause
of any asbestos-related disease.  The asbestos in the products was
encapsulated, which means the asbestos fibers incorporated into
the products during the manufacturing process were sealed in
binders.  The products were also nonfriable, which means they
could not be crumbled by hand pressure.  The U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, which began generally requiring
warnings on asbestos-containing products in 1972, has never
required that a warning be placed on products such as GST LLC's
gaskets.  Even though no warning label was required, GST LLC
included one on all of its asbestos-containing products beginning
in 1978.  Further, gaskets such as those previously manufactured
and sold by GST LLC are one of the few asbestos-containing
products still permitted to be manufactured under regulations of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Nevertheless, GST LLC
discontinued all manufacture and distribution of asbestos-
containing products in the U.S. during 2000 and worldwide in mid-
2001.

"At March 31, 2017 we had US$62.0 million of insurance coverage we
believe is available to cover current and future GST asbestos
claims payments and certain expense payments.  GST has collected
insurance payments totaling US$134.7 million since the GST
Petition Date.  We consider the US$62.0 million of available
insurance coverage remaining to be of high quality because the
insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based
carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or
better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better.  Of
the US$62.0 million, US$25.9 million is allocated to claims that
were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the Chapter 11
Case and submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement, and
the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims.
There are specific agreements in place with carriers covering
US$28.2 million of the remaining available coverage.  Based on
those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior
decisions concerning coverage, we believe that all of the US$62.0
million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected,
although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies
will make the payments as and when due.  Based on those agreements
and policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be
paid and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in
any one year, we anticipate that US$38.0 million will become
collectible at the conclusion of the GST's Chapter 11 Case and,
assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and
policies, that the following amounts should be collected in the
following years regardless of when the case concludes:

  2017 - US$13 million
  2018 - US$11 million

"GST LLC has received US$8.7 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$62.0 million of
anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover OldCo, as the successor to Coltec, and certain
of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior
to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing
claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees.

"Our recorded asbestos liability as of the GST Petition Date was
US$472.1 million.  We based that recorded liability on an estimate
of probable and estimable expenditures to resolve asbestos
personal injury claims under generally accepted accounting
principles, made with the assistance of Garrison and an estimation
expert, Bates White, retained by GST LLC's counsel.  The estimate
developed was an estimate of the most likely point in a broad
range of potential amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve
asbestos claims (by settlement in the majority of the cases except
those dismissed or tried) over the ten-year period following the
date of the estimate in the state court system, plus accrued but
unpaid legal fees.  The estimate, which was not discounted to
present value, did not reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal
liability.  GST LLC has continuously maintained that its products
could not have been a substantial contributing cause of any
asbestos disease.  Instead, the liability estimate reflected GST
LLC's recognition that most claims would be resolved more
efficiently and at a significantly lower total cost through
settlements without any actual liability determination.

"From the GST Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014,
neither we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual except as
necessary to reflect payments of accrued fees and the disposition
of cases on appeal.  In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that
has been resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability
has been determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization
agreed to by the debtor, its asbestos claimants and a legal
representative for its potential future claimants.  GST did not
believe that there was a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a consensual resolution could be made and therefore believed
that there was no basis upon which it could revise the estimate
last updated prior to the GST Petition Date.

"Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating
GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at
US$125 million and GST's filing in May 2014 of its first amended
proposed plan of reorganization setting out its intention to fund
a plan with total consideration of US$275 million, GST undertook
to revise its estimate of its ultimate expenditures to resolve all
present and future asbestos claims against it to be no less than
the amounts required under its amended proposed plan.  Similarly,
while GST believes it to be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST
believed its ultimate expenditures to resolve all asbestos claims
against it could be no more than the total value of GST.  As a
result, GST believed that its ultimate asbestos expenditures would
be somewhere in that range between those two values and therefore
revised its estimate to the low end of the range.  Accordingly, at
June 30, 2014, GST revised its estimate of its ultimate
expenditures to resolve all present and future asbestos claims to
US$280.5 million, the amount of expenditures necessary to resolve
all asbestos claims under that amended plan.

"In light of the filing of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization by GST on January 14, 2015, GST undertook to
further revise its estimate of the ultimate costs to resolve all
asbestos claims against it.  Under the second amended plan, not
less than US$367.5 million would be required to fund the
resolution of all GST asbestos claims, US$30 million of which will
be funded by Coltec.  As a result, GST believed the low end of the
range of values that would be necessary for it to resolve all
present and future claims to be US$337.5 million.  Accordingly,
GST revised its estimate of its ultimate asbestos expenditures to
US$337.5 million and had accrued its liability at December 31,
2015 at that amount and Coltec had accrued a liability of US$30
million at December 31, 2015 in connection with its contribution
to be made pursuant to the Parent Settlement included in the
second amended plan.  GST's estimate of this US$337.5 million
amount did not include any amount with respect to the contingent
supplementary contributions to the litigation fund contemplated by
the second amended plan because GST believed that initial
contributions to the litigation fund would likely be sufficient to
fund the litigation and, accordingly, that the low end of a range
of reasonably possible loss associated with these contingent
supplementary contributions would be US$1.

"In light of the Consensual Settlement announced on March 17,
2016, GST further revised its estimate of the ultimate costs to
resolve all asbestos claims against it.  Under the Joint Plan
proposed pursuant to the Consensual Settlement, US$480 million
will be required to fund the resolution of all asbestos claims
against GST and OldCo, as successor by merger to Coltec, US$370
million of which will be funded by GST LLC and Garrison and US$110
million of which will be funded by OldCo (an aggregate of US$50
million of value upon the effective date of consummation of the
Joint Plan and US$60 million one year after the effective date).
In addition, GST has estimated the amount necessary to resolve all
current and future Canadian asbestos claims alleging disease,
resulting in whole or in part from exposure to GST asbestos-
containing products, to be US$17 million, the net present value of
the amount to be paid pursuant to the Canadian Settlement.  As a
result, GST believes the low end of the range of values that will
be necessary for it to resolve all present and future asbestos
claims is US$387 million.  GST revised its estimate of its
ultimate asbestos expenditures to US$387 million.  As of March 31,
2017, GST has accrued a liability of US$387 million.  OldCo has
accrued a liability of US$110 million at March 31, 2017 in
connection with its contributions to be made pursuant to the Joint
Plan."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rNb172


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) still has an
obligation to indemnify the company from liabilities associated
with asbestos matters.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure.  We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend
ourselves vigorously.  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement
among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend
and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters,
including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs
associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from
past sales of ITT's legacy products.  We believe ITT Corporation
(now ITT LLC) remains a substantial entity with sufficient
financial resources to honor its obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements.  The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence
of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold
prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to
limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in
the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities.  The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire.  Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to
be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications.  On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc.
acquired Exelis.  As the parent of Exelis, Harris is responsible
for Exelis's indemnification obligations under the Distribution
Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QAQ39g


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had US$891MM Claim Reserves at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$891 million reserves for asbestos
claims net of reinsurance recoverable as of 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 states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$891 million and US$912 million, net of reinsurance recoverables
of US$428 million and US$444 million, as of March 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, respectively.  Reserves for environmental
claims were US$178 million and US$179 million, net of reinsurance
recoverables of US$39 million and US$40 million, as of March 31,
2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.  Approximately 57% of
the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of both March
31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, were for incurred but not reported
estimated losses.

"Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims.  The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate.  Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties.  There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements.

"Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent
conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and
which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered;
whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy
limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are
applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent
insured property damage.  Further, insurers and claims
administrators acting on behalf of insurers are increasingly
pursuing evolving and expanding theories of reinsurance coverage
for asbestos and environmental losses.  Adjudication of
reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in confidential
arbitration proceedings which may have limited precedential or
predictive value further complicating management's ability to
estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and environmental
claims.  Management believes these issues are not likely to be
resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary
materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in
material changes in loss reserves.

"In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses.  Due to
the uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DFq0Gv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwest Pipe Accrues US$0.2MM for VCP at Mar31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company has accrued US$0.2 million as of March 31,
2017 for a voluntary cleanup program (VCP) on its neighboring
asbestos-contaminated facility, 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 states, "In late October 2016, the TCEQ notified the
Company that a neighboring facility has asbestos contamination in
its soil.  In a December 2016 meeting with TCEQ, the Company was
notified that it will need to assess asbestos contamination before
the TCEQ will proceed with a certificate of completion.  The
Company developed an asbestos sampling plan with the TCEQ and the
EPA staff that will begin in the second quarter of 2017.

"The Company currently estimates that the future costs associated
with the VCP will be between US$0.1 million and US$1.6 million.
As of March 31, 2017, the Company has a $0.2 million accrual for
remediation costs based on the low-end estimate of future costs
using a probability-weighted analysis of remediation approaches,
and estimates that completion of the VCP process will occur
between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/af7YIj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$82.0MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$82 million at March 31, 2017, for asbestos-related
claims, 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 states, "At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
Generation had reserved approximately US$82 million and US$83
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims.  As of March 31, 2017, approximately US$23 million of this
amount related to 240 open claims presented to Generation, while
the remaining US$59 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QV4mRg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that there is a reasonable possibility that the
Company may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and
the increases could have a material adverse effect on future
results of operations and cash flows of the Company and its
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison
Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.

The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act
does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from
occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos
exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's
last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an
increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by
former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved for on a
claim by claim basis.  Those additional claims are taken into
account in projecting estimates of future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

"On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the
provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the
Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from
bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent
diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside
the 25-year limit of the statute of repose.  The Illinois Supreme
Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of
Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's
Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of
an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum
time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim.  Since the
Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in November 2015, Exelon,
Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increase
in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former ComEd
employees.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional
exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims
in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a
material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's, PECO
and BGE's future results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QV4mRg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, continues to face asbestos-related claims.

The Company states, "Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation
(now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several
actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the
theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation
knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In
addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

"Most asbestos claims which have been resolved relating to BGE and
certain Constellation subsidiaries have been dismissed or resolved
without any payment and a small minority of these cases has been
resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's
financial results.  Presently, there are an immaterial number of
asbestos cases pending against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QV4mRg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Completed in Major v. Lorillard
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017 that its subsidiaries continue to face a
health case regarding William Major's lung cancer allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Cal., filed 2011), the
jury awarded the plaintiff approximately US$17.74 million in
compensatory damages on the negligence and strict liability claims
and found the plaintiff 50% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 17% at
fault, and RJR Tobacco and another manufacturer collectively 33%
at fault.  Punitive damages were not at issue.  RJR Tobacco and
the other manufacturer had been dismissed prior to trial.

"The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the use of the
defendants' products and exposure to asbestos, the decedent,
William Major, suffered from lung cancer, and sought an
unspecified amount of damages

"In August 2014, the trial court entered an initial final judgment
of approximately US$3.9 million against Lorillard Tobacco.  On
July 1, 2015, the trial court entered an amended final judgment in
the amount of approximately US$3.78 million in compensatory
damages, approximately US$135,000 in costs, approximately US$1.9
million in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest from
August 25, 2014 in the amount of approximately US$1,100 per day.

"Lorillard Tobacco appealed from the original and amended
judgments, which appeals have been consolidated, and posted a
supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately US$9.1 million.

"On October 20, 2015, the appellate court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion to substitute itself for Lorillard Tobacco.  Briefing is
complete.  Oral argument has not been scheduled."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/X9kmtj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suit v. Cigarette Makers Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that a class action case against asbestos
makers and cigarette manufacturers remains pending.

The Company states, "In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio
County, W. Va., filed 1998), the plaintiff brought a class action
against asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and
Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of persons who allegedly
have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to
respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

"The plaintiff seeks to recover US$1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually for her purported injuries and an
unspecified amount for the class in compensatory and punitive
damages.

"In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.  Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants who filed for bankruptcy.

"The case remains pending against the other defendants, including
RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/X9kmtj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Unit Has 78 Filter Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reports in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that its subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco
Company, LLC (Lorillard Tobacco) and/or Lorillard, Inc., n/k/a
Lorillard, LLC (Lorillard), was a defendant in 78 cases related to
asbestos exposure through cigarette filters.

The Company acquired Lorillard on June 12, 2015.

The Company states, "Claims have been brought against Lorillard
Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek damages resulting
from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were
incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes
manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited
period of time ending more than 50 years ago.

"As of March 31, 2017, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a
defendant in 78 Filter Cases.

"Since January 1, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco and RJR Tobacco have
paid, or have reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
US$40.3 million in settlements to resolve 154 Filter Cases.

"Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

"On September 13, 2013, the jury in a Filter Case, DeLisle v. A.
W. Chesterton Co. (Cir. Ct. Broward County, Fla., filed 2012),
found for the plaintiffs on the negligence and strict liability
claims; awarded the plaintiffs US$8 million in compensatory
damages; and found Lorillard Tobacco 22% at fault, Hollingsworth &
Vose 22% at fault, and the other defendants 56% at fault.
Punitive damages were not at issue.

"On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment
against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of US$3.52 million.
Lorillard Tobacco appealed to the Fourth DCA.

"On September 14, 2016, the Fourth DCA ordered a new trial because
the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony and
concluded that the US$8 million compensatory damages award should
have been remitted.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing
or rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Fourth DCA on
November 9, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed an application for
discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court on December 6,
2016.

"The Florida Supreme Court has issued a stay of the proceedings in
that court pending its disposition of a pending application for
review in another case.  The matter has not been stayed in the
trial court, and post-appeal motions are pending to vacate the
final judgment and discharge the surety bonds.  The plaintiffs
have filed a motion to stay the trial court proceedings in the
Florida Supreme Court and a motion to recall the mandate in the
Fourth DCA."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/X9kmtj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Have 23 Claims in at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that there are 23 asbestos-related claims against
its subsidiaries pending as of March 31, 2017, in Mississippi and
Louisiana with regards to their drilling operations.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar
complaints were filed in Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and
general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-
appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At March 31, 2017, 15 plaintiffs have claims pending in
Mississippi and eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana
in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/E5VZ2F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 324 Injury Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant in
approximately 324 asbestos-related injury lawsuits as of March 31,
2017.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of March 31, 2017, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 324 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 345
plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in excess
of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly, including
from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from
insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers
to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/E5VZ2F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$41MM for DuPont Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$41 million for asbestos-
related lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont)
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 states, "Chemours, by virtue of its status as a
subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or
required under the separation-related agreements executed prior to
the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal
proceedings arising out of the normal course of the Chemours
business including product liability, intellectual property,
commercial, environmental and antitrust lawsuits.

"In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.

"At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there were approximately
1,900 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos.  These cases are pending in state and
federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are
individually set for trial.

"A small number of cases are pending outside the U.S.  Most of the
actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between
1950 and the 1990s.  A small number of cases involve similar
allegations by DuPont employees or household members of
contractors or DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products.

"At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Chemours had an accrual
of US$41 million related to this matter.  Chemours reviews this
estimate and related assumptions quarterly.  Management believes
that the likelihood is remote that Chemours would incur losses in
excess of the amounts accrued in connection with this matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ff5Y9P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,159 PI Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 17,159 asbestos-related personal injury actions pending
against Harsco Corporation 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.

Harsco states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades.  In their suits, the plaintiffs
have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers,
distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or
products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a
Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and
the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At March 31, 2017, there were 17,159 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those actions,
16,754 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County),
111 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and
294 were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At March 31, 2017, 16,732 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment.  The remaining 22 cases in New York County are pending
on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can
demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various
primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be
available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that
might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The Company
believes that a substantial portion of the costs and expenses of
the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in
the future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of
vigorously defending these claims and cases.  At March 31, 2017,
the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,915 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a
loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.  Despite
this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash
flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that
are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Fo8vVY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues US$583-Mil. for Respirator Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$583 million as of March 31, 2017,
for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos
cases, 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 accrual excludes liabilities associated with
Aearo Technologies.

3M Company states, "The Company annually conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities in
connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of
operations, unless significant changes in trends or new
developments warrant an earlier review.

"The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims,
and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").

"As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company provides
the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The
third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend
and resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate
of its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not
limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions
underlying the Company's accrual, including, the number of future
claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of
defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness
(ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

"In the first quarter of 2017, the Company made payments for legal
fees and settlements of US$12 million related to the respirator
mask/asbestos litigation.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$583
million.  This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of
probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims
that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.

"The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company is seeking coverage under the policies
of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PrBHde


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues US$19-Mil. for Aearo Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$19 million as of March 31, 2017,
for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and
future asbestos and silica-related claims associated with Aearo
Technologies, 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 states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of March 31, 2017, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of US$19 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well as
for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff.

"Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995.  This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.

"With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica
products on or after January 1, 1997.

"Aero has elected to pay the quarterly fee.  Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PrBHde


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company and its subsidiaries are
defendants in legal proceedings on alleged asbestos exposure.

The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. As of March 31, 2017, December 31, 2016 and March 31,
2016, our condensed balance sheets included liabilities for these
legal actions of $13.3 million, $13.6 million and $22.1 million,
respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated
with legal representation.

"Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties
associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is
reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially
adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of
operations.

"In connection with the Acquisition, TDCC retained liabilities
related to litigation to the extent arising prior to the Closing
Date. In addition to the aforementioned legal actions, we are
party to a dispute relating to a contract termination. The other
party to the contract has filed a demand for arbitration alleging,
among other things, that Olin breached the related agreement and
claimed damages in excess of the amount Olin believes it is
obligated for under the contract. Any additional losses related to
this contract dispute are not currently estimable because of
unresolved questions of fact and law but, if resolved unfavorably
to Olin, they could have a material effect on our financial
results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HTJxBP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle in Settlement Talks with DAs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., is involved in settlement
discussions with District Attorneys' offices regarding alleged
asbestos-related violation on its properties in California,
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 states, "In November 2014, we received a civil
investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney
for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information
relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos
and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in
connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by
third-party contractors at our California Properties.  We
responded by providing the information required by the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives
of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which
the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation
including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos
and related regulations associated with approximately 200
historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii)
potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii)
next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged
violations.

"No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are
involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys'
offices.  We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying
facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of
the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/trNKOF







                         *********


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  * * *