CAR_Public/170616.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, June 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 120



                            Headlines

1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Class Gets Conditional Certification
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: "Buroff" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson Moves for FDCPA Class Certification
ALON USA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
APU FOODS: "Marin" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.

ASSET RECOVERY: Lamb Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
ATWELLS REALTY: Binienda Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Bacon" Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL
BAYER HEALTHCARE: PCH Plaintiffs Seek Appeal of Summary Judgment

BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 14 Reply to Bid for Judicial Notice
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: MSP Seeks Medical Services Reimbursement
BONAFIDE THAI: "Sank" Suit Alleges Tip Regulation Violation
BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET: Faces "Maor" Suit Over "Retained" Gratuities
BROWN COUNTY, WI: Jacobs Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners

CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Social Services Nixed
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Fault In Lac-Megantic Disaster
CITIZEN'S TAXI: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
COMBE INC: Faces "Stringer" Suit Over Just For Men(R) Hair Dye
COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Scott" Suit

CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran, et al. Seek Certification of Class
DNB BANK: Class Action Lawsuit Gets Green Light
EXTRA SPACE: June 20 Hearing to Approve "Gomes" Settlement
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Blunt"
FLUSHING MARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA

GALAXY RECYCLING: "Dominguez" Class Settlement Has Final Court OK
GARDA CL: "Louis" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
GREEN DOT: Nov. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing in "Lewis" Suit
GREENCLEANING ENTERPRISES: "Zamora" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
GUARANTEED RATE: "Tadena" Suit Moved to E.D. California

HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Insurers Seek to Dismiss Class Action
HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
HILTON GRAND: "Kasprzyk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
HOYT TRANSPORTATION: "Pichardo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA

HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: "Chih" Suit Sues Over Balance Billing
I & A RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Sanchez Suit to 2nd Circuit
INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE: "Flahive" Suit Sues Over Robocalls
KAMRAN STAFFING: "Denny" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
KLUEVER & PLATT: Class Certification Sought in "Righeimer" Suit

LEXINGTON LAW: "Lebowitz" Suit Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
LGI HOMES: "Selby" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Pimentel" Suit
LOUISIANA: Class Certification Sought in "Little" Suit
MADISON SQUARE: "Millien" Suit Moved to S.D. New York

MAGNI GROUP: Hoffman Sues over Migraine Relief Therapeutic Claims
MATTRESS FIRM: "Blair" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MDL 2492: "Roberts" Concussion Suit v. NCAA et al. Consolidated
MDL 2782: Georgia Judge to Handle Hernia Mesh MDL
MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES: "Stevenson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

MIDWEST RECOVERY: "Qualls" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Wins Final OK of "Fequiere" Class Accord
MISSOURI: Church, et al. Seek to Certify Indigent Persons Class
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Paldo Sign Moves for Class Certification
NIBCO INC: Meadow, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass

OGLETHORPE POWER: Dismissal of Former EMC Members' Suits Affirmed
PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Porter Seeks Class Action Certification
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Kopplin, et al. Seek to Certify Class
REALTY INCOME: Gellatly & Erquiaga Sue Over Inaccessible Parking

RED ROBIN: $900,000 Settlement in "Brackley" Suit Approved
REGISTER TAPES: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in "Hamburger"
RICKY'S GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
RICH PRODUCTS: Must Send Class Members' Info to Ehrlich's Counsel
RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks to Certify Class of Fla. Consumers

SANTA CLARA, CA: "Estorga" Class Conditionally Certified
SEECO INC: Fails to Convince Court to Decertify Smith Suit Class
SEQUOIA SENIOR: Bid to Expunge Class Claim Under Plan Denied
SIRIUS XM: Broadcasters Closely Watching Flo & Eddie Suits
SISTERS OF CHARITY: Faces "Towles" Suit over Pension Plan Funding

SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL: Berg Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Savaria
SYSTEMATIC CONTROL: Gargonnu Seeks OT wages Under Labor Law
TWO JINNS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in "Shelby"
TURNCO LLC: Faces "Shepard" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Knew It Was Underpaying Drivers

UNION PACIFIC: Landowners Appeal Right-of-Way Suit Ruling
UNITED STATES: Faces Amgen Suit in District of Columbus
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kotlyar Sues Over Unauthorized Phone Calls
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
VENTURE DATA: Court Certifies Class in "Mey" Suit

WESTAUB II: Faces "Munguia" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach
YAZAKI NORTH: Court Dismisses OPPA Claims in "Sutka" Suit
ZB N.A.: Faces "Evans" Suit Over IMG Fraudulent Investment Scheme
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
ZUFFA LLC: Must Produce Disputed Docs in UFC Antitrust Suit



                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Recuses Himself in "Standridge"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Dropped as Defendant in "Roper"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Seal Papers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Graham Testimony in "Sweredoski"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review $3.6MM Verdict Toss

ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Withholds Oroville Asbestos Records
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Worker Says CSX Liable for Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sprayers Face Higher Mesothelioma Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Research Group Spreads Awareness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Going to Prison for Faulty Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother Finds Health Hazard in Drywall Compound
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Suggests Reducing Risks on Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fear for 87 Gourock Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Update on Libby Cleanup Efforts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Cottondale Elem.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Defending Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $53.7MM Accrued Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 515 Exposure Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 43 Asbestos Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 285 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 35,560 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has US$674MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Defends 16 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had US$604.1MM Liabilities at April 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at April 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$217.1MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 37,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 PI Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has US$942.9MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 71 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Mar 31



                            *********


1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Class Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSICA HERZFELD, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, v. 1416 CHANCELLOR, INC. d/b/a THE
GOLD CLUB, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and THE APM CLUB, INC.
d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, Civil Action No. 14-4966 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Mark E. Kearney of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's motions to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action and to certify a class action
under Rule 23.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA.

Judge Kearney granted the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify this action to proceed as a collective action against 1416
Chancellor and APM Club, as successor, under the FLSA on behalf of
all dancers of the Gold Club in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at any
time from Aug. 26, 2011 until Jan. 24, 2016.

The Plaintiff will circulate a draft court-facilitated notice and
protocol to the Defendants no later than June 16, 2017, the
Defendants will comment upon the draft and protocol to Plaintiff
by June 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff will move for approval of her
proposed Court-facilitated notice with a memorandum identifying
all areas of disagreement on June 27, 2017.  The Defendants may
file memoranda explaining its dispute with the proposed protocol
or proposed black-lined notice on July 6, 2017.

Judge Kearney denied the Plaintiff's request to certify a
collective action on or after Jan. 25, 2016, when APM Club
purchased the club.  The judge said the Plaintiff did not dance at
the Gold Club during APM Club's ownership and lacks standing to
bring a claim because she cannot plead a personalized injury she
suffered caused by APM Club's conduct.  Judge Kearney also denied
the Plaintiff's request to certify a class action against APM Club
for conduct on or after Jan. 25, 2016.

Judge Kearney granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
Pennsylvania claims 1416 Chancellor and APM Club, as successor:
(i) violated Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act by improperly
classifying her as an independent contractor failing to pay
minimum wage and overtime; (ii) violated Pennsylvania's Wage
Payment and Collection Law by taking her tips to cover its
business expenses; and, (iii) she unjustly enriched 1416
Chancellor by remitting her tips and working promotional events
without pay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all former
Dancers of the Gold Club in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at any time
from Aug. 26, 2011 until Jan. 24, 2016.

The Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and Judge
Kearney certified her as the Class representative.

The Lead Plaintiff's counsel firm Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP, is authorized to act on behalf of the Class with
respect to all actions required by, or necessary to be taken
under, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Orders and
Policies.

The Class Counsel will circulate a draft Court-approved notice and
notice protocol to the Defendants no later than June 16, 2017, the
Defendants will comment upon the draft and protocol to Plaintiff
by June 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff will move for approval of the
proposed Court-facilitated notice with a memorandum and
identifying all areas of disagreement on June 27, 2017.  The
Defendants may file memoranda explaining their dispute with the
proposed protocol or proposed black-lined notice on July 6, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/hqno8C from Leagle.com.

Jessica Herzfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP.

Jessica Herzfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com --
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP.

1416 Chancellor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley J.
Shafer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer &
Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita --
pasquale@colavitalawoffices.com -- Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C..

APM CLUB, INC., Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Hoffer,
Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J.
Colavita, P.C..

Bradley J. Shafer, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita,
Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C..

Matthew J. Hoffer, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita,
Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C..

Pasquale J. Colavita, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita,
Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C..

1416 Chancellor, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley J.
Shafer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer &
Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C..

Jessica Herzfeld, Counter Defendant, represented by Edwin J.
Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP.

APM Club, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Matthew J.
Hoffer, Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J.
Colavita, P.C..

Jessica Herzfeld, Counter Defendant, represented by Edwin J.
Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP.


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: "Buroff" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DEMETRIUS BUROFF and IAN BARNHART,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00124-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8,
   2016 who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of
   Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not serving
   a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not
   previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided
   neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting
   center, and were registered to vote or had been denied the
   opportunity to register to vote while held in the Allen County
   Jail".

Mr. Gladieux is the Sheriff in Allen County, Indiana.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are denied the fundamental right
to vote in the 2016 general election.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zTuoECp6

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson Moves for FDCPA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alonzo Patterson asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled ALONZO
PATTERSON, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described
below v. ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04224
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff defines a class of:

     (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom
     Allied Collection Services sought to collect a loan made at
     more than 9% interest (c) made by an entity which did not
     possess a bank or credit union charter and was not licensed
     by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional
     Regulation (d) where any communication occurred on or after
     a date one year prior to the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks 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=H5l2MtwC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  malyea@edcombs.com


ALON USA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Alon USA Energy Inc. ("Alon USA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:ALJ) in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") in connection
with the proposed merger between Alon USA and Delek US Holdings,
Inc. ("Delek").

On January 3, 2017, Alon USA and Delek jointly announced that it
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger
Agreement") where Delek will acquire the remaining fifty-three
percent of Alon's outstanding common stock not already owned by
Delek, constituting an implied enterprise value of CAD675 million.
Alon stockholders will receive 0.504 Delek shares, representing an
implied value of $12.13 per share (the "Merger Consideration").

The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration and the
process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed
Merger are fundamentally unfair to Alon USA's public shareholders
in view of the Company's recent financial success and prospects
for future growth.

If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-
law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


APU FOODS: "Marin" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA KAMILA MARIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. APU FOODS CORP., d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN
CUISINE, 44 SUNNYSIDE CORP., d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN EXPRESS, JAMAICA
153 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, 8 CHELSEA CORP. d/b/a
CUMBIA AND SABOR, PAULA ANDREA GIL, and WALTER BURGOS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02956 was transferred from the Case
transferred in from U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-03224-MKB-SMG to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie.

The suit seeks to recover damages including back pay, front pay,
emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and liquidated
damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and
common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them at
the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and
allowing non-tipped employees to share in their tips.

Peruvian owns and operates a restaurant chain specializing in
rotisserie chicken.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Denise Schulman, Esq.
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688 5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688 2548


ASSET RECOVERY: Lamb Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LINDA LAMB, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation; and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04336 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes and subclasses of:

     "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency
telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and
the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6)
where Asset Recovery did not have consent to call said cellular
telephone number";

Non-debtor class:

     "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency
telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and
the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6)
where the number called was not assigned to the debtor including
where such person's number was obtained from a source other than
the person himself";

Non-debtor sub-class:

     "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency
telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and
the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6)
where Asset contends the call was made to obtain location
information of the alleged debtor";

Navient class:

     "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency
telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and
the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in
an attempt to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Navient and
(7) where the number called was not assigned to the debtor,
including where such person's number was obtained from a source
other than the person himself; and

Navient sub-class:

      "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency
telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and
the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in
an attempt to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Navient and
(7) where Asset contends the call was made to obtain location
information of the alleged debtor."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the TCPA by placing
telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an
automated telephone dialing system and/or a prerecorded or
artificial voice message without having the consumers' express
consent to receive such telephone calls.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xbQu7AJl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726 1092
Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

     - and -

David J. Philipps, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Telephone: (708) 974 2900
Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
DavePhilipps@aol.com

     - and -

Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
225 Pratt Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 539 9899
Facsimile: (256) 713 0237
E-mail: rsykstus@bondnbotes.com
http://www.bondnbotes.com

ATWELLS REALTY: Binienda Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SAMANTHA BINIENDA, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ATWELLS
REALTY CORP., AND THE ONE, INC., d/b/a CLUB DESIRE and LUST VIP,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00253-S-PAS (D. R.I.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class:

     "all individuals who have worked as entertainers performing
exotic dancing services at Club Desire and Lust VIP, located at
One Franklin Square in Providence, Rhode Island, at any time since
June 20, 2012".

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Samantha Binienda as
the representative of the certified class, and appoint Stephen
Brouillard of Bianchi & Brouillard, P.C., and Brant Casavant and
Stephen Churchill of Fair Work P.C. as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2pCtR0zj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.
BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C.
The Hanley Building
56 Pine Street, Suite 250
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 223 2990
Facsimile: (877) 548 4539
E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com

     - and -

Brant Casavant, Esq.
Stephen Churchill, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607 3260
Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
        steve@fairworklaw.com


AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Bacon" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ABIGAIL BACON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVIS
BUDGET GROUP, INC., and PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC., Defendants, Civ.
No. 16-5939 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action against car
rental companies Avis and its subsidiary, Payless alleging that
the Defendants routinely charge customers' credit and debit cards
for ancillary products and services that the customers have not
authorized, and in some cases, have specifically declined.  They
assert claims under New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada consumer
protection and unfair trade practices statutes, for injunctive
relief, for unjust enrichment, and for conversion.  The Plaintiffs
propose to certify a class action comprising five subclasses.

Presently before the Court are two motions to compel arbitration:
one submitted by Payless (joined by Avis), and another submitted
jointly by the Defendants.  The Payless motion deals with
Plaintiff Arcadia Lee, who rented a car for use in Costa Rica; and
the joint motion deals with the remaining Plaintiffs, whose
rentals occurred in New Jersey, Nevada, or Florida.  Both motions
seek an order compelling the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims
on an individual basis, as well as dismissal of the Complaint or
stay of this action pending arbitration.

Because the Defendants' motions present issues of fact, Judge
McNulty denied as presented their motions to compel arbitration.
That being the case, there must be discovery so that the motion to
compel can be decided on a summary judgment standard.  At their
earliest mutual convenience, the parties will set up a conference
with Magistrate Judge Clark and work out a schedule of phased
discovery.  The first phase should focus primarily on
arbitrability.  At its conclusion, Judge McNulty will accept one
joint motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of
arbitrability from the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs, if they wish,
may cross-move for partial summary judgment on the same issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hKa7I5 from Leagle.com.

Abigail Bacon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP.

Abigail Bacon, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Disabato --
ddisabato@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg
Michael Kohn -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R.
Bouckenooghe -- lbouckenooghe@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato &
Bouckennooghe LLC.

Arcadia Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel
Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg
Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato &
Bouckenbooghe LLC.

Jeannine Devries, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel,
Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC,
Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe,
Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC.

Lisa Geary, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel
Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg
Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato &
Bouckenbooghe LLC.

Richard Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel,
Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC,
Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe,
Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC.

Yvonne Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel,
Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC,
Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe,
Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC.

George Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel,
Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC,
Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe,
Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC.

Avis Budget Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kellie A.
Lavery -- klavery@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP.

Payless Car Rental, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kellie A.
Lavery, Reed Smith, LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al.,
seek a writ vacating the Denial Order and directing the District
Court (1) to enter partial judgments on Petitioners' antitrust and
fraud claims, or (2) in the alternative, to certify for
interlocutory appeal the February 2 and 16 Orders entered in the
multidistrict litigation styled IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Petition for a writ of mandamus arises from a summary order
("Denial Order") entered by the district court overseeing the
multidistrict litigation.  That Order denied Petitioners' request
for entry of partial final judgment on their federal antitrust and
state law fraud claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b), or in the alternative, for certification pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  The Petitioners submit the requested writ
is justified because the Denial Order constitutes a clear abuse of
discretion that implicates important issues of judicial
administration, undermines Petitioners' substantive rights, and
raises novel questions of law.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 17-1694, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The issues presented are:

   (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in
       summarily denying Petitioners' request for partial final
       judgments pursuant to Rule 54(b) on their antitrust and
       fraud claims; and

   (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion in
       denying Petitioners' alternative request for certification
       for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
       1292(b).

The Petitioners are The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
Principal Financial Group, Inc.; Principal Financial Services,
Inc.; Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal Funds, Inc.; PFI
Bond & Mortgage Securities Fund; PFI Bond Market Index Fund; PFI
Core Plus Bond I Fund; PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund; PFI Equity
Income Fund; PFI Global Diversified Income Fund; PFI Government &
High Quality Bond Fund; PFI High Yield Fund; PFI High Yield Fund
I; PFI Income Fund; PFI Inflation Protection Fund; PFI Short-Term
Income Fund; PFI Money Market Fund; PFI Preferred Securities Fund;
Principal Variable Contracts Funds Inc.; PVC Asset Allocation
Account; PVC Money Market Account; PVC Balanced Account; PVC Bond
& Mortgage Securities Account; PVC Equity Income Account; PVC
Government & High Quality Bond Account; PVC Income Account and PVC
Short-Term Income Account.

The Defendants are Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America,
N.A.; Barclays Bank Plc; British Bankers' Association; BBA
Enterprises, Ltd; BBA Libor, Ltd; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.;
Co??perative Centrale Raiffeisenboerenleenbank, B.A.; Credit Suisse
AG; Credit Suisse International; Deutsche Bank AG; HSBC Bank PLC;
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A.; Lloyds Banking Group plc; Lloyds TSB Bank PLC; Bank of
Scotland PLC; Societe Generale; The Norinchukin Bank; Royal Bank
Of Canada; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc; The Royal Bank of
Scotland Plc; The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd; UBS Ag;
WestLB AG; and Portigon AG.

As alleged by all Plaintiffs in the MDL (including the
Petitioners), the Defendants conspired to artificially depress USD
LIBOR for profit- and reputation-based reasons.  The Defendants
then sold price-fixed financial instruments incorporating USD
LIBOR to U.S. financial institutions, including the Petitioners.
The Petitioners also allege a broader conspiracy in which the
Defendants agreed to boycott actual or potential LIBOR competitors
in the market for interest-rate benchmarks to facilitate their
price-fixing agreements.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 9,
2017, The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., took an appeal to
the Second Circuit from (1) the April 27, 2017 judgment entered in
the 2011 Schwab Actions; and (2) all orders and rulings subsumed
within the Judgment, including the District Court's Memorandum and
Order entered on December 20, 2016, which dismissed the 2011
Schwab Actions in their entirety.  The Charles Schwab appellate
case is captioned as In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-1569.

Plaintiff-Petitioner The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is
represented by:

          James R. Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq.
          Woody N. Peterson, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 899-4100
          Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
          E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com
                  jhackett@zelle.com
                  wpeterson@zelle.com

The other Petitioners are represented by:

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
                  SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com

Plaintiffs Amabile, et al., are represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320-9507
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com

Proposed Lender Class Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  migross@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com

Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California; East Bay
Municipal Utility District; San Diego Association of Governments;
City of Richmond; Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority;
Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency;
City of Riverside; Riverside Public Financing Authority; County of
Mendocino; County of Sacramento; County of San Diego; County of
San Mateo; San Mateo County Joint Powers Financing Authority;
County of Sonoma, and David E. Sundstrom, in his official capacity
as Treasurer of the County of Sonoma are represented by:

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiff The City of Houston is represented by:

          Richard W. Mithoff, Esq.
          Warner V. Hocker, Esq.
          MITHOFF LAW FIRM
          One Allen Center
          Penthouse, Suite 3450
          500 Dallas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 654-1122
          E-mail: Rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
                  whocker@mithofflaw.com

               - and -

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

National Credit Union Administration Board as Liquidating Agent
for U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, et al., is represented by:

          David C. Frederick, Esq.
          Wan J. Kim, Esq.
          Andrew C. Shen, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          Sumner Square
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
                  shen@kellogghansen.com
                  wkim@kellogghansen.com

Plaintiffs Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 LTD., Triaxx Prime COO 2006-2
LTD., and Triaxx Prime COO 2007-1 L TO are represented by:

          Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com

Plaintiffs Bay Area Toll Authority, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market
Fund, et al., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., et al., and Schwab Money
Market Fund, et al., are represented by:

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Michael J. Miarmi, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  mmiarmi@lchb.com

Plaintiff CEMA Joint Venture is represented by:

          William E. Walker, Jr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 192
          Massillon, OH 44648-0192
          Telephone: (330)327-2509
          E-mail: williamwalker@gmx.com

Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association is represented by:

          Samuel William Cruse, III, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5287
          E-mail: scruse@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER PARTNERS, P.C.
          950 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 593-8000
          E-mail: kwarner@WarnerPartnersLaw.com

George Maragos is represented by:

          Thomas J. Mullaney, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL, MULLANEY & BLINKOFF, LLP
          15 Remsen Avenue
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 484-5440
          E-mail: tmullaney@lcmslaw.com

Darby, Philadelphia, Prudential, and Salix Plaintiffs are
represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-1601
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com

Plaintiffs The City of Philadelphia and The Pennsylvania
Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority are represented by:

          Mathieu J. Shapiro, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101
          Telephone: (215) 665-3014
          E-mail: mathieu.shapiro@obermayer.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

Counsel for Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and Interim Lead
Counsel for the Proposed OTC Plaintiff Class:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

The Bondholder Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen L. Morris, Esq.
          Patrick F. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 426-0400
          E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
                  pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com
                  kitchenoff@wka-law.com

Counsel for Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and Interim Lead
Counsel for the Proposed OTC Plaintiff Class:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-3330
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

Counsel for Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Exchange-Based Plaintiffs
and the Proposed Class:

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  klerner@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Lovell Stewart Halebian, Esq.
          JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Max R. Schwartz, Esq.
          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com
                  dbroggi@scott-scott.com

Defendants Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., Merrill
Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Banc of America Securities LLC,
Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd., Bank of America Home Loans
are represented by:

          Paul Mishkin, Esq.
          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Robert Wise, Jr., Esq.
          Adam Mehes, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4292
          E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com
                  arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  rwise@dpw.com
                  adam.mehes@davispolk.com

Defendants Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays U.S.
Funding LLC, and Barclays PLC are represented by:

          Jonathan Schiller, Esq.
          Leigh Nathanson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  lnathanson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Braff, Esq.
          Yvonne Quinn, Esq.
          Matthew J. Porpora, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4705
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com
                  porporam@sullcrom.com

Defendant Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi sUFJ Ltd. is represented by:

          Daryl A. Libow, Esq.
          Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-7500
          E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com
                  viapianoc@sullcrom.com

Defendants Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.,
and Rabobank Group are represented by:

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
          Mark D. Villaverde, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com
                  smurphy@milbank.com
                  mvillaverde@milbank.com

Defendants British Bankers' Association, BBA Enterprises, Ltd.,
and BBA Libor, Ltd., are represented by:

          Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
          Richard D. Owens, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com
                  richard.owens@lw.com

Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group, N.A., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse International, Credit
Suisse (USA) Inc. are represented by:

          Joel Kurtzberg, Esq.
          Adam Mintz, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3000
          E-mail: JKurtzberg@cahill.com
                  amintz@cahill.com

Defendants Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Financial Products, Inc., Citi Swapco
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited., Citigroup Funding Inc.
are represented by:

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Time Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Lev Louis Dassin, Esq.
          Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2790
          E-mail: ldassin@cgsh.com
                  jkolodner@cgsh.com

Defendants Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc. are represented by:

          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com

Defendants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, N.A., J.P. Morgan Bank Dublin
PLC, J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Bear
Stearns Capital Markets, Inc. are represented by:

          Paul Gluckow, Esq.
          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com
                  trice@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500
          E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com

Defendants Lloyds Banking Group plc, Lloyds Banking Group PLS,
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Lloyds Bank PLC (formerly known as Lloyds TSB
Bank PLC) are represented by:

          Marc Gottridge, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3081
          E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com

Defendants HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank PLC, The Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC
Finance Corp., HSBC USA Inc., HSBC Holdings, PLC, are represented
by:

          Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 415-8600
          E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com

Defendants The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of
Scotland, RBS Citizens, N.A. (f/k/a Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts), Citizens Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          Facsimile: (212) 878-8375
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com

               - and -

          Fraser Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com

The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Alan M. Unger, Esq.
          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          Kenneth Meyer, Esq.
          Thomas Paskowitz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5785
          E-mail: aunger@sidley.com
                  astern@sidley.com
                  kmeyer@sidley.com
                  tpaskowitz@sidley.com

Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, are
represented by:

          Arthur W. Hahn, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 902-5241
          E-mail: arthur.hahn@kattenlaw.com

WestLB AG, Portigon AG, Portigon/WestLB AG, WestDeutsche
Immobilienbank AG are represented by:

          Christopher M. Paparella, Esq.
          Marc A. Weinstein, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6000
          E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com
                  marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com

Societe Generale is represented by:

          Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
          Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1001
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com
                  acalica@mayerbrown.com
                  hbullock@mayerbrown.com

UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, and UBS Limited are represented by:

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq.
          Eric J. Stock, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-2346
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  jbell@gibsondunn.com
                  lzweifach@gibsondunn.com
                  estock@gibsondunn.com

ICAP plc is represented by:

          H. Rowan Gaither, IV, Esq.
          Shari Brandt, Esq.
          RICHARDS KIBBE & ORBE LLP
          200 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10281-1003
          Telephone: (212) 530-1800
          E-mail: rgaither@rkollp.com

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 is represented by:

          Usher T. Winslett, Esq.
          WINSLETT STUDNICKY MCCORMICK & BOMSER LLP
          6 East 39th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 688-5424
          E-mail: uwinslett@wsmblaw.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: PCH Plaintiffs Seek Appeal of Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Products Insider reports that plaintiffs in a proposed
class action lawsuit filed against Bayer HealthCare LLC over a
popular probiotic are appealing a summary judgment order in favor
of the company.

Bayer was accused of making false and misleading claims regarding
its dietary supplement, Phillips' Colon Health (PCH), the same
product subject to FTC litigation in a case that was closely
followed by the industry.

In April, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez ruled in favor
of Bayer on all counts in the class action lawsuit.

"In sum, plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to create
a genuine issue of material fact that Bayer's claims that PCH
promotes overall digestive health and helps defend against
occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, and bloating are actually
false or misleading," the judge concluded in his 30-page order.

In the FTC lawsuit, the issue was whether Bayer's representations
above were substantiated with "competent and reliable scientific
evidence." The government argued the answer was no, causing Bayer
to be in violation of an earlier consent decree, but a federal
judge in New Jersey sided with Bayer in a 2015 decision.

Bayer, the court pointed out, produced nearly 100 studies to
support its PCH claims.

"As two other courts have held, competent and reliable scientific
evidence does not require drug-level clinical trials, and the
government cannot try to reinvent this standard through expert
testimony," Judge Jose Linares wrote in his 2015 opinion.

Lawyers with Sidley Austin LLP, who defended Bayer in both cases,
viewed the 2017 summary judgment order as an "important decision"
that "should help to rein in the onslaught of lawsuits that
improperly target dietary supplements.

"First, the court's decision reinforces that dietary supplements
are not regulated as drugs and structure/function claims need not
be supported by randomized controlled clinical trials," the
attorneys wrote in an article for Lexology.com.

Bayer, however, can't move on yet from the class action lawsuit.
On May 17, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. James Cecchi, an attorney in
Roseland, New Jersey who signed the notice of appeal on behalf of
the plaintiffs, didn't immediately respond to an emailed request
for comment.

"We believe the District Court's ruling dismissing this case based
on the failure of plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof was
correct and should be affirmed on appeal," Bayer said in an
emailed statement. "The benefits of Phillips' Colon Health have
been fully substantiated as demonstrated by numerous clinical,
animal and genetic studies. The District Court's ruling was the
third time that a federal court has found that plaintiffs have
failed to prove their claims regarding the benefits of Phillips'
Colon Health probiotics."

As in the FTC case, a crucial aspect of the class action lawsuit
turned on the testimony of experts.

In concluding PCH's claims are false, plaintiffs' expert--Stefano
Guandalini, M.D., a pediatrics professor at The University of
Chicago Medicine--relied on double-blind, placebo-controlled,
randomized trials (RCTs). For PCH's statements to be true,
Guandalini opined, they must be supported with RCTs, and he
maintained the testing required to determine a product's efficacy
would be the same for a dietary supplement or drug, according to
Vazquez's summary judgment order.

But the judge rejected the expert's opinion that an RCT is
required to support PCH's statements, and he said Guandalini was
unaware of or misunderstood the "legal standard required to prove
that a statement about a dietary supplement is 'true and not
misleading.'

"In essence, plaintiffs' expert opines that absent an RCT showing
PCH's efficacy, Bayer's claims that PCH promotes digestive health
are false," Vazquez wrote. "This lack-of-substantiation theory is
not the legal standard. Without understanding the proper legal
requirements to demonstrate whether Bayer's statements about PCH
are false and misleading, Dr. Guandalini cannot offer an informed
opinion as to whether that standard has been met."

Later in his order, Vazquez further distinguished the
substantiation standard from the plaintiffs' burden of proof.

The "question," he said, "is not whether there is sufficient
evidence to support PCH's claims, but rather whether plaintiffs
have presented proof that PCH's claims are in fact false or
misleading."

Guandalini's interpretation of three RCTs did not establish the
falsity of PCH's statements because "[t]he studies were not
designed to test whether PCH 'promote[s] overall digestive health'
and 'helps defend against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas,
and bloating,'" the judge observed. Rather, the purpose of two of
the studies was to ascertain the effect of PCH on individuals with
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and severe IBS, he noted.

"These 'chronic' and 'reoccurring' symptoms are far more severe
than the occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating that
PCH claims to defend against," the judge wrote.

In his deposition, Guandalini admitted he didn't know whether PCH
was incapable of helping to promote overall digestive health.

Wrote Vazquez: "In short, Dr. Guandalini did not offer a
definitive opinion as to whether PCH's claims that it promotes
overall digestive health and helps defend against occasional
constipation, diarrhea, gas, and bloating were actually false."
[GN]


BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 14 Reply to Bid for Judicial Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Charles Baird, Plaintiff, v. BlackRock
Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-1892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gillaim, Jr., of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, ordered that the Plaintiff
must file any objection to the Defendants' Request for Judicial
Notice by July 14, 2017, and that the Defendants must file any
reply by July 28, 2017.

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, the
Plaintiff and the Defendants stipulate and agree that on June 1,
2017, the Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice in
connection with their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint filed on the same day.  Because the Request for Judicial
Notice relates to the Motion to Dismiss, the parties have
conferred and agreed that it makes sense to align the remaining
briefing on the two motions.  They have therefore stipulated and
agreed to the briefing schedule for the Request for Judicial
Notice, which coincides with the existing briefing schedule for
the Motion to Dismiss: July 14, 2017 as the Plaintiff's objection
to the Request for Judicial Notice due and July 28, 2017 as the
Defendants' reply due.

The parties have not requested any previous enlargement of time
with respect to the Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.  One
previous request for time modification has been made during the
pendency of this action, setting the Motion to Dismiss briefing
schedule, which was entered by the court on April 27, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 stipulation and order
is available at https://is.gd/Euv1c0 from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP.

Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Horwitz --
jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Karen
L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com --
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Defendant,
represented by Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny
Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan -- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards -- edwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny
& Myers LLP.

Blackrock, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle,
O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W.
Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented
by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers
LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Jason Herman, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle,
O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W.
Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP,
Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow,
OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.

The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendant,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes
Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: MSP Seeks Medical Services Reimbursement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC,
a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida, the Plaintiffs,
v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO., KG, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BIDACHEM S.P.A., PROVIDIO, LLC PROVIDIO
MEDISOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21996-UU
(S.D. Fla., May 27, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants, as
primary plans:

     -- reimbursement of all sums, on a fee-for-service basis,
        that Plaintiff's assignor HMO/Medicare Advantage
        Organization (MAO) was billed for medical care and
        treatment rendered on behalf of its MA enrollees, for
        which Defendants are responsible as primary payers, and

     -- double damages for Defendants' failures to properly
        reimburse Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff sues Defendants to enforce its direct rights of
recovery, subrogation rights, and/or recovery and reimbursement
rights for the medical payments made as a secondary payer. The
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the medical services and/or
supplies that were paid by its assignor to treat the injuries
suffered by its enrollee as a direct result of the blood thinner
product manufactured, marketed, and/or distributed by the
Defendants. Plaintiff's causes of action arise from the
Defendants' failure and refusal to reimburse Plaintiff for medical
expenses paid on behalf of enrollees, for which Defendants are the
responsible entities.

Plaintiff's claim arises from the same practice or course of
conduct that gave rise to the Class's claims.

Boehringer Ingelheim is a global, research-driven pharmaceutical
company embracing many cultures and diverse societies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75 Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com


BONAFIDE THAI: "Sank" Suit Alleges Tip Regulation Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE D.B. SANK, as the Collective Representative under Fair
Labor Standards Act in a Collective Action, and as Class
representative for Plaintiff's State Law Claims, Plaintiff, v.
BONAFIDE THAI and Soungpan Missakasavake as an individual under
FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws and "Sam" last name unknown as an
individual under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01251-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., June 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendants violated tip regulations by taking from Plaintiff 10%
of credit card tips.

The case raises violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Bonafide Thai is a restaurant located in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John C. Ireland, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
     636 Spruce Street
     South Elgin, IL
     60177 630-464-9675
     Fax: 630-206-0889
     Phone: 6283137
     E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com


BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET: Faces "Maor" Suit Over "Retained" Gratuities
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHALL MAOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, against BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET CORP.; JOHN
VITALE; and any other related entities, Defendants, Index No.
605175/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, June 5, 2017), alleges
that Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants'
restaurant and catering venues located in New York in violation of
the New York Labor Law.

BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET CORP. operates a food catering business.
Plaintiff has worked for Defendants in various food and service
capacities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Phone: (516) 873-9550


BROWN COUNTY, WI: Jacobs Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Aaron L. Jacobs, Jr. v. K.
Barkley, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00246-PP (E.D. Wisc.), asks the
Court to certify his third amended complaint as a class action
lawsuit and to appoint class counsel.

K. Barkley is an officer, employee or agent of the Brown County
Jail.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class members are currently
incarcerated at the Brown County Jail, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1keO3JC4


CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Social Services Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Trina Ray, the Plaintiff, v. California
Department of Social Services, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson
entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and distribution of judicial notice for violating
Local Rule 7-3.

The Court said, "Future violations of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Central District's Local Rules, or the Court's
orders may result in the imposition of sanctions. Under the
Central District's Local Rules, "counsel contemplating the filing
of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss
thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the
contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference
shall take place at least 7 days prior to the filing of the
motion. As the Notice of Motion makes clear, Plaintiff's motion
flouts the pre-filing requirements of Local Rule 7-3."

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jk7AOjR5


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Fault In Lac-Megantic Disaster
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Atkins, writing for Globe and Mail, reports Canadian Pacific
Railway Ltd. denies any responsibility for the 2013 oil train
explosion in Lac-Megantic, Que., saying the liability for the
disaster that killed 47 people lies with the company that hauled
the crude and the locomotive engineer.

CP filed its defence in response to a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of 5,000 people and companies who lost loved ones, homes or
businesses in July, 2013, when an unattended Montreal Maine and
Atlantic Railway Inc. train of 72 tank cars carrying 7.7 million
litres of oil derailed and exploded. Most of the town's core was
destroyed, and 2,000 people were forced to flee.

The lawsuit also names MM&A and its engineer, Thomas Harding.

CP hauled the oil train to Montreal from New Town, N.D., and said
its responsibility ended when it handed the cargo over to MM&A,
which was to carry it to the Irving Oil Ltd. refinery in Saint
John.

"[T]here is a transfer of liability when traffic is interchanged
from a carrier to a connecting carrier," CP said in the court
document, citing Association of American Railroads rules. "No CP
locomotive or tank cars, no CP crew and no CP tracks were involved
in the derailment."

Joel Rochon, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said CP's liability
stems from its partnership with the shipper, World Fuel Services,
and its entities in the North Dakota rail hub that was the source
of the oil.

Get the latest news on deals, mergers and acquisitions and capital
markets.

The lawsuit alleges the oil shipment was mislabelled to conceal
its volatility, a move that permitted the use of older, cheaper
tank cars over the "poorly maintained and low-cost" MM&A route
east of Montreal instead of a better-maintained line owned by
Canadian National Railway Co.

"It was all about driving profits and cutting costs for CP--
focusing on the bottom line to the detriment of communities along
the railroad, including Lac-Megantic," Mr. Rochon said by phone.

"CP was very much involved in the process of moving the Bakken
shale gas liquids . . . from North Dakota to the Irving refinery.
So this is very much something that happened in conjunction with
the shipper, World Fuel Services," he said.

A CP spokesman said the company had no comment because the matter
is before the courts.

None of the claims has been proven in court.

In its statement of defence, CP said it had no role in the
selection of MM&A to handle the train. "In all cases . . . the
shipper always selected the route," CP said, adding that "common
carrier" rules prevent a railway from refusing to haul legal
cargo.

CP said it could not have foreseen that the lone MM&A engineer,
Mr. Harding, would fail to apply enough brakes to the train and
leave it unattended on a descending grade, nor that a fire in one
locomotive would lead to its shutdown. This caused the train's air
brakes to gradually fail. The train rolled down the tracks and
reached 105 kilometres an hour before crashing and exploding in
the centre of town, investigators found.

Mr. Rochon said CP's denials come as no surprise, given the
company's "very aggressive, recalcitrant position throughout the
course of their defence of this action. It appears they are
determined to drag this litigation out and not contribute to any
settlement agreement."

About 25 companies previously named in the lawsuit were dropped
after they agreed to contribute to a $450-million fund for the
victims. Contributors included Irving Oil, Shell Oil Co., World
Fuel Services and the federal government, which gave $75-million.

CP refused to contribute to the fund, a move that left the
Calgary-based company open to lawsuits.

MM&A is in bankruptcy protection, and its assets have been sold.

The case is scheduled to return to a Lac-Megantic courtroom in
July for pretrial procedures.

CP faces several legal battles over the crash, including a $409-
million damages lawsuit filed by the province of Quebec and 10
insurance claims, according CP documents.

The town last year dropped its lawsuit against CP, saying the
fight would be too long and expensive.

Mr. Harding and two other former MM&A employees have been charged
with criminal negligence causing death. A jury trial is scheduled
to begin in the fall. [GN]


CITIZEN'S TAXI: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
driver's class action complaint, accusing a taxi dispatcher of not
paying him and other drivers like him overtime and wrongly
deducting from their pay, will be allowed to proceed after a
federal judge refused to fully dismiss the action.

In an opinion issued May 26 in Chicago, Magistrate Judge Young B.
Kim denied portions of a motion to dismiss the complaint of Daniel
Martinez, who is suing Citizen's Taxi Dispatch, Inc., and its
owner, Patricia Shelton, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act. Martinez said the company failed to pay
overtime and also alleged unlawful payroll deductions.

According to Kim's background, Citizen's Taxi operates cars in and
around DuPage County, but primarily contracts with school
districts to provide student transportation in Wheaton and
Warrenville. Drivers are designated independent contractors,
though they are subject to drug testing, set weekly schedules,
non-negotiable schedules and route assignments and disciplinary
action.

Drivers are required to rent vehicles from the company; the weekly
fee is deducted from their paychecks along with other expenses,
such as parking tickets and towing costs associated with
terminated employees. The drivers pay for vehicle maintenance and
repairs, tolls and gas. Martinez drove for Citizen's from February
through September 2016, and allegedly worked up to 56 hours a week
without being paid time-and-a-half for the overtime hours in
excess of 40 hours worked.

In moving to dismiss, Citizen's argued it is exempt from FLSA
regulations, and therefore the complaint does not belong in
federal court. Kim noted Martinez invoked enterprise coverage
rather than alleging he is subject to individual FLSA coverage.
Citizen's said that position required Martinez to allege its
drivers handle or transport goods that crossed state lines. In a
response brief, Martinez pointed to daily runs to O'Hare and
Midway airports, as well as frequent trips to take goods to and
from interstate shipping facilities, including post offices.

"Enterprise coverage has repeatedly been found to extend to local
businesses whose local employees, in the course of their
employment, use supplies that were manufactured out-of-state," Kim
wrote, noting the clause has such broad interpretation it applies
to nearly any business meeting FLSA dollar volume requirements.

Citizen's also argued for dismissal under FLSA's taxicab
exemptions, but Kim said the burden falls on the company to prove
it qualifies.

"Exemption must be construed narrowly against the employer," Kim
wrote, adding, "the exemption question is better left for the
summary judgment or trial stage."

Finally, Citizen's said Martinez failed to sufficiently allege
facts about his compensation, pay rate and what he feels he's
owed.

But the judge noted Martinez had cited two specific weeks in which
he worked 54 and 56 hours without getting time-and-a-half for the
excess. The "uncompensated overtime allegations are sufficiently
detailed," Kim wrote.

However, Kim did dismiss the FLSA claim without prejudice to allow
Martinez to amend his complaint to include allegations filed in
the response brief.

Under the state law claim, Citizen's argued for dismissal by
saying Martinez did not fully allege a compensation agreement with
the company. Referencing his independent contractor agreement on
its own does not satisfy requirements to uphold the state law
claim, Kim said, dismissing that complaint without prejudice.

Martinez also accused Citizen's of unjust enrichment by requiring
drivers to pay vehicle expenses. Citizen's argued that claim
should fail on the same grounds it opposed the FLSA claim, but
since Martinez is allowed to replead that complaint, Kim said
"this argument gets them nowhere."

Martinez is represented in the action by attorneys with The Fish
Law Firm, of Naperville, and Osborne Employment Law, of Glen
Ellyn.

Citizen's Taxi is defended by attorneys Zachary Bravos, Esq. and
Kathleen DiCola, Esq. of the firm of Bravos & DiCola, of Wheaton.
[GN]


COMBE INC: Faces "Stringer" Suit Over Just For Men(R) Hair Dye
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN STRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMBE, INC.; COMBE PRODUCTS, INC.; COMBE
LABORATORIES, INC.; and COMBE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-03192-LB (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendants launched a targeted marketing campaign headlined by
legendary Black sports figures to induce African American males to
purchase hair dye product line Just For Men(R).

Defendants allegedly engaged in this racially motivated conduct
despite knowing that: (1) the Just For Men(R) Jet Black color
shade intended for African American consumers contained seventeen
times more p-Phenylenediamine ("PPD") -- a remarkable "strong
sensitizer" with the potential to cause severe health risks --
than lighter color shades intended for White consumers, and (2)
the sensitization rate to PPD is fives times greater for African
American males than White males. In the face of this unacceptable
risk disparity between the races, Defendants neglected to warn or
disclose that African American males had a significantly
heightened propensity for severe physical injury or that the Jet
Black color shade was unreasonably dangerous.

Combe Incorporated produces personal products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
     Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
     ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
     6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Phone: (310) 844-9696
     Fax: (310) 861-0168
     E-mail: elise@asstlawyers.com
             alfredo@asstlawyers.com

        - and -

     Jay A. Urban, Esq.
     URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
     4701 North Port Washington Road
     Milwaukee, WI 53212
     Phone: (414) 906-1700
     Fax: (414) 906-5333
     E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com


COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Scott" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROY JAMES SCOTT, SR., On behalf of
himself and others Similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COWLEY
DISTRIBUTING, INC. (a Missouri Corporation), the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04307-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' collective action,
      pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act for:

      "all current and former employees who worked for Defendant
      Cowley Distributing, Inc. at any time in the three years
      preceding the date of this Order, who performed work as
      drivers/merchandisers while employed by Cowley, who were
      paid on a set weekly salary basis, who in whole or in part
      operated a motor vehicle that had a gross vehicle weight
      ratio of 10,000 lbs. or less, and who were not paid at one
      and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours
      worked over 40 in a workweek"; and

   2. authorizing Plaintiff Roy James Scott, Sr. to act as class
      representative and Donelon, P.C. to act as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v8I1e77w


CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran, et al. Seek Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Christopher Corcoran, et al. on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the Defendant. Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 18, 2017,
at 2:00 p.m., for an order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS) customers in [California]
      [Arizona] [Florida] [Illinois] [Massachusetts] [New York]
      who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (1) purchased
      one or more generic prescription drugs from CVS that were
      offered through CVS's Health Savings Pass (HSP) program at
      the time of the purchase; (2) were insured for the
      purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered
      by one of the following pharmacy benefit managers:
      Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, or
      Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to January 29, 2015);
      and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the purchase
      greater than the HSP program price for the prescription";

   b. appointing the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      class; and

   c. appointing the named Plaintiffs' attorneys of record as
      class counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a statutory unfair and
deceptive acts and practices claim (and for California, two such
claims) arising under the laws of each of the respective states:
(1) the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code,
and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code; (2)
the Arizona Consumer Fairness Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat.; (3) the
Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fla.; (4) the
Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices Act,; (5) the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633 1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358 4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Richard Lewis, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540 7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540 7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Pat A. Cipollone, P.C.
          Rebecca R. Anzidei
          Robert B. Gilmore
          STEIN MITCHELL CIPOLLONE
          BEATO & MISSNER LLP
          1100 Connecticut Ave.
          N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
          Tel: (202) 737-7777
          E-mail: pcipollone@steinmitchell.com
                  ranzidei@steinmitchell.com
                  rgilmore@steinmitchell.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692 0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366 6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com


DNB BANK: Class Action Lawsuit Gets Green Light
-----------------------------------------------
Norway's consumer council (Forbrukerradet) won a green light on
June 2 to move forward with a massive class-action lawsuit against
Norway's biggest bank, DNB. The council, on behalf of DNB
customers, is demanding that the highly profitable state-
controlled bank refund NOK 690 million in fees charged on its
investment funds.

Norway's biggest bank, DNB, has had a terrible year with lots of
bad publicity. Now it faces a huge class-action lawsuit over the
fees it charged investment fund customers. PHOTO: newsinenglish.no
"We are happy and relieved," Jorge Jensen, a director of the
consumer council, told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) June
2afternoon after an Oslo appeals court refused to hear DNB's
appeal and cleared the way for the lawsuit to proceed. A lower
court had earlier approved the class-action suit, but DNB, which
has faced a string of problems in recent years, had appealed.

The bank lost, and Jensen is now ready to sue DNB for allegedly
cheating customers into paying management fees on their
investments in various funds that were far too high. The funds
include "DNB Norge," "DNB Norge I" and "Avanse Norge I."
The council intends to sue on behalf of as many as 180,000 funds
customers at DNB. "DNB has charged fees for a service it did not
deliver," Jensen claims. "They have marketed and priced several of
Norway's largest stock investment funds actively, but the funds
have been managed passively."

DNB denies the charges and appealed the consumer council's initial
victory in the Oslo City Court (Oslo Tingrett). "DNB's appeal was
an attempt to avoid these customers being able to demand refunds
of NOK 690 million (USD 82 million) because they had paid for
something they didn't get," Jensen said.

DNB can still appeal to Norway's Supreme Court but it remained
unclear whether it will be heard after an appeals court saw no
grounds for it. "We have just received the news that the appeals
court has rejected our appeal," DNB spokesman Vidar Korsberg
Dalsbo told NRK. "We will now spend some time going through their
reasoning."

The lawsuit will be the largest class action in Norwegian history
and may have implications for funds customers in other countries
as well. "This problem with passive funds that are marketed as
being actively managed comes up in several countries in Europe,"
Jensen told NRK. "Lists are now being published all over Europe of
what funds are involved." That may lead to class action suits
being filed on behalf of customers abroad as well. [GN]


EXTRA SPACE: June 20 Hearing to Approve "Gomes" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled STEVEN GOMES, JR., on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. EXTRA SPACE STORGE,
INC.; EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No 2:13-cv-00929-CLW. (D.N.J.), Mr. Steven
Gomes, Jr., on behalf of himself and the putative class, on June
20, 2017, will ask the United States Court for the District of New
Jersey for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class
action and granting final approval of the parties' class
settlement agreement.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n7BAkeZj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545 7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545 1030
          E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Blunt"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PRISCILLA BLUNT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS
AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-CV-2430-T-
30MAP (M.D. Fl.), Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
denied the Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file
second motion for class certification.

On Aug. 24, 2016, the Plaintiff brought this putative class action
against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act predicated on the Defendant's collection
letter.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's
collection letter offered to resolve her time-barred debt without
disclosing that the obligation was beyond the applicable statute
of limitations.  She also contends that the collection letter
neglected to inform her that if she made a partial payment on the
debt, the applicable statute of limitations could reset or begin
anew.

On Nov. 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her first motion to extend
Local Rule 4.04(b)'s 90-day deadline to file a Rule 23 class
certification motion and for leave to conduct class discovery.  On
Nov. 22, 2016, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
because the Defendant had not yet appeared in the case.  The Order
stated that the Plaintiff may refile her motion after the
Defendant has appeared and after her counsel has adequately
conferred with the Defendant's counsel on the issues contained in
the motion.  The deadline to file any motion for class
certification is stayed during that time.

On Nov. 30, 2016, the Defendant filed its answer, which was its
first appearance in this case.  On Dec. 15, 2016, the Plaintiff
filed a "Notice of Compliance," which indicated that the Defendant
did not agree with her request to seek an extension of time to
file a motion for class certification.  However, contrary to the
Court's Nov. 22, 2016 Order, the Plaintiff did not refile her
motion to extend the deadline to file a motion for class
certification, despite the fact that the stay to file the motion
had expired.  Nor did she file a motion to conduct class discovery
prior to the case management meeting.  Instead, this litigation
proceeded for over five months.  During this time, there were
several filings.

In December, the Defendant moved to stay this action pending the
resolution of appeals before the Eleventh Circuit that the
Defendant believed involved substantially similar allegations to
the facts of this case.  The Court denied the Defendant's motion
on Jan. 13, 2017.

On Feb. 24, 2017, the parties filed their joint Case Management
Report ("CMR").  The CMR was silent as to any issues related to
class discovery, or the deadline to file a motion for class
certification.  The CMR also informed the Court that the parties
did not have any disagreement or unresolved issues concerning
discovery at this time.

On Feb. 28, 2017, the Court entered the Case Management and
Scheduling Order.  The Scheduling Order set forth the following
deadlines: Third-Party Joinder Cut-Off -- March 24, 2017; the
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure -- June 23, 2017; the Defendant's
Expert Disclosure -- July 24, 2017; Discovery Deadline -- Aug. 25,
2017; and Dispositive Motion Deadline -- Sept. 25, 2017.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant provided discovery responses to
the Plaintiff.  Notably, it objected to any class-related
discovery based on the Plaintiff's failure to timely move, under
Rule 23, for class certification.

On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion,
requesting an extension of time to file a motion for class
certification.  Acknowledging that her motion is untimely, the
Plaintiff argues "excusable neglect," stating that she never moved
to strike her class allegations; the Defendant cannot establish
prejudice; and that any delay was made in good faith.  Based on
the facts of this case, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff has
not met her burden to establish excusable neglect.  Therefore, the
Court denied the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time
to File Motion for Class Certification and struck from the
Complaint any class action allegations because the Plaintiff
failed to timely move for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/K6hFzE from Leagle.com.

Priscilla Blunt, Plaintiff, represented by Alex A. Stern --
alexander.adam.stern@gmail.com -- Little Guy Law Firm.

Priscilla Blunt, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jarret Wolf --
bwolf@legaljones.com -- Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC, pro hac vice &
Joseph Karl Jones, Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC, pro hac vice.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com. --
Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.


FLUSHING MARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FANGRUI HUANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. GW OF FLUSHING I, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket,
GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF NY INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, FLUSHING
MARKET, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket,
GW SUPERMARKET OF NORTHERN BOULEVARD INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket,
GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET(QUEENS) INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT
WALL SUPERMARKET OF GA INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL
SUPERMARKET OF MARYLAND INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL
SUPERMARKET OF BALTIMORE INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL
SUPERMARKET OF GERMANTOWN INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, C-MART
SUPERMARKET II, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, C-MART HERALD STREET,
INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GW SUPERMARKET OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a
G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF VA INC. d/b/a G W
Supermarket, GREAT WALL VA INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, LI HUI
ZHANG a/k/a Lihui Zhang, SAILU PAN a/k/a Sai Lu Pan a/k/a Sai Pan
Lu, CHRISTINE WANG, and MIAO KUN FANG, the Defendants, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03181-PKC-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 25,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys'
fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each
workweek. The Defendants willfully failed to record all of the
time that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work or
worked, including time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Flushing Market is retail food store in the county of Queens,
licensed by New York State Department.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALAXY RECYCLING: "Dominguez" Class Settlement Has Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUAN LUNA DOMINGUEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GALAXY RECYCLING INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-7521
(LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement, the
FLSA collective claim settlement, and a service award to Plaintiff
Dominguez.

Named Plaintiffs, Dominguez and Granados, were employees of
defendants Galaxy and Joseph Smentkowski, Inc., doing business as
Galaxy Carting or Smentkowski Garbage Removal, which performed
residential waste collection.  They contend that Defendant Gary
Giordano was an officer or owner of those entities.  They allege
that the Defendants failed to pay them and similarly situated
employees proper overtime wages for their work in excess of 40
hours each week.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on Dec. 7, 2012.  Their First
Amended Complaint, filed on consent on Oct. 30, 2013, asserts
class and collective claims against the Defendants for overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New
Jersey minimum wage law.  United States District Judge Faith S.
Hochberg granted a motion for conditional certification of the
class for notification purposes under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on
Sept. 20, 2013.

The Plaintiffs, on April 24, 2015, moved for class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), identifying the
proposed class as all current and former employees of Galaxy or
Joseph Smentkowski who performed work as drivers, driver's
helpers, waste collectors, and loaders from Dec. 7, 2010 through
the present; this does not include supervisors, officers,
executive, managerial, or administrative personnel.  On Dec. 10,
2015, United States District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo granted that
motion and also denied a motion by the Defendants for summary
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Following a settlement conference before United States Magistrate
Judge James B. Clark, III, and two settlement conferences before
the undersigned, the parties reached a tentative settlement.  On
Nov. 15, 2016, after the parties had consented to the
undersigned's plenary jurisdiction over this action, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
parties' proposed settlement agreement and notice to class
members.  In this Order, the Court found, among other things, that
the settlement was a non-collusive product of arm's length
negotiations.  It also set a schedule for class notification
procedures; under this schedule, Feb. 13, 2017 was the deadline
for class members to opt out of or object to the settlement.  The
Court has received no objections to the proposed settlement.

The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the class
settlement, approval of the FLSA collective claim settlement, an
award of counsel fees and costs, and approval of a service award
to Plaintiff Dominguez.

Judge Wettre held an in-person fairness hearing on April 26, 2017.
She finds that there is a strong initial presumption of fairness
given the circumstances of the proposed settlement agreement and
that the Girsh and Prudential factors weigh in favor of approving
the settlement as fair and reasonable.  She also finds that the
settlement provides 100% recovery for FLSA collective members and
is a product of arm's length negotiations, there is nothing
suggesting that it would otherwise frustrate the intent of FLSA.
Moreover, she notes no incentive exists for inflating litigation
costs, given that class counsel's aggregated fees and costs are
effectively capped under the clear sailing provision, and any
increase in claimed costs would simply reduce recoverable fees.
For these reasons, Judge Wettre granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of the settlement of their class and
FLSA collective claims, for an award of counsel fees and costs,
for approval of a service award, and for dismissal of the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum opinion is
available at https://is.gd/sNtgQ0 from Leagle.com.

Juan Luna Dominguez, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder,
Esq. -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP.

Juan Luna Dominguez, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Esq. -- jnewhouse@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP.

MARLON JOSE GRANADOS, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Fredy Barrios, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Juan Benedito, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Noel Carillo, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Carlos Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Santos Espinal, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Marlon Jose Granados, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Jose Huelit, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia
& Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP.

Galaxy Recycling Inc., Defendant, represented by George Karousatos
-- g.karousatos@bdlawfirm.com -- Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC &
James Passantino -- j.passantino@bdlawfirm.com -- Biancamano & Di
Stefano, PC.

Gary Giordano, Defendant, represented by George Karousatos,
Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC & James Passantino, Biancamano & Di
Stefano, PC.

Joseph Smentkowski, Inc. d/b/a Galaxy Carting and d/b/a Smentowski
Garbage Removal, Defendant, represented by James Passantino,
Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC.


GARDA CL: "Louis" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jean-Parnell Louis and Charles J.
Engel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Garda CL Atlantic, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
621225/2016, was removed on May 25, 2017 from the Supreme Court of
NY County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03186-SJF-ARL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.

Garda Cl was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neil Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756 0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756 0547
          E-mail: support2@laborlaws.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          A. Michael Weber, Esq.
          Houston Adams Stokes, Esq.,
          Ivie A Guobadia, Esq.,
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9600
          Facsimile: (212) 832 2719
          E-mail: mweber@littler.com
                  hstokes@littler.com
                  iguobadia@littler.com


GREEN DOT: Nov. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing in "Lewis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JASON LEWIS, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GREEN DOT CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03557-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for preliminary
      approval of class action settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying class for purposes of settlement:

      "all cardholders, as identified in Green Dot Defendants'
      business records, who attempted to and were unable to use
      their Green Dot-issued, MasterCardprocessed cards to access
      or spend their account funds from May 15, 2016 through May
      22, 2016 as a result of the Service Disruption";

   3. preliminary appointing plaintiffs Jason Lewis, Danielle
      Hall, and Justin Thornton as class representatives for
      settlement purposes;

   4. preliminarily appointing John A. Yanchunis of Morgan &
      Morgan Complex Litigation Group; Richard D. McCune and
      Joseph G. Sauder of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP; Jean Sutton
      Martin of Law Offices of Jean Sutton Martin PPLC; and
      Daniel C. Girard and Linh G. Vuong of Girard Gibbs LLP as
      class counsel for settlement purposes.

   5. preliminarily finding that the terms of the Settlement are
      fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e)
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   6. directing parties to carry out the settlement and claims
      process according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;
      and

   7. appointing Epiq Systems as the Settlement Administrator.

Pursuant to the settlement, defendants have already provided two
benefits to compensate some class members for inconveniences and
losses caused by the Service Disruption. First, most class members
with an active Green Dot account received a two-month fee holiday
during which they were not assessed any monthly maintenance fees.
Second, class members who had an active Green Dot account in May
and June 2016, "received credits to their accounts in the amount
of $50.00 each." Green Dot issued approximately 58,275 Courtesy
Credits, for a total of $2,913,750.

Through the Fee Holiday and Courtesy Credits, Green Dot has
provided more than $3.3 million to class members.

Defendants will also provide prospective relief to class members
as follows:

     (A) Tier 1 Claims -- Fee Holiday Extension: Each settlement
         class member will be entitled to a one-month extension
         of the Fee Holiday.  This benefit may be provided, at
         Green Dot's election, via account credits, checks, or
         funds.  This benefit is automatic and will not require
         class members to file claims.

     (B) Tier 2 Claims -- Payment for Losses Without
         Documentation:  Class members "who attempted to and were
         unable to use their Prepaid Cards to access or spend
         their account funds from May 15, 2016 through May 22,
         2016 and who claim to have suffered a financial or other
         loss as a result of the Service Disruption but do not
         have or do not wish to provide Reasonable Documentation
         will be eligible for a payment up to $100.00."  However,
         any prior payments received by a class member from Green
         Dot "as restitution for the Service Disruption, other
         than the Fee Holiday, will be offset against the $100.00
         (or lesser) payment."

     (C) Tier 3 Claims -- Payment for Substantiated Losses: Class
         members "who attempted to and were unable to use their
         Prepaid Cards to access or spend their account funds
         from May 15, 2016 through May 22, 2016 and who claim to
         have suffered a financial or other loss as a result of
         the Service Disruption and who provide Reasonable
         Documentation of Substantiated Losses will be eligible
         for a payment of the lesser of the amount of such loss
         or $750.00."  However, any prior payments received by
         the class member from Green Dot "as restitution for the
         Service Disruption, other than the Fee Holiday, will be
         offset against the $750.00 (or lesser) payment."

The Tier 2 claims are subject to an aggregate amount not to exceed
$2 million ("Tier 2 Maximum").  If Tier 2 claims exceed the Tier 2
Maximum, each claim will be reduced on a pro rata basis.

Combined across Tiers 2 and 3, Defendants agree to pay a
guaranteed minimum of $1,500,000.  If an insufficient number of
valid and timely claims are submitted and paid to exhaust the
Minimum Payment Amount, then the remaining funds shall be
distributed to the following cy pres recipient, subject to Court
approval: Consumer Action, a non-profit corporation that provides
financial advocacy and education to consumers nationwide.

A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for November 2, 2017,
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse, to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to
class counsel, and service awards to the class representatives.

Any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement,
including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive
awards; and/or (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement must
file his or her objection to the settlement or request for
exclusion (i.e., the Exclusion Form) no later than September 26,
2017.

Plaintiffs shall file a motion for an award of class
representative incentive payments and attorney's fees and costs no
later than August 26, 2017.  Any objection to the motion for an
award of class representative incentive payments and attorney's
fees and costs, by class members, shall be filed by September 26.
Class counsel shall, no later than October 12, file a reply
addressing the objection.

The Court said, "It is clear that the settlement does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to the class
representatives. As an initial matter, the $500 incentive award
per class member is presumptively reasonable. See Dyer v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326, 335 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (finding an
incentive award of $5,000 presumptively reasonable). Further, the
record reflects that the class representatives have taken on
responsibility in litigating this case, and the class has
benefitted from the time and effort they spent doing so. (See,
e.g., Dkt. 90-4, Lewis Decl. at 15-16 (describing participation in
this litigation and hours spent); Declaration of Danielle Hall in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement ("Hall Decl."); Declaration of Justin Thornton in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement ("Thornton Decl."). Plaintiffs state that they have
reviewed and approve the settlement in this action. In short,
because the parties agree that the settlement shall remain in
force regardless of any incentive awards and the amount of the
awards are presumptively reasonable, the court is persuaded that
there is no conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and
absent class members."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7oZZtVeI


GREENCLEANING ENTERPRISES: "Zamora" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN F. ZAMORA, EDWIN A. ZAMORA, SANTIAGO VEGAS, JOSE GONZALEZ,
LUIS MALDONADO, AND MARIA CARACHURE, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREENCLEANING
ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SERVICEMASTER CLEAN, EAGLE MAINTENANCE
COMPANY, INC. D/B/A SERVICEMASTER CLEAN., AND NKNB L.P. D/B/A
NORTH AMERICAN STONE CO., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00390 (E.D.
Tex., June 5, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs have worked for
Defendants performing cleaning duties at North Texas municipal and
community college facilities.

Plaintiffs averaged working eighty or more hours per week
performing these duties for Defendants.  Defendants paid
Plaintiffs straight time for each hour they worked, regardless of
whether those hours exceeded forty in a workweek.  In addition,
Defendants altered the hours Plaintiffs and other employees
reported in order to reduce the pay they received.  Defendants
also paid Plaintiffs under the names of various businesses to
avoid producing paystubs showing the actual hours they were
working -- which were almost always more than forty in a workweek.
The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants performing cleaning duties
at North Texas municipal and community college facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Javier Perez, Esq.
     Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT, PEREZ LLP
     Founders Square
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: 214-965-9675
     Fax: 214-965-9680
     E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
             javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com


GUARANTEED RATE: "Tadena" Suit Moved to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Benita Tadena, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the
Plaintiff, v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-
02017-00210217, was removed on May 26, 2017 from the Sacramento
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01103-KJM-AC to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Kimberly J.
Mueller.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees in California for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to indemnify for all business
expenses, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage
statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of
employment. The Plaintiff brings this class action based on
alleged violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial
Welfare Commission Order, and the Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roxanne M. Wilson, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625 0248
          E-mail: rmwilson@mayerbrown.com


HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Insurers Seek to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that nearly 30 major
insurers, including State Farm, AIG and Allstate, on June 2 moved
to gut a proposed class action accusing them of bad faith denial
of claims stemming from a defective concrete outbreak in
Connecticut, asking a federal court to toss the suit's most
imposing claims.

The suit alleges that the state's largest home insurance carriers
conspired to prevent potentially billions of dollars' worth of
coverage for homes whose foundations are crumbling due to
defective concrete -- a problem that can cost up to $250,000 per
home to fix and is estimated to affect roughly 35,000 homes across
the eastern part of the state.

The suit is seeking to certify a class of all homeowners with
crumbling foundations in three Connecticut counties and is asking
for, among other things, a declaratory judgment that all of the
insurers must cover repairs to all of those foundations, as well
as bad faith damages under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance
Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In separate motions to dismiss the bad faith claims and strike the
class allegations, the insurers say that in every instance, the
claims will depend on the specifics of the homeowners' policies
and foundation problems, and therefore won't fly in a "massive,
unwieldy class action."

"Plaintiffs cannot improperly seek to have the court ignore the
facts and the policy language in favor of an overarching, and
inevitably inaccurate, declaration," the insurers wrote in their
joint motion to dismiss certain counts. "That such a broad
declaratory judgment lumping all defendants together could
possibly enter is wishful thinking."

Connecticut's crumbling concrete epidemic has become a hugely
contentious issue since local news reports forced it into the
spotlight in 2015. Candidates for the state's gubernatorial race
are treating it as a campaign issue and nearly a dozen hotly
contested bills are currently stalled in committee. Requests to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for aid have been denied,
twice.

The problem stems from a mineral, pyrrhotite, contained in the
concrete aggregate mined from a quarry in northeastern Connecticut
that has provided the concrete for a large portion of the region's
homes for the last 30 years. When pyrrhotite is exposed to water
and air it oxidizes and expands, which can lead to cracking and
ultimately the complete disintegration of pyrrhotite-laden
concrete.

As the problem came into focus over the last two decades or so,
the suit says, the insurers changed the language in their policies
to delete coverage for the problem by qualifying "collapse" in
their policies with terms such as "abrupt" and "sudden," without
notifying policyholders of the change in coverage.

They then engaged in a widespread pattern of bad faith denial of
claims as the problem came to light recently, despite knowing that
many Connecticut district court cases had found that their
policies still covered the problem, the suit says.

The insurers dispute those claims, saying that state law isn't
clear on whether or not they have to notify homeowners of coverage
changes such as those alleged in the suit, adding that the denial
of claims was done in good faith since the issue is complicated --
many of the one-off cases have also been decided in favor of
insurers, for example.

"Plaintiffs should not be allowed ... to transform good faith
coverage disputes ... [into] broadly and vaguely alleged statutory
claims against all defendants," the motion to dismiss certain
claims said.

Most of the insurers on June 2 also filed individual motions to
dismiss the entire suit, which includes 22 named plaintiffs with
individualized claims against each of the insurers, in addition to
the class allegations.

Regardless of the merits of the claims themselves, however, the
insurers say they can't possibly be fit into the proposed class
certification or the declaratory judgment, which one insurance law
blog termed a "Mega DJ" shortly after the suit was filed last
year.

"Bad faith claims by [their] very nature require individualized
allegations and proof," the motion to dismiss said, echoing the
motion to strike's assertion that "a substantial portion of the
putative class claims necessitates a fact-intensive investigation
by expert witnesses and fact discovery on each individual claim."

The testing of the concrete in each foundation, the relative
structural stability of each foundation, each homeowner's specific
policy language and its history of changes -- all of those, and
many other issues, the insurers say, would need to be combed over
in detail before any claims could advance.

The homeowners' lead attorney Ryan Barry, of Barry Barall &
Spinella LLC, knew his structuring of the case was relatively
unusual, but he told Law360 in an earlier interview before the
motions were filed that he was confident that it was the best way
to get relief for the most homeowners affected by the crisis.

"If the insurance companies continue to go down this path, it's
going to crush the middle class in eastern Connecticut," Barry
said. "The state government hasn't been able to do anything about
it, and the federal government won't touch it.

"The whole thing is just crying out for a solution, and that's
what we're trying to craft with this case," he said.

Barry and representatives for the insurers didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment on June 2.

The homeowners are represented by Ryan Barry, Esq. and Anthony J.
Spinella, Esq. of Barry Barall & Spinella LLC, and Melissa A
Federico, Esq. -- mfederico@murthalaw.com -- of Murtha Cullina
LLP.

The insurers are represented by Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.--
wackerman@sa.com -- Stephen E. Goldman, Esq.--sgoldman@rc.com --
and Jessica A.R. Hamilton, Esq. -- jhamilton@rc.com -- of Robinson
& Cole LLP on the joint motion to strike the class allegations,
and by Kieran W. Leary, Esq.--kleary@hl-law.com -- and Philip T.
Newbury, Jr, Esq. -- pnewbury@hl-law.com -- of Howd & Ludorf LLC,
and Robert A. Kole, Esq.--rkole@coate.com -- Amos Hugh Scott,
Esq.--ahscott@choate.com and Matthew B. Arnould, Esq.--
marnould@coate.com -- of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP on the joint
motion to dismiss.

The case is Michael and Joyce Halloran et al. v. Harleysville
Preferred Insurance Co. et al., case number 3:16-cv-00133, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. [GN]


HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE
NATIONAL, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04322 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify
three classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

     "(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.
Sec.1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant
Healthcare National, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale
(d) with respect to which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does
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:

     "(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 defendant Healthcare National,
LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to
which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does 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:

     "(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 defendant Healthcare National,
LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to
which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does not have evidence
of consent or an established business relationship prior to
sending the fax".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court 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=cFXPb29z

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


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alexander Rodriguez, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Healthcare
Services Group, Inc., a Foreign profit corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 17-07977-CA-01, was removed on May 26, 2017 from the 11th
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-21986-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Healthcare Services provides management, administrative and
operating services to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility
maintenance and dietary service departments of the healthcare
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          PO Box 1840
          Tampa, FL 33601-1840
          Telephone: (813) 223 7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223 2515
          E-mail: alyons@constangy.com


HILTON GRAND: "Kasprzyk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KASPRZYK, STEVEN HUGHES, SHERRY SINGLETON, & ERIC WILSON,
Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC; HILTON
GRAND VACATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC; HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION;
PARK HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01393-RBH (D.S.C., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
owed to him and all other similarly situated employees, current
and former under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants required and/or permitted Kasprzyk and other
similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but failed to compensate them at the applicable overtime
rates. The Defendants deducted wages, straight time, and overtime
pay previously earned and paid to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated in subsequent weeks from their commissions earned.

Hilton Grand is based in Orlando, Florida with regional offices
located in Las Vegas, Nevada, Oahu, Hawaii, New York City, Marco
Island, Florida and Sanibel Island, Florida. The company develops,
markets, and operates vacation ownership resorts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Luse, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. LUSE, ESQ.
          917 Broadway Street
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
          Telephone: 843-839-4795
          Facsimile: 843-839-4815
          E-mail: lusewilliam@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


HOYT TRANSPORTATION: "Pichardo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY PICHARDO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOYT TRANSPORTATION CORP., JOSEPH
TERMINI, SR., CHRIS J. TERMINI, JOSEPH TERMINI, JR., JANET
TERMINI, and JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03196-DLI-
RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York
Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, although defendant recognizes tens of
millions of dollars in gross revenue, it refuses to honor its
legal obligation to comply with federal and state overtime pay and
other wage laws, systematically depriving hundreds of past and
current bus drivers of overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per week. This action is brought to obtain
monetary relief arising from Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs
and other bus drivers' federally and state law protected right to
receive, inter alia, overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Hoyt Transportation provides bus transportation services to
students with disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third A venue - 61h Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: "Chih" Suit Sues Over Balance Billing
----------------------------------------------------------
CHIH HUA LIU, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, an unknown business entity, PASADENA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, LTD, a California corporation, d/b/a HUNTINGTON
HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC622796 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks reimbursement
for unpaid charges from the patients by billing Plaintiff and the
members of the Plaintiff Class for balance charges.

This action arises from Defendants' illegal practices of "balance
billing" in violation of the Knox-Keene Health Care Services Plan
Act of 1975, California's Supreme Court held that the Knox-Keene
Act prevents providers of emergency services and care must be
resolved solely between the emergency room doctors, who are
entitled to a reasonable payment for their services, and the
[health care service plan], which is obligated to make payment.

"Balance billing" is the practice of directly charging patients
for the difference between the bill submitted to a patient's
health care service plan and the amount actually paid by the
patients' plan.

Huntington Hospital is a 625-bed not-for-profit hospital in
Pasadena, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168

               - and -

          Ying Xu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC K. CHEN
          18725 Gale Avenue, Suite 228
          City of Industry, CA 91748
          Telephone: (626) 810 6163
          Facsimile: (626) 810 3732


I & A RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Sanchez Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants I & A Restaurant Corp., Franklin Vargas and Marilyn
Vargas filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and
order dated May 22, 2017, and judgment dated May 30, 2017, entered
in the lawsuit styled Sanchez v. I & A Restaurant Corp., et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-726, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleged that he regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for
any of the hours that he worked over 40 each week -- in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Mr. Sanchez was an employee of
the Defendants.  He worked as a cook at their restaurant located
in Bronx, New York.

I & A Restaurant Corp., doing business as El Economico, is a New
York corporation with its principal place of business in Bronx,
New York.  The Defendants own, operate and control a Dominican
Restaurant located at 5589 Broadway, in Bronx, New York, under the
name of El Economico.  Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas own and
operate El Economico.

The appellate case is captioned as Sanchez v. I & A Restaurant
Corp., et al., Case No. 17-1802, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Tony Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants I & A Restaurant Corp., DBA El Economico,
Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas are represented by:

          Jason Moses Wolf, Esq.
          WOLF & WOLF, LLP
          910 Grand Concourse
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 410-0653


INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE: "Flahive" Suit Sues Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH FLAHIVE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2017-CH-07570 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks injunction
requiring IKS to cease the transmission of all unauthorized
automated voice calls to cellphones, and an award of statutory
damages to the members of the Class, together with costs and
attorneys' fees, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

According to the complaint, IKS violated federal law by making
unauthorized, automated telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or
artificial voice to the cellphones of consumers throughout the
nation ("robocalls"). By effectuating these unauthorized
robocalls, Defendant has violated the called parties' statutory
rights, privacy rights, and their property rights in their
cellphones. Plaintiff and the other called parties have suffered
actual, concrete harm robocalls, not only because the called
parties were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy
that necessarily accompanies robocalls -- particularly calls using
a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because
the called parties, like Plaintiff, frequently have to pay their
cellular phone providers for the receipt of such calls,
notwithstanding the fact that the calls violate federal law.

IKS is a privately held Delaware corporation that provides calling
technology and services to businesses in the healthcare industry
throughout the nation. IKS is headquartered in New York and it
conducts business in Illinois and elsewhere throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          David Gerbiev
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 6060I
          Telephone: (3I2) 893 7002
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com


KAMRAN STAFFING: "Denny" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER DENNY individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
KAMRAN STAFFING INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC661821 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 25, 2017), seeks monetary relief against Defendant to recover
unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorney's fees, costs and
expenses and penalties pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by failing to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages; failing to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu; and failing to authorize or permit rest
breaks or provide compensation in lieu.

Kamran owns and operates a staffing agency that is headquartered
in Ontario, California. Deco is a light manufacturer headquartered
in Commerce, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica I. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Inrvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


KLUEVER & PLATT: Class Certification Sought in "Righeimer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Righeimer asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled DIANE RIGHEIMER, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class v. KLUEVER & PLATT LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04170 (N.D. Ill.),
alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, may
proceed as a class action against the Defendant.

The class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom defendant
directed a "Notice Required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act" by attaching it to a complaint (c) concerning property at the
same address as the individual (d) during a period beginning one
year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after
the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks 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=9n1VGWOD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


LEXINGTON LAW: "Lebowitz" Suit Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Lebowitz, the Plaintiffs, v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law
PLLC d/b/a Lexington Law Firm, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
10973-RGS (D. Mass., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant and,
in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, on April 27, 2017, Defendant called
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7013
via an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"), using an
"artificial or prerecorded voice". This ATDS has the capacity to
store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Herbert Weinberg, Esq.
          ROSENBERG & WEINBERG
          805 Turnpike Street, Suite 201
          North Andover, MA 01845
          Telephone: (978) 208 2501
          Facsimile: (978) 682 3041
          E-mail: hweinberg@jrhwlaw.com


LGI HOMES: "Selby" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LORRIE SELBY AND SONIA AGUIRRE,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00100-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional
certification and court-supervised notice to:

   "all current and former Office Managers who worked for
   Defendant LGI Homes Corporate, LLC (LGI) at their project
   sites in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado,
   Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico (Potential
   Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs have met the lenient standards for
   notice to be issued to Potential Plaintiffs."

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
          Javier Perez, Esq.
          SCOTT & PEREZ LLP
          Founders Square
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 965 9675
          Facsimile: (214) 965 9680
          E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
                  javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Pimentel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JESUS PIMENTEL, DAVID R.
WELCH, JEFFREY O'CONNELL, EDWARD LEE, WENDY COOPER, JACLYN BAIRD,
ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, RAFAEL BUELNA, and all persons similarly
situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E
(C.D. Cal.), move for an order granting class certification of
their proposed classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint each of the named
Plaintiffs as Class representatives and the law firms of Blecher
Collins & Pepperman, P.C., and Norris & Galanter LLP as co-lead
Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald G. Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS & GALANTER LLP
          500 South Grand Avenue, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 232-0855
          Facsimile: (213) 286-9499
          E-mail: dnorris@norgallaw.com

               - and -

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
          BLECHER COLLINS & PEPPERMAN P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  dpepperman@blechercollins.com


LOUISIANA: Class Certification Sought in "Little" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDWARD LITTLE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER THOMAS
FREDERICK, in his judicial capacity as Commissioner of the 15th
Judicial District of Louisiana; CHIEF JUDGE KRISTIAN EARLES, in
his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 15th Judicial District
of Louisiana; and SHERIFF MARK GARBER, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, the Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-00724-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a declaratory and injunctive Plaintiff class consisting
of:

   "all people who are or will be detained in the Lafayette
   Parish Jail because they are unable to pay a sum of money
   required by post-arrest secured money bail setting procedures.

The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint his counsel as
class counsel in this action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620 2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208 3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org
                  eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          7214 Saint Charles Ave
          Campus Box 902
          New Orleans, LA 70118-3538
          Telephone: (504) 861 5590
          Facsimile: (504) 861 5440
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

               - and -

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          Premal Dharia, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 670 4809
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org
                  premal@civilrightscorps.org


MADISON SQUARE: "Millien" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN
Holdings, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 652225, was removed on
May 16, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-04000-AJN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan.

The Madison Square Garden Company is an American sports and
entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chauniqua Danielle Young, Esq.
          Christopher McNerney, Esq.
          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP (NYC)
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2060
          E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com
                  cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
                  omiazad@outtengolden.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (NEW YORK)
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309 6718
          Facsimile: (212) 309 6273
          E-mail: sshaulson@morganlewis.com


MAGNI GROUP: Hoffman Sues over Migraine Relief Therapeutic Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE MAGNI GROUP, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. BER-L-3635-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 25, 2017), seeks to
redress nationwide injury inflicted by the Defendant on the United
States consumer public through the advertisement, marketing,
distribution and sale of an over-the-counter product, in tablet
form, that makes therapeutic claims that are entirely false and
lacking in even a scintilla of objective truth.

According to Defendant's advertisements, including its website
claims, promises and representations, and product labeling,
Migraine Relief is allegedly comprised of a formulation of
substances which have been repeatedly diluted to the point of non-
existence; not even microscopic existence. In marketing and
selling Migraine Relief to the U.S. consumer public, coupled with
false and fabricated therapeutic claims, Defendant violates the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, by representing, in its
advertising, on its web site and product label, and in promotional
literature, that Migraine Relief has therapeutic effect on
disease; and that it is efficacious in the prevention, mitigation,
treatment and cure of disease, including but not limited to
migraine headaches, including throbbing, pulsating and stabbing
headaches, vertigo, and nausea.

Defendant advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Migraine
Relief in commerce throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 GRAND A VENUE
          ENGLEWOOD, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: HOFFMAN.ESQ@VERIZON.NET


MATTRESS FIRM: "Blair" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled PERRY BLAIR, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTRESS FIRM,
INC., LARRY R. PACK ENTERPRISES, INC. and LARRY PACK, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14119-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

This action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2492: "Roberts" Concussion Suit v. NCAA et al. Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JARROD BLAKE ROBERTS, the
Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND
THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC. a/k/a THE BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01548, was removed on May 16, 2017
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
03947 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
John Z. Lee.

The Hudson case is being consolidated with MDL 2492 in re:
National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 18, 2013. The actions before the Panel seek medical
monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at
NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions.
Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the
risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents
to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes
and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap;
and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to
centralization are preferable. In its December 18, 2013 Order, the
MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to
allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained
while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including
damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. John Z. Lee,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

The NCAA is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of
1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals.
It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and
universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than
450,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college
sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703 2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com


MDL 2782: Georgia Judge to Handle Hernia Mesh MDL
-------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that
nationally-watched litigation prompted by complications arising
from a medical mesh implant used to treat hernias has been
consolidated as multidistrict litigation and will be adjudicated
in the Northern District of Georgia.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued the
transfer order in In Re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite
Hernia Mesh on June 2, assigning the case to U.S. District Judge
Richard Story.

Story, who has not previously handled multidistrict litigation,
will preside over about 50 product liability cases pending against
Johnson & Johnson and its corporate subsidiary Ethicon.
The MDL panel has made a concerted effort to broaden the roster of
federal judges with experience managing MDL dockets, and Story is
a natural choice. A nearly 20-year veteran of the federal bench
and former chief superior court judge of the Northeastern Judicial
Circuit in Gainesville, he's presided over several sprawling class
actions since he was appointed to the bench by President Bill
Clinton in 1998. Among them are a landmark race discrimination
case against The Coca-Cola Co. that involved more than 2,000 class
members and eventually settled for $192 million; nearly two-dozen
suits by Mirant Corp. shareholders claiming that the gas energy
marketer illegally manipulated California energy prices in 2000
and 2001 that Story dismissed with prejudice after six years of
litigation; ongoing litigation against SunTrust Banks over its
401(k) savings plan involving a class of about 50,000 individuals;
a class action against Wells Fargo that resulted in a $30 million
settlement last year, and a class action--settled in 2015--on
behalf of Georgia's deaf citizens against the state of Georgia
over its failure to provide equal access to mental health services
to those who were both deaf and developmentally disabled. Story
also presided over former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell's
racketeering trial in 2006.

At least three of Story's colleagues have MDL experience. U.S.
District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash has four pending MDLs and
recently signed off on settlements involving Home Depot's 2015
massive data breach that affected an estimated 56 million
customers. U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten earlier this year
closed eight years of litigation in an antitrust MDL against Delta
Air Lines and AirTran Airways over passenger baggage fees. U.S.
District Judge William Duffey presided over multidistrict product
liability litigation over defective hip implants that last year
settled for $240 million.

Attorney Henry Garrard III -- hgg@bbgbalaw.com -- of Blasingame,
Burch, Garrard & Ashley who is spearheading the Physiomesh
litigation, said on June 2 that defense counsel first suggested
the Northern District of Georgia as a venue and recommended that
the litigation be assigned either Story or Batten. Garrard said he
agreed to both the Georgia venue and to assigning the cases to
Story. William Gage--William.gage@butlersnow.com -- of the Jackson
Mississippi office of Atlanta's Butler Snow represents Ethicon.

"Both sides recognized he is a very experienced judge," Garrard
said. "And, at the end of the day, both sides are desirous of fair
treatment, and we believe that will occur in the Northern District
of Georgia." [GN]

The case is IN RE: ETHICON PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE HERNIA
MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2782.


MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES: "Stevenson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CANTANYA STEVENSON, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
ENVIE FQ LLC, and HASAN ERGEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05561
(E.D. La., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants routinely worked
for Defendants more than 40 hours per week but was no paid
overtime for all hours worked over forty in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead, Defendants
operated under a scheme whereby they would transfer Plaintiffs
from location to location for the purposes of avoiding and/or
reducing the compensation owed to employees based on the FLSA's
overtime requirement for hours worked over forty in a workweek.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work in restaurants in New
Orleans that are owned and operated by Defendants under the trade
names "The Bean Gallery" and "Envie Expresson Bar and Caf??" as
restaurant workers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
     ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
     5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
     Baton Rouge, LA 70808
     Phone: (225) 349-7460
     Fax: (225) 349-7466
     E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com


MIDWEST RECOVERY: "Qualls" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TYANNA QUALLS, on behalf of plaintiff and
the class members and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL
TYANNA QUALLS, the Plaintiffs, v, MIDWEST RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04237 (N.D. Ill.), Ms. Qualls asks
the Court to certify these two classes:

Count I:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom
   Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC sought to collect a loan made at
   more than 9% interest (c) by an entity which did not possess a
   bank or credit union charter and was not licensed by the
   Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
   (d) by communication with the consumer and/or credit reporting
   (e) where any such activity occurred on or after a date one
   year prior to the filing of this action.

Count II:

   "(a) all individuals (b) whose debts were reported to one or
   more credit bureaus by Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC (c) where
   Midwest Recovery Services, LLC used a date of first
   delinquency later than the date which it can referred to
   substantiate (d) where the "tradeline" was on the consumer's
   credit report on or after a date one year prior to the filing
   of this action.

The Plaintiff further requests 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=U8BCcO8H

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Wins Final OK of "Fequiere" Class Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Renee Marie Bumb entered a final order approving the
Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit
styled DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-07541-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.).

This Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead &
     Associates, LLC mailed a written communication in the form
     of Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs Complaint during the period
     beginning October 15, 2014, and ending November 4, 2015
     where the letter stated in relevant part:

       "4. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act entitles you to
       dispute the debt, or any portion thereof, within thirty
       (30) days of your receipt of this letter. If you do not
       dispute the debt within that period, it will be presumed
       to be valid."

The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class, and is informed that actual notice was sent by first class
mail to approximately 2,286 Settlement Class members by First
Class, Inc., the third-party settlement administrator.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Milstead will make
these payments:

   (a) Milstead will create a class settlement fund of $5,000,
       which Class Counsel through the Settlement Administrator
       will distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class
       members who do not exclude themselves and who timely
       returned a claim form.  Claimants will receive a pro rata
       share of the Class Recovery by check.  Checks issued to
       Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance;

   (b) Milstead will pay the Plaintiff $1,000; and

   (c) Milstead will pay Class Counsel $10,000 for their
       attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action.  Class
       Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from
       Milstead or the Settlement Class members.

A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fjXF15Fl


MISSOURI: Church, et al. Seek to Certify Indigent Persons Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHONDEL CHURCH, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 17-04057-CV-C-
NKL (W.D. Mo.), Shondel Church, Randall Lee Dalton, Dorian
Samuels, Viola Bowman, and Brian Richman ask the Court to certify
a class of:

     "all indigent persons who are now or who will be during the
pendency of this litigation, under formal charge before a state
court in Missouri of having committed any offense the penalty for
which includes the possibility of confinement, incarceration,
imprisonment, or detention (regardless of whether actually
imposed), and who are eligible to be represented by MSPD".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
Jessie Steffan, Esq.
Gillian Wilcox, Esq.
Jason D. Williamson, Esq.
ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
906 Olive Street, Suite 1130
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 652 3114
Facsimile: (314) 652 3112
E-mail: arothert@aclu-mo.org
E-mail: gwilcox@aclu-mo.org

     - and -

Mae Quinn, Esq.
Amy Breihan, Esq.
MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS
3115 South Grand Boulevard, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63118
Telephone: (314) 254 8540
Facsimile: (314) 254 8547
E-mail: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org

     - and -

Robert Sills, Esq.
Aaron Scherzer, Esq.
Matthew R. Shahabian, Esq.
Evan Rose, Esq.
Easha Anand, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019


MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Paldo Sign Moves for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PALDO SIGN AND DISPLAY
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, CITY
ELECTRIC SUPLLY COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04155 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class certification
pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2011).

Paldo Sign proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) from whom Defendants did not
     obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
     advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an
     established business relationship, or (5) where the fax
     advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant
     with 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as the class
representative, and to appoint its attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NIBCO INC: Meadow, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHAD MEADOW, JOHN and SUSAN PLISKO and
KENNETH McLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIBCO, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01124 (M.D. Tenn.), Chad Meadow, John and Susan
Plisko and Kenneth McLaughlin move the Court for certification of
these classes:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Class:

     "all individuals and entities that own structures physically
located in Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee in which 1006
PEX tubing manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. was or is currently
installed (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class
are governmental entities; NIBCO and its affiliates, subsidiaries,
employees, and current and former officers, directors, agents, and
representatives; and members of this Court and its staff";

Implied Warranty Subclass:

     "all individuals and entities that own structures physically
located in Tennessee or South Carolina in which 1006 PEX tubing
manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. was or is currently installed
and have experienced failure of the tubing; and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) Class

     all individuals and entities that own structures physically
located in South Carolina in which yellow brass fittings
manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. were or are currently
installed. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities;
NIBCO and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, and current and
former officers, director, agents, and representatives; and
members of this Court and its staff".

The Plaintiffs further ask that their counsel be appointed as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), and that Defendant NIBCO,
Inc. be compelled to produce all information needed to achieve
notice to class members, and that due notice be given to the class
members, in accordance with Rule 23(c).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dnv6pyJt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 3000
Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
        ldeutsch@bm.net
        jpolakoff@bm.net

     - and -

Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247 0080
Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

     - and -

Michael Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (202) 789 3960
Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

     - and -

Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789 3960
Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

     - and -

Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339 6900
Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

     - and -

Charles E. Schaffer, 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

Attorneys for NIBCO, Inc.

John L. Farringer IV, Esq.
Andrea J. Sinclair, Esq.
SHERRARD ROE VOIGT HARBISON, PLC
150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742 4200
E-mail: jfarringer@srvhlaw.com
        asinclair@srvhlaw.com

     - and -

Jean Paul Bradshaw II, Esq.
J.A. Felton, Esq.
Kevin M. Kuhlman, Esq.
Rachel E. Stephens, Esq.
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
Kansas City, MI 64108
(816) 292-2000
E-mail: jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com
        jfelton@lathropgage.com
        kkuhlman@lathropgage.com
        rstephens@lathropgage.com

     - and -

J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963 5000
E-mail: jgcooney@morganlewis.com
        fcorrado@morganlewis.com


OGLETHORPE POWER: Dismissal of Former EMC Members' Suits Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned WALKER et al., v. OGLETHORPE POWER
CORPORATION et al., and SHAPIRO et al., v. OGLETHORPE POWER
CORPORATION et al., Case Nos. A17A0384 and A17A0385 (Ga. App.),
Judge Stephen Louis A. Dillard of the Court of Appeals of Georgia,
Fourth Division, affirmed the trial court's dismissal orders in
both cases.

This consolidated appeal arises from two class actions brought on
behalf of former and current members of various electric-
membership corporations ("EMCs"), which are private, nonprofit,
electric utilities owned by the members they serve.  In Case No.
A17A0384, former EMC members sued Oglethorpe, Georgia Transmission
Corp. ("GTC"), Walton EMC, Jackson EMC, and Sawnee EMC, raising
numerous claims, all of which were based, at least in part, on
their assertion that they were entitled to refunds from the
defendant EMCs of "patronage capital."  Similarly, in Case No.
A17A0385, current EMC members sued the same parties (except for
Sawnee EMC), raising a variety of claims that were also generally
based on their assertion that they were entitled to a refunds of
patronage capital from the defendant EMCs.  Ultimately, in
separate orders, the trial court dismissed both complaints for
several reasons, including lack of standing and failure to state a
claim.

In Case No. A17A0384, former members of the Walton, Jackson, and
Sawnee EMCs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint,
arguing that the court erred by (i) applying the wrong legal
standard applicable to a motion to dismiss; (ii) finding that the
plaintiffs lacked standing; (iii) finding that the Plaintiffs'
claims were time-barred; (iv) concluding that the Defendants have
no obligation under any circumstances to refund patronage capital
to their members; (v) finding that the Plaintiffs failed to state
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, and equitable relief; and (vi) applying the
filed-rate doctrine.

Similarly, in Case No. A17A0385, current members of the Walton and
Jackson EMCs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their
complaint, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that (i)
they lacked standing; (ii) the EMC defendants have absolute
discretion to never retire patronage capital, except upon
dissolution; (iii) the Plaintiffs failed to state claims for
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, and conspiracy; (iv) the plaintiffs' request for
declaratory and injunctive relief was improper; and (v) the
Plaintiffs' claims against certain EMCs were derivative instead of
direct.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/YkUlfK from Leagle.com

Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@jonesday.com -- for Appellant.

Charles D. Gabriel -- cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- for Appellant.

Samuel Parker Pierce, Jr. -- spierce@samuelpiercelaw.com -- for
Appellant.

Keri Patterson Ware -- kware@wmdlegal.com -- for Appellant.

Robert E. Wilson -- bwilson@wmdlegal.com -- for Appellant.

Charles Siegel, for Appellant.

William Paul Lawrence, II, for Appellant.

Kay Reeves, for Appellant.

Larry D. Lahman, for Appellant.

Roger L. Ediger, for Appellant.

T. Joshua R. Archer -- jarcher@balch.com -- for Appellee.

Thomas M. Byrne -- tombyrne@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for
Appellee.

Annalisa Marie Bloodworth, for Appellee.

Malissa Anne Kaufold-Wiggins, for Appellee.

Natalie Marie Christensen Beasman -- nbeasman@southernco.com --
for Appellee.

Benjamin C. Morgan, for Appellee.

Hardy Gregory, Jr., for Appellee.

Anne H. Hicks, for Appellee.

Hugh Brown McNatt -- hmcnatt@balch.com -- for Appellee.

James A. Orr -- jamesorr@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for Appellee.


PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Porter Seeks Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DUANE PORTER, KENNETH BLACK,
RONALD BOUIE, RICKY BROWN, SAMUEL CLARK, FRANK CRADDIETH, DONALD
GAYLES, STEVEN WILSON, and JEFFREY PICKETT, on their own behalves
and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated
v. PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL UNION 597, Case No. 1:12-cv-09844
(N.D. Ill.), seek to certify the action as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to
redress alleged race discrimination and retaliation, and an action
brought pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to
redress the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation and
to provide appropriate relief to the Plaintiffs and a class of
similarly situated African-American former and current members of
Pipefitters Association Union Local 597.

On September 20, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  The class is defined
to include these individuals:

     All African-American persons who were members of Local 597
     at any time from November 14, 2003 to the present date.

The Court reserved ruling on the Plaintiffs' request for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class pending clarification of
the named Plaintiffs' current union membership status or the
addition of a current union member as a class representative.

While reserving its ruling on the Plaintiffs' request for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Court acknowledged the
appropriateness of certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class in this
action.

Consistent with the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 16,
2016, the Plaintiffs move to certify the action as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and name Jeffrey Pickett as the class
representative for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall D. Schmidt, Esq.
          EDWIN F. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC OF
          THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL
          6020 South University Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60637
          Telephone: (773) 702-9611
          Facsimile: (773) 702-2063
          E-mail: r-schmidt@uchicago.edu

               - and -

          Jamie Franklin, Esq.
          THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM LLC
          53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 803
          Chicago, IL 60637
          Telephone: (312) 662-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 662-1015
          E-mail: jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam Goodman, Esq.
          Wesley Johnson, Esq.
          GOODMAN TOVROV HARDY & JOHNSON LLC
          105 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 238-9592
          E-mail: agoodman@goodtov.com
                  wjohnson@goodtov.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq.
          Aimee E. Delaney, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 704-3056
          E-mail: tluetkemeyer@hinshawlaw.com
                  adelaney@hinshawlaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACK SENA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04327 (N.D.
Ill.), Mr. Jack Sena asks the Court enter to certify a class of:

     "all individuals (b) whose credit reports defendant pulled
(c) after the individual's alleged debt to defendant had been
satisfied, released, paid, or discharged in bankruptcy, (d) which
credit reports were pulled on or after a date two years (Count I)
or one year (Count II) prior to the filing of this action".

The Plaintiff asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturnr & Goodwin, LLC be
appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FQm18m0E

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-1824
Telephone: (312) 739 4200
Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Kopplin, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHERYL KOPPLIN, TINA M. NYGAARD, LUCINDA
SLOVINSKI, and KEITH D. SLOVINSKI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL
PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company;
and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00810-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), Sheryl Kopplin, Tina M.
Nygaard, Lucinda Slovinski, and Keith D. Slovinski ask the Court
to certify a class of:

     "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin, to
whom
Professional Placement Services LLC mailed a written collection
communication, mailed a written communication substantially
similar to the Letters including "Re: Aurora Health Care" and
named an "Original Creditor" other than "Aurora Health Care" which
communication was dated during the period June 8, 2016 and ending
June 29, 2017".

The Plaintiffs further ask that Stern Thomasson LLP be appointed
counsel for the class.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their respective officers,
members, partners, managers, directors and employees, their
respective immediate families, legal counsel for all parties to
this action, and all members of their immediate families.

This case involves multiple collection letters mailed out to
Plaintiffs between June 2016 and April, 2017 which Defendant
Professional Placement Services, LLC sent to Plaintiffs in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal medical
services. The Plaintiff claims Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mS8rmrzq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Heather B. Jones, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN & THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone: (973) 379 7500
Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
        andrew@sternthomasson.com
        heather@sternthomasson.com


REALTY INCOME: Gellatly & Erquiaga Sue Over Inaccessible Parking
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY GELLATLY and OWEN ERQUIAGA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REALTY INCOME
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00692-DSC (W.D. Pa.,
Mar., 2017), seeks to recover payment of costs of suit, and
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Plaintiffs brought this action individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against the Defendant, alleging
violations of Title III of ADA and its implementing regulations,
in connection with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and
paths of travel at various public accommodations that Defendant
owns, operates, controls, and/or leases.

Ms. Emily Gellatly has a mobility disability and is limited in the
major life activity of walking. Because of this mobility
disability, she depends upon a wheelchair for mobility. Mr. Owen
Erquiaga was born with Spinal Bifida. He has a mobility disability
and is limited in the major life activity of walking, which causes
him to depend upon a wheelchair for mobility. The Plaintiffs have
visited Defendant's facilities and were denied full and equal
access as a result of Defendants' inaccessible parking lots and
paths of travel.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' experiences are not
isolated -- Defendant has systematically discriminated against
individuals with mobility disabilities by implementing policies
and practices that consistently violate the ADA's accessibility
guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at Defendant's
parking facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243


RED ROBIN: $900,000 Settlement in "Brackley" Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CASSANDRA BRACKLEY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, and DANTE BUTLER, individually,
the Plaintiffs, v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, TNC.,
RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWAN CONCEPTS, INC., RR
FAYETTEVILLE LLC, RR HALFMOON LLC, RR LATHAM LLC, RR POUGHKEEPSIE
LLC, JOHN A. SWAN, JR., an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB. (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown
entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the $900,000 settlement
      memorialized in the Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying a class for settlement purposes:

      "all individuals employed as servers in the State of New
      York by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. or Red Robin
      International Inc. or Swan Concepts, Inc., RR Fayetteville
      LLC, RR Halfmoon LLC, RR Latham LLC, RR Poughkeepsie LLC,
      and/or John A. Swan, Jr., at any time during the period
      January 20, 20 l 0 to December 31, 2016.

   3. appointing Shulman Kessler LLP and Winebrake & Santillo,
      LLC, as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the Fair Labor Standard Act settlement. The
      settlement is the product of contested litigation to
      resolve bona fide disputes; and

   5. approving the settlement and all terms set forth in the
      Settlement Agreement, and finds that the settlement is, in
      all respects, fair, adequate, reasonable, and binding on
      all members of the Settlement Class.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
awards Class Counsel $300,000.00 in attorneys' fees, which is one-
third of the Total Settlement Amount, plus $3,690.20 in costs and
expenses reasonably expended litigating and resolving the
lawsuit. The fee award is justified by Class Counsel's work
negotiating the settlement and conducting the litigation, the
ultimate recovery, and the risk that Class Counsel undertook in
bringing the claims. These amounts shall be paid from the
Qualified Settlement Fund. The Court finds reasonable the service
payments of $5,000 to Named Plaintiff and Class Representative
Cassandra Brackley, $4,000 to Named Plaintiff Dante Butler, and
$3,000 each to Opt-in Plaintiffs Kathleen Hempstead and Denise
Gersitz in recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of
the Class. This amount shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement
Fund. The Court approves the Claims Administrator's fees of no
more than $31,551. This amount shall be paid from the Qualified
Settlement Fund.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GdTVLUx6


REGISTER TAPES: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in "Hamburger"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALLEN HAMBURGER, the Plaintiff, v.
REGISTER TAPES UNLIMITED, INC., a Texas Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-05770-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary
      approval of class action settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying class for the purposes of
      settlement:

      Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of
      California Labor Code Section 2802 (Reimbursement of
      Expenses):

         "all individuals (hereafter "independent contractors")
         who were party to an independent contractor agreement
         with RTU to sell register tape advertising at any time
         from May 28, 2007 to the Effective Date and earned a
         commission from selling advertising for RTU in the State
         of California";

      Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of
      California Labor Code Section 226(e) (Penalty for Alleged
      Failure to Provide Wage Statements):

         "all independent contractors with an independent
         contractor agreement with RTU to sell register tape
         advertising at any time from May 28, 2007 to the
         Effective Date and earned a commission from selling
         advertising for RTU in the State of California; however,
         no person shall be a member of this class for any period
         in which that person was carried on RTU's payroll as an
         employee and received wages, salary, commission checks
         or advances on commissions and a W-2 from RTU for that
         year;

      Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of
      California Labor Code Section 212 (For Alleged Out-of-
      Pocket Losses and Potential Penalties Resulting from
      Payment of Commissions with Out of State Checks:

         "all independent contractors with an independent
         contractor    agreement with RTU to sell register tape
         advertising at any time from May 28, 2009 to December
         31, 2010 and earned a commission from selling
         advertising for RTU in the State of California;

      Class for Independent Contractors Who Signed an Independent
      Contractor Agreement:

         "all independent contractors who signed an independent
         contractor agreement with RTU dated at any time from May
         28, 2007 to July 31, 2016 to sell register tape
         advertising for RTU in the State of California";

   3. preliminary appointing plaintiff Allen Hamburger as class
      representative for settlement purposes;

   4. preliminarily appointing N. Sarris Law, APC as class
      counsel for settlement purposes; and

   5. directing parties to carry out the settlement and claims
      process according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The relief that will be available to the settlement class members
will come from a non-reversionary $100,000 Settlement Fund.  The
Settlement Agreement provides that class counsel "will apply to
the Court for, and RTU will not oppose, payment from the
Settlement Fund of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement
Fund in attorneys' fees and up to $16,000.00 in costs[,]" and a
$1,000 incentive payment for plaintiff for his services as class
representative.  If these fees and costs are approved, the Net
Settlement Fund, which will be used to fund the payments to
settlement class members, would be approximately $58,000.

A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for September 14, 2017,
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse, to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to
class counsel, and service award to the class representative.

Any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval
(fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or through an
attorney, to object to the settlement, including the requested
attorney's fees, costs and incentive award, shall, no later than
August 31, 2017, file with the court and serve on class counsel
and defendant a Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o5CHMveK


RICKY'S GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricky's Group, Inc.
The case is captioned as Lawrence Young, on Behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ricky's Group, Inc., Rikcy's
Management, Inc., Ricky's Web, Inc., and Ricky's Salons, Inc.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04013-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.[BN]

Ricky's Group is doing business in the miscellaneous retail stores
industry located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444 1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


RICH PRODUCTS: Must Send Class Members' Info to Ehrlich's Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew granted the Plaintiffs' consent motion
for an order permitting court supervised notice to employees in
Florida of their opt-in rights in the lawsuit styled SCOTT
EHRLICH, SALVATORE REALE, and GARY PRUSINSKI, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated in the state of Florida,
Plaintiffs v. RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-03532-
SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla.).

The Court orders that:

   (1) By June 15, 2017, Defendant Rich Products Corporation will
       produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known
       addresses and telephone numbers, and dates of employment
       of the putative class members to enable notice to be
       issued to all individual putative class members;

   (2) Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail the Revised
       Proposed Notice to the putative class members in
       accordance with the terms set forth in the Revised Notice.
       The Revised Notices must be mailed within 14 days of
       Plaintiffs' counsel receiving from Defendant the list of
       putative opt-ins; and

   (3) The Consent to Join Collective Action forms of the opt-in
       plaintiffs must be filed with the Court no later than 75
       days after the date the Revised Notices are mailed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z1Db8oyD


RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks to Certify Class of Fla. Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RANDOLPH AND TABETHA
SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), seek certification of this
Class:

     All Florida consumers who (1) have or had a residential
     mortgage loan serviced by Rushmore Loan Management Services,
     LLC, which Rushmore obtained when the loan was in default;
     (2) received a Chapter 7 discharge of their personal
     liability on the mortgage debt; and (3) were sent a mortgage
     statement dated September 11, 2013 or later, in
     substantially the same form as Mortgage Statement I and/or
     Mortgage Statement II, and was mailed to the debtor's home
     address in connection with the discharged mortgage debt.

Randolph and Tabatha Sellers file their renewed motion for
certification of the class action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, to secure redress for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Declaratory Judgment
Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representative and their attorneys as counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iv78gkle

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin Wong, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-3974
          Facsimile: (404) 885-3900
          E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          Facsimile: (757) 687-1504
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Amy L. Drushal, Esq.
          TRENAM, KEMKER, SHCARF, BARKIN, FRYE, O'NEILL
           & MULLIS, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7474
          Facsimile: (813) 229-6553
          E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com


SANTA CLARA, CA: "Estorga" Class Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT ESTORGA, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARA
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02668-
BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification.

Prior to his retirement effective June 1, 2015, Estorga was a VTA
bus driver.  He asserts that during his employment with VTA, VTA
failed to pay him and other bus drivers for two types of travel
time.  One is the "start-end" travel time, in which Estorga claims
that a bus driver would begin a shift at the "division," but would
end the shift on the street, a geographical location distant from
the "division."  The second is unpaid travel time incurred by
"mid-shift" travel, in which Estorga alleges he was required to
travel from the end of his first bus run in Gilroy to the
beginning of a second bus run starting in San Jose, for example.
Estorga claims VTA's policies violate Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") overtime requirements for "hours worked."  VTA claims
that this suit is merely a collateral attack on the judgment
entered in a separate suit, Rai v. Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, Case No. 12-cv-04344-PSG.

An overview of the Rai suit is also recounted as it will be
relevant to the Court's evaluation of Estorga's motion.  In 2012,
Beljinder Rai and other class representatives filed a class action
and collective action complaint in this District asserting
violation of FLSA and state labor laws due to VTA's failure to
compensate bus drivers for two forms of travel time.  Rai claimed
that "Start-End Travel Time," and "Split-Shift Travel Time"
required time and one-half overtime pay.  The parties in the Rai
suit proceeded through conditional certification of the collective
action, motion for class certification and fact and expert
discovery.  Following numerous settlement conferences overseen by
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, the parties came to an agreement in
which VTA agreed to pay $4.2 million and to take certain steps to
ensure compliance with applicable wage-and-hour laws.  Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 265 ("ATU") representing all bus and light
rail operators at VTA but not a party to Rai, objected to the
settlement.  On May 17, 2016, the Court found ATU's objections and
other objections to be untimely and without merit, and approved
the final class action settlement.  Plaintiff Estorga opted out of
the settlement class, along with 16 other members.  Apparently,
none of these individuals opted-in to the FLSA collective action,
either.  On May 17, 2016, Estorga filed this suit.

Now before the Court is Estorga's motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the FLSA.

Judge Freeman granted in part Estorga's motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action as to persons who are or have
been employed by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority
and perform or performed services as a bus operator who are not
members of Rai settlement class.  Such persons include VTA bus
operators who opted out of the Rai settlement class, as well as
bus operators who began their employment with the VTA after the
opt-out request deadline in the Rai case.

Judge Freeman denied in part Estorga's motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action as to persons who were members
of the Rai settlement class.

Judge Freeman further ordered the parties to meet and confer to
modify the proposed notice and consent form consistent with the
Court's ruling.  An agreed-upon notice and consent form will be
submitted to the Court for approval no later than June 30, 2017.
After submission of an agreed-upon notice and consent form, VTA
will produce a class list to Estorga's counsel within 10 days of
that submission.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/Bdfzca from Leagle.com.

Robert Estorga, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Kerl Lunch --
unch@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart Anderson Flynn & Grosboll.

Robert Estorga, Plaintiff, represented by William James Flynn --
wflynn@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn and Grosboll &
Wan Yan Ling -- wling@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart Anderson Flynn and
Grosboll.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Defendant,
represented by Arthur A. Hartinger --
ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP,
Kevin P. McLaughlin -- mclaughlin@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne
Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP & Paul D. Ahn -- paul.ahn@vta.org --
Office of the General Counsel.


SEECO INC: Fails to Convince Court to Decertify Smith Suit Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian S. Miller entered an order in the lawsuit titled
CONNIE JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas),
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM (E.D. Ark.), denying:

   -- Defendants' motion to disqualify class counsel, remove the
      class representative and decertify the class; and

   -- Defendant DeSoto Gathering Company's motion for a one-week
      continuance.

The Defendants' motion is denied because class counsel is
adequate, Connie Jean Smith is an adequate class representative,
and there is no reason this case cannot proceed as a class action,
Judge Miller stated.  Judge Miller also noted that the Plaintiff's
counsel were successful in obtaining class certification,
defending against the Defendants' well-researched summary judgment
motions, and complying when directed to perform administrative
tasks on behalf of the class.

"Frankly, class counsel's performance thus far has been nothing
short of impressive," Judge Miller wrote in the Order.

DeSoto's motion to continue trial is denied because DeSoto is
represented by other lawyers, who are capable of stepping up until
lead counsel is available, Judge Miller opined.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LykZSE6M


SEQUOIA SENIOR: Bid to Expunge Class Claim Under Plan Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of California denied Sequoia Senior
Solutions, Inc.'s motion to expunge the class claim.

Sequoia, a Chapter 11 debtor, is in the business of supplying care
giver services to elderly, disabled or infirm clients.  Prior to
its Chapter 11 filing, it was the Defendant in a class action
pending in state court.  The complaint in that action alleged that
Sequoia had a practice and policy of not paying its care-giver
employees for time designated as "sleeptime" hours in violation of
the California Labor Code, and that Sequoia failed to pay its
employees proper overtime as required by recent California law.

The Chapter 11 appears to be a direct result of the state court
action.  Sequoia listed each employee who might be a member of the
class as a creditor with a zero amount stated for the claim.  None
of the individuals filed claims, but Claim # 8 was filed as a
class claim on behalf named claimant Scott Russell and the same
putative class.

The putative class took no action in the case beyond filing the
claim until Sequoia's plan came up for confirmation.  It filed an
objection, but never filed a motion to make Rule 7023 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure applicable to its claim, nor
did it take any action to vote on the plan or to have the claim
estimated for voting purposes.  The court overruled the objection,
finding that the plan meets the requirements of law for
confirmation.  The plan provides for a fund of about $150,000 to
be shared by allowed unsecured claims.  The issue now is whether
the class claim should share in this fund or whether it should be
expunged so that the class representative is the only employee
paid anything on account of the alleged Labor Code violations.

Judge Jaroslovsky denied the motion to expunge and granted the
countermotion to apply Rule 7023, provided that such motion is
granted for the purpose of sharing in the pot created by the plan
for unsecured creditors and no other purpose.  Judge Jaroslovsky
at this time makes no ruling regarding certification of the class
or the merits of the claim, and holds only that the request to
apply Rule 7023 is timely and that the equities of the case
militate in favor of allowing the claim to be asserted on behalf
of employees if the other legal requirements can be met.

The bankruptcy case is In re SEQUOIA SENIOR SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Debtor(s), No. 16-11036, (N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/6hicro from Leagle.com.

Sequoia Senior Solutions, Inc., Debtor, represented by David N.
Chandler, Law Offices of David N. Chandler.

Office of the U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Margaret
H. McGee, Office of the United States Trustee Phillip J. Burton
Federal Building.


SIRIUS XM: Broadcasters Closely Watching Flo & Eddie Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
John M. Gatti, Esq., Robert A. Jacobs, Esq., Prana A. Topper,
Esq., and Emil Petrossian, Esq. of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP in
an article for Lexology, wrote:

Why it matters: Is there a common law exclusive right of public
performance for copyright holders of pre-1972 sound recordings?
Because such sound recordings are not covered by the federal
copyright laws, the issue becomes one of state law, and the way
that question is ultimately answered in the courts could have
serious financial ramifications to both copyright holders who own
pre-1972 sound recordings and broadcasters who "perform" them.
Both sides of the issue are closely watching a series of class
action lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 in three states, including
California and New York, by Flo & Eddie Inc. (F&E) against digital
broadcasters Sirius XM Radio Inc. (SiriusXM) and Pandora Media
Inc. (Pandora). The hefty amount that SiriusXM agreed to pay in
past and prospective royalties under the terms of a settlement
executed in California on the eve of trial in November 2016 is
subject to reduction based on the favorable outcome of the other
class action litigations. Indeed, that amount already has been
reduced once because of a resolution in SiriusXM's favor in the
New York litigation in February 2017. Read on for a recap of where
things stand in this long-running--and potentially earth-
shattering--royalties dispute.

Detailed discussion: Is there a common law exclusive right of
public performance for copyright holders of pre-1972 sound
recordings? Because federal copyright law doesn't apply to such
sound recordings, the question is one of state law. Federal and
state courts in California, New York, and Florida have been
grappling with the issue ever since F&E, a group comprised of
members of the 1960s band The Turtles, simultaneously initiated a
series of class action lawsuits in those states against SiriusXM
in September 2013 and Pandora in October 2014. The class actions,
which were filed in federal district courts, allege that digital
broadcasters SiriusXM and Pandora infringe on the exclusive public
performance rights of F&E and other similarly situated copyright
owners of pre-1972 sound recordings when they "perform"--i.e.,
digitally broadcast--the copyright owners' pre-1972 sound
recordings without licensing them. F&E claimed exclusive public
performance rights under the state copyright and misappropriation
statutes in the states where the class action litigations were
filed.

Here is a brief recap of where things currently stand with these
long-running litigations:

California: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed
its 2013 California putative class action (later certified)
against SiriusXM in the Central District of California. In
September 2014, Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled in F&E's favor,
finding on summary judgment that, under Section 980(a)(2) of
California's copyright statute, copyright ownership of a pre-1972
sound recording "includes the exclusive right to publicly perform
that recording" under California law. In November 2014, Judge
Gutierrez denied SiriusXM's motion for interlocutory appeal to the
Ninth Circuit and set the case for trial to determine damages. In
November 2016, F&E and SiriusXM settled the case on the eve of the
trial, with SiriusXM agreeing to pay almost $100 million in past
and future royalties, subject to reduction pending the outcome of
the cases on appeal in New York, Florida and California (with
respect to Pandora). The settlement amount and SiriusXM's exposure
have already been reduced once to reflect the favorable resolution
of the New York lawsuit by the Second Circuit in February 2017,
discussed below. Judge Gutierrez approved the revised class action
settlement on May 8, 2017.

California: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.: F&E filed its
putative class action against Pandora in the Central District of
California in October 2014, and the case was again assigned to
Judge Gutierrez. In February 2015, Judge Gutierrez denied
Pandora's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public
participation) motion after reiterating his earlier conclusion
that Section 980(a)(2) of the California copyright statute
provides copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an
exclusive right of public performance. Pandora appealed the denial
of its motion to the Ninth Circuit. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit determined the issue to be one of state law and certified
the following questions for the California Supreme Court to decide
under California law: (1) whether "[u]nder Section 980(a)(2) of
the California Civil Code . . . copyright owners of pre-1972 sound
recordings that were sold to the public before 1982 possess an
exclusive right of public performance," and (2) if not, whether
"California's common law of property or tort otherwise grants
copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an exclusive right
of public performance." Oral argument before the California
Supreme Court has not yet been scheduled, but as mentioned above,
the court's decision could potentially have an impact on the
amount that SiriusXM ultimately will be required to pay under its
settlement agreement with F&E.

New York: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed a
putative class action against SiriusXM in the Southern District of
New York in 2013. In November 2014, the district court ruled in
F&E's favor, finding on summary judgment that copyright owners of
pre-1972 sound recordings have the "exclusive public performance
rights" in their sound recordings under New York common law. In
February 2015, the district court granted SiriusXM's motion for
interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, which determined the
question to be one of state law and certified the issue to the New
York Court of Appeals. In December 2016, the New York Court of
Appeals answered the certified question in the negative, holding
that New York's common law of copyright does not recognize an
exclusive right of public performance for copyright holders of
pre-1972 sound recordings. Shortly thereafter, on February 16,
2017, the Second Circuit directed the district court to dismiss
F&E's lawsuit with prejudice. The amount that SiriusXM was
obligated to pay under the California settlement discussed above
was reduced to reflect this favorable outcome for SiriusXM.

Florida: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed a
putative class action against SiriusXM in the Southern District of
Florida in 2013. In July 2014, the district court ruled in
SiriusXM's favor, finding on summary judgment that Florida common
law does not recognize an exclusive right of public performance in
pre-1972 sound recordings. F&E appealed to the Eleventh Circuit,
and like the Second and Ninth circuits, the Eleventh Circuit on
June 29, 2016, certified the question to the Florida Supreme
Court. A decision by the Florida Supreme Court is pending and,
again, its decision could have an impact on the ultimate amount
SiriusXM will be required to pay under its settlement with F&E in
the California case. [GN]


SISTERS OF CHARITY: Faces "Towles" Suit over Pension Plan Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN TOWLES, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF
LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEMS, a Colorado Non-profit corporation; and
the Members of the BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE of the SCL
Health Systems Retirement Plan, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03952-SJO-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2017), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as necessary and appropriate, including
enjoining the Defendants from further violating the duties,
responsibilities, and obligations imposed on them by Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to a
pension plan.

This case is about whether Defendant properly maintains its
pension plans under the ERISA.  According to the complaint, SCL
failed to do so, erroneously contending that it is exempt from
those requirements as a "Church Plan." SCL's claim of "Church
Plan" status for its pension plans fails under both ERISA and the
First Amendment, to the detriment of its thousands of employees.

SCL operated the St. Johns Hospital in Santa Monica, California
and 8 other hospitals in the United States. SCL is the Employer
responsible for maintaining the Retirement Plans and is therefore
the Plan Sponsor within the meaning of ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey V. White, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEOFFREY V. WHITE
          21-C Orinda Way No. 324
          Orinda, CA. 94563
          Telephone: (415) 373 8279
          Facsimile: (415) 484 7692
          E-mail: gvwhite@sprynet.com


SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL: Berg Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Savaria
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL SYSTEMS,
INC., JAMES D. FERGUSON, RICHARD C. COGGINS, THOMAS F. GRADY, JR.,
DAN R. LEE, THOMAS J. SULLIVAN, THOMAS D. HENRION, LINDA D.
NORMAN, ROBERT H. DICK, TERRY ALLISON RAPPUHN, SAVARIA
CORPORATION, and SAVARIA (SC) INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-
cv-01399-MGL (D.S.C., May 26, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a Proposed Transaction, under Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 1,
2017, pursuant to which Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. will be
acquired by Savaria Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Savaria (SC) Inc. On May 1, 2017, Span-America's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Savaria
commenced a tender offer, set to expire on June 15, 2017, and
stockholders of Span-America will receive $29.00 per share in
cash. On May 17, 2017, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Solicitation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

Span-America Medical manufactures therapeutic support surfaces,
medical bed frames, patient positioners, mattress overlays and
wheelchair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sima Bhakta Patel, Esq.
          Andrew A. Mathias, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
          P. O. Drawer 10648
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Telephone: (864) 282 1163
          Facsimile: (864) 477 2631
          E-mail: spatel@nexsenpruet.com
                  amathias@nexsenpruet.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, Delaware 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


SYSTEMATIC CONTROL: Gargonnu Seeks OT wages Under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Hasani Gargonnu, the Plaintiff, v. Systematic Control Corporation,
and Neil Carbone, the Defendant, Case No. 707295/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
unpaid overtime wages and unpaid vacation time, under the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff complains under the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules
901, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly-situated
current and former employees who were employed by defendant as
manual workers, within the six-year period preceding the filing of
this action to the date of disposition of this action, that he and
they: were employed by defendant within the State of New York as
manual workers; entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for
the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3)
entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
NYLL.

Systematic Control is a family-owned-and-operated heating and air
conditioning company since 1968.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


TWO JINNS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in "Shelby"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GAYLA SHELBY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWO JINNS, INC. DBA
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS
(C.D. Cal.), the parties will move the Court on June 26 at 10:00
a.m. for final approval of the parties' class action settlement.

Specifically, Plaintiff moves for certification of a settlement
class; appointment of class counsel and class representatives;
final approval of the Parties' proposed settlement; and, approval
of the proposed plan to provide notice to the class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2MGUm6I5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert. W. Hicks, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Wright, Esq.
          ROBERT W. HICKS & ASSOCIATES
          600 West Broadway 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Web: www.rwhlaw.com


TURNCO LLC: Faces "Shepard" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN SHEPARD, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. TURNCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01678 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendant
TurnCo, LLC required Plaintiff Bryan Shepard to work more than
forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. Defendant
allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant TurnCo, LLC is an oilfield services company that
provides specialized inspection services to its clients in the oil
and gas industry.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an
inspector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Knew It Was Underpaying Drivers
--------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Fishbein, writing for Gothamist, reports that Uber
admitted to failing to account for New York's sales tax and injury
compensation fee while taking its commission from drivers, an
apparent accounting error dating back to November 2014 that cost
drivers millions of dollars. Uber has promised to pay drivers back
with interest, but according to a new report in the Times, the
company knew about the issue since at least 2015, despite claiming
they only just realized the mistake.

When Uber announced the accounting error, the company said they
discovered the violation of the terms of service agreement while
updating its contract. "We made a mistake and we are committed to
making it right by paying every driver every penny they are owed,
plus interest, as quickly as possible," Rachel Holt, regional
general manager of Uber in the U.S. and Canada, told Gothamist in
an email at the time. "We are working hard to regain driver trust,
and that means being transparent, sticking to our word, and making
the Uber experience better from end to end."

But the Times reports that a small update to Uber's contract
dating back to December 2015 suggests the company was aware that
it was wrongly taking commission on gross fares. In November 2014,
the contract read that Uber's commission would be taking on "net"
fares, i.e., those that are pretax, and that if cities "require
taxes to be imputed in the fare," like in New York, "Uber shall
calculate the service fee based on the fare net of such taxes."
Then, according to the Times, in December 2015 Uber replaced the
phrase "imputed in the fare" to "calculated on the fare," which
suggests the company was trying to clarify that they wouldn't take
commission on full fares that included tax. But even after the
tweak, the company continued to take too much commission.
The change was "very powerful circumstantial evidence that they
understood that their calculation of the commission was wrong,"
plaintiffs attorney Richard Emery told the paper. "It seems clear
that they were looking at it."

Uber declined to comment on the Times' report.

It's also noteworthy that the issue of over-calculating commission
came up in class action lawsuit filed by the Taxi Workers Alliance
last year. The TWA argued that Uber "violated" the terms of
service agreement by taking "the taxes and BCF surcharge amounts
entirely from the Driver's portion, on top of the Service Fee that
Uber states will be the only deduction from Driver-earned fares."
Uber told Gothamist they were not aware of TWA's assertion at the
time.

Meanwhile, a number of Uber drivers in New York say the
reimbursement they're being offered by the company--an average of
about $900 per driver--is inadequate, and Gizmodo reported earlier
that some drivers think Uber's trying to distract them from
pursuing claims in a class action lawsuit from last year, which
asserted that Uber took sales tax from drivers' fares instead of
from riders.

"They are trying to cop to the cheaper fix rather than admitting
the larger problem with taking out the sales tax from driver's pay
when they should have been assessing it on top of the fare,"
driver Tim Cavaretta, who is named in the suit, told Gizmodo. "I
think they thought they could get away with it. Now that they know
they are clearly caught on that count, they are trying to appease
drivers with that and hope we don't stick it to them on the larger
issue." [GN]


UNION PACIFIC: Landowners Appeal Right-of-Way Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Martin Wells, Susan Wells and Sandra L. Hinshaw filed
an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled
Martin Wells, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00718-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Martin Wells, et al. v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 17-80098, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order certifying a class and a
sub-class of landowners, who own or have owned land in fee
adjoining and underlying the railroad right-of-way granted under
the Land Grants, or through condemnation, under which the pipeline
is located within the State of California.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, MARTIN WELLS; SUSAN WELLS, as Trustrees of
the Martin and Susan Wells Revocable Trust; and SANDRA L. HINSHAW,
as Trustee of the Sandra L. Hinshaw Living Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: stewart@swm.legal

Defendant-Respondent UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to
Southern Pacific Transportation Company, is represented by:

          Joe Rebein, Esq.
          John K. Sherk, III, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jrebein@shb.com
                  jsherk@shb.com

               - and -

          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com

Defendants-Respondents SFPP, L.P., formerly known as Santa Fe
Pacific Pipelines, Inc.; KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D"; and
KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC., are represented by:

          M. Ray Hartman, III, Esq.
          Catherine O'Connor, Esq.
          Steven Marc Strauss, Esq.
          Summer Jerre Wynn, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6453
          E-mail: rhartman@cooley.com
                  coconnor@cooley.com
                  sms@cooley.com
                  swynn@cooley.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Amgen Suit in District of Columbus
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Health and Human Services. The case is captioned as
AMGEN INC., the Plaintiff, v. THOMAS E. PRICE, In his official
capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and
Human Services, and SCOTT GOTTLIEB, M.D., in his official capacity
as Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01006-RDM (D.C., May 25, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss.[BN]

The United States Department of Health and Human Services, also
known as the Health Department, is a cabinet-level department of
the U.S. federal government.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine Emily Stetson, Esq.
          Susan Margaret Cook, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1109
          Telephone: (202) 637 5491
          Facsimile: (202) 637 5910
          E-mail: cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com
                  susan.cook@hoganlovells.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles John Biro, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          450 Fifth Street, NW, Room 6509
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 307 0089
          E-mail: charles.biro@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kotlyar Sues Over Unauthorized Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LENA KOTLYAR, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2017-CH-07571 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 26, 2017), seeks
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized telephone
calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice and an award of
actual and statutory damages to the class members, together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, in an effort to collect unpaid bills
for medical services, Medical Center, a regional healthcare
provider, violated federal law by making unauthorized telephone
calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice (robocalls) to the
telephones of individuals throughout the country. By effectuating
these unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has violated the called
parties' statutory and privacy rights and has caused the call
recipients actual harm, not only because the called parties were
subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that
necessarily accompanies unsolicited automated calls- particularly
calls using a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice - but also
because the called parties, like Plaintiff, must frequently
pay for the calls they receive or incur a usage allocation
deduction from their calling plans, notwithstanding that the calls
were made in violation of specific legislation on the subject.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 6060 1
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman claims the University of Chicago Medical Center called her
on her cell phone to collect a debt she didn't owe, alleging in a
new class action lawsuit that the hospital owes her money, as well
as potentially thousands of others who received the allegedly
improper debt collection robocalls.

On May 26, plaintiff Lena Kotlyar, identified in court documents
only as an Illinois resident, filed her putative class action suit
in Cook County Circuit Court against the University of Chicago
hospital group.

Kotlyar is represented in the action by attorneys Evan M. Meyers,
Esq.,  Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. and William P. Kingston, Esq. --
info@mcgpc.com -- of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago.

According to the complaint,  Kotlyar received a call on her mobile
phone in April from the University of Chicago Medical Center,
asking her to call them back at a phone number listed in the
complaint as 844-843-3594. Kotlyar alleged the call was in
reference to "an apparent effort to collect on a debt owed by a
prior patient."

"Plaintiff is not now, nor ever has been, a patient of Defendant
(University of Chicago Medical Center), nor has she ever had any
other relationship with Defendant," the complaint said.

Kotlyar alleged she then received several more calls over the
weeks that followed from the University of Chicago hospital
organization, which she alleged were "numerous additional
misdirected calls on her cellular telephone . . . that featured an
artificial or prerecorded voice in an apparent effort to collect a
debt owed by a delinquent patient of Defendant."

Kotlyar said the calls came despite her "repeated" attempts to
inform the University of Chicago Medical Center "that the phone
number that Defendant had been calling did not belong to one of
Defendant's patients and that Defendant did not have permission to
call that number."

"However, Plaintiff's complaints were repeatedly ignored by
Defendant and Defendant's unauthorized robocalls continued
unabated," the complaint said.

The lawsuit alleges the University of Chicago Medical Center "as
an ordinary business practice" collects phone numbers from its
patients, partially to use to "collect on unpaid accounts" through
calls placed "through a predictive dialer featuring a prerecorded
or artificial voice."

However, the complaint asserts the hospital "spurns procedures
necessary to confirm that the telephone numbers to which Defendant
places robocalls actually belong to the persons who supposedly
provided them," resulting in improper calls placed to people who
were never patients and owe the hospital no debt.

The complaint alleges these calls were placed in violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In her complaint, Kotlyar alleged this has likely happened to
"hundreds, if not thousands" of others.

She has asked the court to expand the lawsuit to include many of
those others in additional classes of plaintiffs. Specifically,
Kotlyar asked the court to agree to create two classes, including
everyone in the U.S. who, in the last four years, received
misplaced robocalls from the University of Chicago Medical Center,
and those who, in the last four years, told the hospital they no
longer wished to receive those calls.

The lawsuit asks the court to order the hospital to stop making
the calls, and pay the plaintiffs $500-$1,500 for each call
wrongly placed, as can be allowed under the TCPA, plus attorney
fees.

Cook County Case No. 2017-CH-07571 [GN]


VENTURE DATA: Court Certifies Class in "Mey" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. VENTURE DATA, LLC and PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00123-JPB-JES (N.D.W.Va.), the Hon.
Judge Preston Bailey entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons in the United States to whom, on June 11,
      August 19, or September 9, 2014, Venture Data placed a call
      on his or her cellular telephone line, using the Pro-T-S or
      CFMC dialer, and as part of a Public Opinion Strategies
      survey";

   2. denying Defendant Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion
      to exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report and Testimony;

   3. granting Defendant Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion
      for Leave to File Surreply; and

   4. denying as moot Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion to
      exclude Plaintiff's new and untimely Expert Declaration.

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


WESTAUB II: Faces "Munguia" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO MUNGUIA and JUAN ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. WESTAUB II LLC d/b/a LE
COQ RICO, ANTOINE WESTERMANN and FRANCIS STAUB, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04180 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendants paid Plaintiffs at hourly rates below the prevailing
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are employed as cooks, dishwashers,
hosts/hostesses, bartenders, barbacks, servers, runners, and
bussers, employed by Defendants at the Le Coq Rico Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


YAZAKI NORTH: Court Dismisses OPPA Claims in "Sutka" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul D. Borman of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the
Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the case captioned TODD
SUTKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-
10669 (E.D. Mich.).

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Sutka alleges that his
employer, the Defendant, misclassified him and other employees in
similar positions as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and consequently failed to pay them
overtime compensation to which they were entitled.  The Plaintiff
seeks unpaid wages under the FLSA, as well as liquidated damages
for late payment of wages under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA").

Before the Court is the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.  It
seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's OPPA claim only, citing
language in the statute that limits recovery of liquidated damages
to cases involving unpaid wages that are not in dispute.
Accordingly, the issue presented is largely one of statutory
interpretation.  The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 26,
2017.  Because the Court finds that the Defendant's interpretation
is supported by the case law interpreting the relevant statutory
text, the Court granted the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/BQDnsk from Leagle.com.

Todd Sutka, Plaintiff, represented by Robert W. Cowan, Bailey
Peavy Bailey PLLC.

Todd Sutka, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Goodman.

Yazaki North America Inc., Defendant, represented by Allan S.
Rubin -- RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Paul
Anthony Caligiuri -- Paul.Caligiuri@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C..


ZB N.A.: Faces "Evans" Suit Over IMG Fraudulent Investment Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD C. EVANS, an individual; JOAN M. EVANS, an individual;
DENNIS TREADAWAY, an individual; and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ZB, N.A., a national banking
association, dba California Bank & Trust, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01123-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover
special and consequential damages, treble damages, exemplary
and/or punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Penal Code.

This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of more
than 50 people against defendant ZB, N.A., for knowingly providing
substantial assistance to a $125 million fraudulent scheme
initiated by International Manufacturing Group, Inc. The agent
acting on behalf of IMG was Deepal Wannakuwatte.

IMG and Wannakuwatte have each filed for bankruptcy so the
automatic stay prevents claims from being prosecuted against them
in the District Court.

According to the complaint, CB&T's knowing assistance included
making millions of dollars in loans to IMG, which enabled the
fraudulent scheme to grow and caused innocent investors, including
the class members, to entrust their money to IMG. No later than
October 2009, CB&T discovered IMG was operating a fraud on
investors and could not repay the loans issued to IMG by CB&T.
CB&T discovered that IMG had been misrepresenting to its investors
that it had a legitimate wholesale import business in which it
purchased actual product. IMG, however, was not actually in the
business of purchasing actual product. IMG had no income from its
purported wholesale import business. CB&T had actual knowledge
that IMG had no income from its purported wholesale import
business. Instead of terminating the banking relationship and
taking an underwriting loss on the debt owed to CB&T by IMG, CB&T
conspired with IMG, and substantially assisted IMG, taking
affirmative actions to ensure that the scheme to lull additional
investors based on the fraud survived long enough for CB&T to be
repaid its principal, and to make over $2.5 million in profit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Brace, Esq.
          1807 Santa Barbara Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 845 8211
          E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer

               - and -

          Michael P. Denver, Esq.
          HOLLISTER & BRACE
          1126 Santa Barbara Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963 6711
          Facsimile: (805) 965 0329
          E-mail: mpdenver@hbsb.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          Aaron L. Arndt, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962 9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962 0722
          E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com
                  aarndt@foleybezek.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
class action complaint was filed against Zoompass Holdings, Inc.
(Other OTC: ZPAS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Zoompass securities between April 24, 2017 and May 24, 2017 for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
Zoompass' officers and directors. Zoompass develops a mobile money
platform that enables brands to transform their financial
interactions with customers.

According to the complaint, Zoompass represented in its filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company
"did not have any promoters at any time during the past five
fiscal years." Zoompass' share price had increased significantly
in previous months; yet, the company's press releases lacked
justification for the sharp surge in growth. The complaint alleges
that the company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") was deeply
involved in a pump-and-dump scheme fueled by a nearly $2 million
stock promotion campaign, which was the true reason for the rise
in the company's stock price. On May 9, 2017, Zoompass disclosed
that the OTC Markets Group, Inc. requested Zoompass to "comment on
recent trading and potential promotional activity." On this news,
Zoompass' stock fell $1.67 per share, or over 45%. Seeking Alpha
released an article on May 25, 2017, suggesting that Zoompass' CEO
was directing another fraudulent scheme in a similarly ill-fated
company. On this news, shares of Zoompass fell over $0.70 per
share, or over 23%, to close at $2.25 per share on May 25, 2017.

Zoompass Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.

Leonid Kandinov
Robbins Arroyo LLP
Tel No: (619) 525-3990
E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com
[GN]


ZUFFA LLC: Must Produce Disputed Docs in UFC Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CUNG LE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZUFFA, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Challenge Work Product Designation.

The case is a civil antitrust action under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act for treble damages and other relief arising out of
allegations of Zuffa's anti-competitive scheme to maintain and
enhance a monopoly power in the market for promotion of live elite
professional Mixed Martial Arts fighter bouts and monopsony power
of the market for live elite professional MMA fighter services.
The named Plaintiffs bring suit against Zuffa, operating under the
trademark Ultimate Fighting Championship or "UFC".

They claim that the UFC has engaged in an illegal scheme to
eliminate competition from would-be MMA promoters by
systematically preventing them from gaining access to resources
critical to successful MMA promotions, including by imposing
extreme restrictions on UFC fighters' ability to fight for would-
be rivals during and after their tenure with the UFC.  The amended
complaint claims that as part of its scheme, UFC controls not only
fighter careers, but also takes and expropriates the rights to
their names and likeliness in perpetuity.  As a result of this
conduct, UFC fighters are paid a fraction of what they would earn
in a competitive marketplace.

In the current motion, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's
designation of three documents produced in discovery in this case
as covered by the work product privilege.  Zuffa Bates-stamped and
produced the three documents at issue in response to the
Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Document No. 23 seeking
documents analyzing the effect of contractual terms on fighter
compensation or on Zuffa's strategies, revenues and profitability.
However, it subsequently sought to claw back the documents
asserting they are entitled to work product protection.

The three documents at issue involve a proposal by a third-party
human resources consultant, Mercer (U.S.) Inc. to produce a
fighter pay assessment, the stated objective of which was to guide
future compensation and benefits program design, including fighter
pay (base and incentives) and benefit levels.

The first document is a memorandum by Cathy Shepard, a non-
attorney employee of Mercer, dated Sept. 27, 2013.  It seeks
documents and information that Mercer intended to use to develop a
"fighter pay assessment" for Zuffa and specifies the documents
requested.  The second document challenged is an email Bates-
stamped ZFL-1824835.  The Mercer (Shepard) memo was attached to
this document which consists of an email chain between Mr.
Hendrick and Mr. Campbell between September 30th and October 1st,
2013, to schedule a call "with some outside consultants."  The
third document is a Mercer presentation Bates-stamped ZFL-0557588.
It is a draft presentation entitled "Fighter Pay/Project Update
and Methodology Discussion" dated March 18, 2014.

Magistrate Leen granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Challenge Work
Product Designation and ordered Zuffa to produce the three
disputed documents.  Zuffa is also directed to produce all
documents containing the facts and non-opinion work product on
which Mercer relied on in conducting its proposed study, and any
documents containing or disclosing Mercer's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations in connection with its proposed fighter pay
program review and design/fighter pay assessment study.  The
parties' Motions to Seal related to the motion are granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/AeeWUs from Leagle.com.

Kyle Kingsbury, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown
-- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Kyle Kingsbury, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott
Schrager -- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro,
Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H. Silverman --
dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro
hac vice, Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz -- fredschwartzlaw.com -
- Law Office of Frederick S.

Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac
vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill --
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro
hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden --
pmadden@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard
A. Koffman -- rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell -- jelwell@warnerangle.com -- Warner
Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler -- mweiler@saverilawfirm.com -- The Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., pro hac vice & Robert Maysey -- rmaysey@warnerangle.com --
Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice.

Mac Danzig, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector --
espector@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro
hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac
vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
pro hac vice, William Caldes -- bcaldes@srkw-law.com -- Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael
C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net.

Dennis Lloyd Hallman, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones
Lovelock, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew
Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice &
Michael C. Dell'Angelo.

Gabe Ruediger, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector,
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice,
William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac
vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew
Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice &
Michael C. Dell'Angelo.

Pablo Garza, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S.
Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro
hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Patrick F. Madden, Berger &
Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle
Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C.
Dell'Angelo & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Brandon Vera, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H.
Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S.
Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro
hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Patrick F. Madden, Berger &
Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle
Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C.
Dell'Angelo & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Darren Uyenoyama, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, William
Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Michael C.
Dell'Angelo.

Luis Javier Vazquez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley
Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel
H. Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S.
Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro
hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo,
Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard
A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
pro hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Cung Le, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H.
Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S.
Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro
hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner
Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C.
Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac
vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Zuffa, LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Dennis --
adennis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice,
Brent K. Nakamura -- bnakamura@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Donald J. Campbell, Campbell & Williams, Evan Edmund
North, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Marcy N.
Lynch, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas A.
Widnell, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Rory L.
Skaggs, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ross P. McSweeney --
rmcsweeney@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stacey K.
Grigsby -- sgrigsby@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
pro hac vice, J. Colby Williams, Campbell & Williams, Richard J.
Pocker, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Steven Holtzman --
sholtzman@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, pro hac
vice, Suzanne Jaffe Nero -- snero@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice & William A. Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac
vice.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Recuses Himself in "Standridge"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, issued an order, finding
himself disqualified in the case captioned ROY STANDRIDGE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-03183-MMC (N.D. Calif.), recusing himself from the case and
asked that the case be reassigned pursuant to the provisions of
the Assignment Plan.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 7, 2017, is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ycy8ssukfrom Leagle.com.

Roy Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
Esq. -- mhite@levinsimes.com -- LEVIN SIMES LLP.

Roy Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon S. Patel, Esq. -
- spatel@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP & William A. Levin,
Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP.

Cynthia Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon S. Patel,
Levin Simes LLP & William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, Esq. -
- michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward
Soskin, Esq. -- peter.soskin@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. FKA Atwood & Morrill, Defendant,
represented by Emily Diane Bergstrom, Esq. --
ebergstrom@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Canon Troy
Young, Esq. -- cyoung@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer
& Mark S. Kannett, Esq. -- mkannett@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett
& Schweitzer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Dropped as Defendant in "Roper"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, approved a stipulation
between Plaintiff William Roper and Carol Roper, individually and
as a marital community, and Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., that
all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.,
may be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, reserving to
Plaintiffs their claims against all other parties.

The case is 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.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 6, 2017, is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yc6rewr9from 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.

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, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Seal Papers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, affirmed the order denying J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s
motion to seal material in the court file of the settled wrongful
death case filed by the widow and children of William Paulus, who
died as a result of mesothelioma.

According to the Court of Appeals, during litigation, plaintiffs'
counsel filed memorandum papers, which attached portions of the
record from other litigation, including a memorandum from J-MM's
house counsel to an executive of that firm discussing the risk-
benefit exposure of the firm with respect to its product
containing asbestos.  The document was clearly labeled as
confidential under the attorney-client privilege.  No objection
was raised at that time with respect to the attorney-client
privilege.  Shortly after the trial court denied summary
adjudication motion, counsel for J-MM moved to seal the papers and
references to the other litigation.

The Court of Appeals finds no abuse of discretion in the trial
court's ruling denying J-MM's motion to seal the materials.  The
Court of Appeals points out that the parties in this case agree
that the materials were not cited in the moving or opposition
papers on the summary judgment motion.  While the documents were
not sealed, they were also not admissible over attorney-client
objection, the Court of Appeals held.

The appeals case is ELAINE MARGIE PAULUS et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant and
Appellant, No. B269904 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated June 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/ybxm734gfrom Leagle.com.

Manion Gaynor & Manning, John T. Hugo, Carrie Lin and Abigal P.
Adams for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for
Defendant and Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Graham Testimony in "Sweredoski"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rosie K. Sweredoski filed the instant Motion in Limine
to Preclude the Testimony of Defendant Crane Co.'s Expert Witness,
Dr. Michael Graham. The Plaintiff argues that Dr. Graham is not
qualified to provide expert testimony regarding the causation of
asbestos-related diseases and that, under Rhode Island Rule of
Evidence 702, the Court should preclude the witness from
testifying to matters outside the scope of his expertise.  The
Defendant contends that Dr. Graham is a qualified pathologist with
relevant experience in matters of asbestos-related diseases and
causation.  The Defendant maintains that the Court should not
preclude Dr. Graham's testimony under Rule 702 or, in the
alternative, should withhold ruling until trial when the expert
witness can provide his qualifications to the Court.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, finds that Dr.
Graham is sufficiently qualified and skilled in order to testify
to issues of causation and/or asbestos-related illnesses under
Rhode Island's Rule 702.  Furthermore, the anticipated subject of
Dr. Graham's testimony is relevant, within his area of expertise,
and -- since he has reviewed Mr. Sweredoski's case -- is based on
an adequate factual foundation.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine to preclude the testimony of expert witness Dr.
Graham is denied.

The case is ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and Individually Recognized as
Surviving Spouse, Plaintiff, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. PC-2011-1544 (R.I. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated June 9, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/JCHhFV from Leagle.com.

Robert J. Sweeney, Esq.; Donni E. Young, Esq., For Plaintiff.

David A. Goldman, Esq.; Kendra A. Bergeron, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review $3.6MM Verdict Toss
--------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 12 declined to hear an appeal in a series of Florida
state court decisions overturning a $3.6 million jury verdict over
alleged asbestos exposure on a Carnival Corp. cruise ship.

The high court denied a writ of centauri to the widow of deceased
Italian shipboard electrician Benedetto Emanuele Caraffa in her
attempt to overrule the findings of state trial and appeals judges
that there was not enough evidence of asbestos exposure to justify
the jury's verdict.

Caraffa, who spent 15 years working as an electrician on cruise
ships, was diagnosed with stage 5 squamous cell carcinoma in his
lungs in March 2001. A former chief engineer for the cruise line
testified at trial that he believed there was asbestos on the
ships based on what he was taught in nautical school -- that
asbestos was the most common insulator used in engine rooms and
machine spaces, where Caraffa worked.

Caraffa's widow sought more than $10 million in the suit. After a
nine-day trial in December 2014, a jury awarded her $10 million
for pain and suffering, $192,000 in damages and $128,000 in lost
earnings. The jurors found that Caraffa, a smoker who quit 20
years before his diagnosis, was 65 percent at fault for his death,
reducing the award to $3.6 million.

Two months later, Judge Jacqueline Hogan Scola granted Carnival's
motion for a directed verdict, saying there was insufficient proof
of asbestos exposure and she should not have allowed the case to
go to a jury.

On appeal Caraffa argued doctors had found asbestos in Caraffa's
lungs and that a witness said Caraffa could have been exposed to
asbestos in the workplace, while Carnival claimed the amount of
asbestos found in his lungs was not enough to cause asbestosis and
that the witness in question -- who did not know where Caraffa
worked or what his responsibilities were -- could only say there
was a possibility of exposure.

Florida's Third District Court of Appeal shot down the appeal in a
one-paragraph opinion in October.

Counsel for Caraffa and Carnival did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Caraffa is represented by:

     Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
     Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman PA
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
     2 South Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131
     Toll-Free: (877) 233-1238
     Telephone: (305) 373-3016
     Fax: (305) 373-6204

Carnival is represented Catherine E. Stetson, Esq. --
cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The case is Giovanna Settimi Caraffa v. Carnival Corp., case
number 16-1074 in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Florida appellate case is Giovanna Settimi Caraffa v. Carnival
Corp., case number 3D15-356, in the Third District Court of Appeal
of Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Withholds Oroville Asbestos Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee reported that in the latest skirmish over
transparency at the troubled Oroville Dam, a Northern California
activist group has sued state officials alleging they're illegally
withholding information about potentially toxic asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Worker Says CSX Liable for Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a maintenance worker is suing a railway company, alleging
that its negligence surrounding employees' asbestos exposure led
to his cancer diagnosis.

Timothy Latimer filed a complaint on May 5 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against CSX Transportation Company alleging
violation of the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, between
1976 and 1988, while employed with defendant, plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos and other toxic substances which caused him to
develop bladder cancer and/or prostate cancer with diagnosis in
2016. As a result, Latimer claims he suffered great pain, loss of
enjoyment of life, mental anguish and medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds CSX responsible because the defendant
allegedly failed to provide employees a reasonably safe place to
work, failed to warn Latimer of the true nature and hazardous
effects of the asbestos and failed to conduct adequate, if any,
industrial hygiene, epidemiological or medical studies related to
asbestos and its effect on employees.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in an
amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs of suit and other further
relief as the court may deem just and proper. He is represented by
William P. Gavin and Catherine E. Gavin of Gavin Law Firm and Ryan
Brennan of The Brennan Law Firm PC, both of Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-249


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sprayers Face Higher Mesothelioma Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for survivingmesothelioma.com, reported that
workers whose job it was to apply spray-on asbestos insulation may
be at even higher risk for lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma
than other types of asbestos workers.

A Finnish study of four different groups of asbestos workers found
that asbestos sprayers had a standardized incidence ratio (SIR)
for malignant mesothelioma as much as 100 times that of the
general population.

The Danger of Spray-On Asbestos

For decades, asbestos was prized for its strength and heat
resistance and was a popular component of spray-on insulation.

Before new asbestos regulations were put into place in the early
1980s, spray-on insulation could contain up to 50 percent
asbestos. Lightweight and inexpensive, sprayed asbestos was
considered one of the most efficient fireproofing materials for
coating beams, girders and other structural elements.

Today, asbestos is recognized worldwide as a toxin and the primary
cause of mesothelioma. Scientists now know that most people who
contract pleural mesothelioma have inadvertently inhaled
microscopic asbestos fibers such as those released into the air
when asbestos spray is applied.

The fibers stay in the body, triggering chronic irritation and
inflammation that can cause healthy cells to become cancerous.

Measuring Mesothelioma Incidence

To measure the incidence of mesothelioma among various types of
asbestos workers, scientists with the Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health used data from the Finnish Cancer Registry
through 2012.

They focused on four different groups of asbestos workers -- those
who worked in asbestos mines, patients with a lung-scarring
disease called asbestosis, asbestos sprayers, and a group of
workers who had already take part in a screening study of asbestos
exposure at work.

The team measured how common it was for members of each group to
receive either a mesothelioma diagnosis or a diagnosis of lung
cancer.

"The SIR for mesothelioma varied from about threefold to greater
than 100 fold in the different cohorts," writes study author Pia
Nynas in Safety and Health at Work. "Asbestos sprayers were at the
highest risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer."

But the other cohorts included in the study were not unaffected by
their asbestos work. According to the report, every group had a
high SIR for mesothelioma. Those in the screening group, who had
the lowest level of asbestos exposure, also had the lowest
incidence of mesothelioma, which, say the authors, "might suggest
dose-responsiveness between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma."

Source: Nynas, P, et al, "Cancer Incidence in Asbestos-Exposed
Workers: An Update on Four Finnish Cohorts", June 2017, Safety and
Health at Work, pp. 169-174


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Research Group Spreads Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Research Group announced that new information
concerning asbestos have been released.  The findings raise the
probability that more individuals are at risk for asbestos
exposure due to resurgence and secondhand exposure. The company is
not only bringing awareness to the facts but offering
representation to victims as well.

"We have been fighting for victims of asbestos exposure for 20
years," stated a company representative.  "We help people with
mesothelioma and other conditions caused by asbestos exposure by
educating, answering questions and representing them as well."

Asbestos is a mineral, naturally occurring, which was once hailed
as being near magical.  It was heat resistant and held insulating
properties as well, making it perfect for construction of fire-
proof vests, construction materials and a myriad of other
products.  It was used in homes, mixed with cement and even woven
into fabric.  It was so coveted, the military employed its use in
every service branch.

The problem emerged when it was realized that asbestos exposure
was dangerous and deadly.  The culprit of such illnesses as
mesothelioma (a type of cancer), asbestos was banned in over 50
countries, excluding the United States although its use has been
reduced.

For decades, those who suffer from asbestos exposure related
medical conditions, as well as their families, have had to fight
to be treated and compensated.  It's been a rough road that the
Asbestos Research Group has helped pioneer and plow through.  But
the new findings are troubling, according to a spokesperson for
the company.

"It's doubtful that anyone will come knocking on doors to let
people know of the new findings and the television news is too
busy with other reports to take time out to notify the public so
it's up to organizations like ours to spread the word that there
are reasons to believe asbestos exposure may affect many more than
previously thought.  And it's also our job to let them know there
is hope . . . and there is help."

The resurfacing of asbestos in the southern United States like
Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, has served as a wake-up call
for reassessing the dangers of asbestos exposure.  Once thought to
be a problem of the past, new research is proving that
occupational exposure, especially in the southern states, is a
present danger that needs to be addressed.  New findings are also
coming to light that secondhand asbestos exposure is a much larger
concern than it was thought to be in years gone by.

Those who have been exposed to asbestos through their job
occupation or any other means, those who have been around those
who have been exposed, and those who have been diagnosed with
mesothelioma may be entitled to clinical trials and other
programs.  They may also be eligible for compensation by the
responsible companies.  It is important to be aware of these
rights and the resources available through a knowledgeable channel
such as the Asbestos Research Group.

For those who have been affected by asbestos exposure or even
suspect that they may have been through occupational sources,
secondhand contact or any other means, more information concerning
asbestos exposure can be found on the company website.

Media Contact:
Company Name: Asbestos Research Group
Contact Person: Kenneth Soh
Email: contact@asbestosresearchgroup.com
Phone: 1 877-296-6086
Country: United States
Website: http://www.asbestosresearchgroup.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Going to Prison for Faulty Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Hall, writing for CantonRep.com, reported that a
contractor has been ordered to spend nearly two years in prison
and repay nearly $900,000 for failure to properly handle and
dispose of asbestos during a cleanup of the former Stark Ceramics
property on the eastern edge of Canton.

Russell Stewart, operator of the Chardon-based demolition company
that had the contract to clean the site, got a 21-month prison
term.

The sentence was handed down on June 13 in U.S. District Court in
Youngstown after Stewart, 48, previously pleaded guilty to
improper asbestos demolition and failure to timely dispose of
waste. Stewart also was ordered by the court to pay $876,228 in
restitution.

The court case stems from the improper manner Stewart, through his
company Chemstruction, handled the asbestos waste in the former
Stark Ceramics plant at 600 W. Church St. The plant is close to
East Canton and is within a 851.55-acre annexation the city of
Canton took in land from Osnaburg and Canton townships in 2007.

Stewart, who had a contract with Stark Ceramics to demolish the
complex, failed to remove asbestos, in violation of environmental
and industry standards.

Asbestos is a potential health threat if it becomes airborne or is
washed off the property during a rainfall. Stewart's demolition
project at the Stark Ceramics complex went from November 2011
through January 2013. An inspection at the site in 2012 revealed
asbestos remained in some crushed panels. Another survey showed
asbestos was present throughout the site, according to a statement
from the U.S. Attorney's office in Cleveland.

As a result of Stewart's failure to properly abate the asbestos,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came in and conducted a
cleanup at a cost of about $800,000, according to the statement
from the U.S. Attorney's office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother Finds Health Hazard in Drywall Compound
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Vaughters, writing for WIVB.com, reported that an Amherst
mother of three learned a hard lesson during a home repair
project, when asbestos was discovered in some of the building
material used in her pre-1980 house. Asbestos is a well-known
health hazard that can cause serious illness.

Until about 50 years ago, asbestos was considered a miracle fiber-
as a fire retardant, superior heat insulation, and it resists
chemical stains, so it was used just about everywhere for safety
purposes.

Then in the 1970's scientists discovered it can cause lung cancer
and other chronic respiratory ailments, and although the
government has curtailed the use of asbestos in most residential
settings, it is still in older buildings, houses, even in the
joint compound used to smooth drywall seams.

"Annie", the name we will use for the Amherst mother who requested
anonymity, was forced to stay in a hotel with her family, when a
simple plumbing repair turned up the asbestos in the old joint
compound.

"It was very scary, knowing that I could not be in the house,"
recalled Annie after an asbestos abatement company removed the
hazardous material from the affected area of her home, where a
pipe had burst.

Because Annie's house was built before 1980, the contractor that
was hired to do the repairs, also brought in an environmental lab
that discovered the asbestos, "They took samples of the walls, the
ceiling--any drywall--and it subsequently came back positive for
asbestos in what they call drywall tape."

Older homes might also have asbestos in the insulation lining the
outer walls, covering the hot water pipes, and in the floor and
ceiling tiles, said Jeffrey Haynes, president of Fibertech
Environmental Services.

"Since it is resistant to heat, it is impermeable to chemicals,
and they found it good in fireproofing which is why it is in so
many different products, including the spray on fireproofing."

Haynes suggested do-it-yourselfers have to assume the old joint
compound does contain asbestos, unless it is a newer build, and
handymen should always use a mask--preferably with a respirator--
since asbestos fibers are microscopic.

"You always wear a mask, but you monitor the workers to make sure
they are having a sufficient protection level. So, for example, a
half face respirator, you make sure that is sufficient for them."

Those asbestos dangers might put a damper on some do-it-yourself
projects involving drywall. Haynes added, the more reputable home
improvement contractors will hire a testing firm to check for
asbestos and lead paint, which protects their workers, and the
homeowners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Suggests Reducing Risks on Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
PBC Today reports that more awareness needs to be raised about the
hazards associated with asbestos exposure in soil on developed
land in the UK says Neil Munro, director of Acorn Analytical
Services.

Neil claimed he is commonly seeing cases where asbestos is only
being detected during subsequent groundworks or after the
redevelopment of brownfield sites and believes that this is a
cause for concern and needs attention.

He said: "Existing and historical asbestos Approved Codes of
Practices (ACoPs) and guidance materials have primarily focused on
the risk of asbestos in buildings. Until recently, there hasn't
been any specifically focused guidance relating to asbestos in
soils which has led to a general lack of knowledge of the risks in
this area.

"Asbestos may be present in any building constructed up until the
year 2000. With previously developed land or so-called
'brownfield' sites, asbestos may have become entrained in soil due
to historical demolition activities, where asbestos had not been
fully removed from site structures before demolition.

"With the government introducing incentives for the redevelopment
of brownfield sites, the amount of sites being worked on -- and
the risk of asbestos exposure -- is only increasing.

"Identifying asbestos in soil late in the process of developing a
site may lead to delays and expensive retrospective remediation.
However, more importantly, the uncontrolled release of fibre
caused by groundwork machinery could lead to contamination of
workers and the surrounding areas."

According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive, around
5,000 people die from asbestos-related diseases every year and
Neil believes that raising awareness of the hazards associated
with asbestos exposure in soils now will help protect those
exposed to asbestos.

Neil is calling for more safety protocols, including expert
training to be put in place by developers to reduce risks across
all sites.

He said: "Training and competence are vital to ensuring that
asbestos in soils is effectively dealt with and managed
accordingly. Awareness training for those planning projects as
well as those on the ground should be undertaken by all parties,
while pre-project desktop reviews and full site surveys should be
the first port of call.

"I'd also like to see robust working practices established to
efficiently deal with any remediation involved, and effective
post-completion record keeping for works completed and planning
for any remaining asbestos issue on site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fear for 87 Gourock Homes
---------------------------------------------------
Eric Baxter, writing for Greenock Telegraph, reported that shocked
residents at a Gourock high rise have hit out after discovering
their homes could contain potentially deadly asbestos.

People living in Eastern View -- where old heating systems are to
be ripped out and replaced at a cost of GBP4m -- have slammed
bosses at River Clyde Homes (RCH) after learning that asbestos
insulation boards are located behind boilers in their homes.

The Tele understands concerns have been raised that some people
had put coat hook screws into the boards -- possibly many years
ago -- potentially disturbing and releasing asbestos.

Three of the 87 flats have had their boiler cupboards sealed to
prevent access -- and all residents have been told NOT to go into
the cupboards.

They have been advised that, if they want to adjust their heating
controls, they must phone RCH's heating number, and an engineer
will be sent out to do it.

Hamish MacLeod, secretary of the Eastern View Tenants' and
Residents' Association, described the situation as 'ludicrous'.

Mr MacLeod said: "We were told that RCH was going to 'encapsulate'
the boards with some sort of plastic paint, but this has been done
in only three flats, and now we believe they want to take out all
the boilers.

"We have many vulnerable, elderly people in this block and some
with medical conditions, and this is no way to treat them."

Mr MacLeod says RCH have said air tests have shown no asbestos has
escaped, but he pointed out that some people were still going into
their cupboards to adjust boilers.

He added: "It's understandable that people don't want the hassle
of having to wait for an engineer every time they want to adjust
their heating, but are they putting themselves in danger by going
into the cupboards?"

Officials from RCH are due to meet residents at the town's Gamble
Halls this afternoon to answer questions in a bid to allay their
fears.

Gary Wilson, executive director of property, said: "The proposed
works to upgrade the heating system at Eastern View are part of a
GBP20m initiative to help reduce fuel poverty in Inverclyde.

"Outdated and uneconomical heating systems will be replaced with
modern, energy-efficient local heating systems that will result in
warmer homes and reduced fuel bills for tenants, while ensuring
homes meet new energy efficiency standards set by the Scottish
Government.

"Buildings of the age and design of Eastern View generally contain
asbestos materials.

"This is not unusual.

"Asbestos is not a risk to health unless it is damaged or
disturbed.

"As the safety of our tenants is our number one priority, and to
ensure the asbestos in the boiler cupboards cannot be disturbed
until it can be removed safely as part of the heating replacement
works, we have taken the precaution of sealing these cupboards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Update on Libby Cleanup Efforts
----------------------------------------------------------
The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made significant
progress in recent years understanding the extent of Libby
Amphibole asbestos (LA) contamination at and near the former
vermiculite mine. The purpose of this article is to provide an
update on which forest-use activities pose ongoing risk, which
don't and how investigation results are being used to make
decisions in this area, also known as Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the
Libby Asbestos Superfund Site.

As part of the Remedial Investigation and Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Libby Superfund site (EPA, 2015), EPA did
extensive sampling of air, soil, mine waste, tree bark, duff and
other environmental media within OU3. We also tested the air in
areas known to be contaminated in OU3 during recreation, logging,
firefighting and other activities to determine the potential for
human exposures.

After years of studying a large 40,000-acre area including the
former mine and surrounding forest, EPA and our partners -- U.S.
Forest Service, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and
Montana Department of Natural Resources -- have identified an area
of about 10,000 acres surrounding the mine that has the highest
levels of contamination. EPA is currently in discussions with W.R.
Grace to determine the best methods to reduce contamination and
limit exposures in this area.

EPA, our partners and W.R. Grace will be evaluating different
treatment technologies that can be implemented in different areas
of the forest to reduce exposures to LA in soil, duff and tree
bark. Some of these technologies may include removal of
contaminated duff/soil, forest thinning for fire management and
covering the contaminated duff/soil with slash, mulch or gravel.
There may also be management techniques such as logging in the
wetter months of the year rather than drier months to reduce the
potential for LA-laden dust to be generated during logging
activities and result in excessive exposures.

Since higher asbestos exposures have been detected during activity
based sampling for fire suppression and mop-up activities, it is
important to reduce the potential for large, persistent fires in
the areas of high LA contamination near the mine. This is why we
have a joint plan in place with Lincoln County and other local,
state and federal agencies to ensure an expedited response in the
case of a wildfire in the vicinity of OU3. Additionally, W.R.
Grace is beginning efforts this summer to build fire-breaks to
reduce the likelihood that fire would spread and clearing roads so
there is better access to support a quick response. These efforts
are welcome as we work together to define the long-term remedy for
OU3 that will ensure protection for firefighters and loggers.

It should be noted that the human health risk assessment
determined recreational activities in OU3 such as hiking, camping,
ATV riding, and fishing are not considered hazardous with regard
to LA exposures. The only exception to this would be hiking along
Rainy Creek and digging in the mine by rock hounds and
trespassers. Residents and visitors should continue to refrain
from trespassing on the mine property owned by W.R. Grace.

EPA expects to share a proposed cleanup plan for OU3 by the end of
2019. We look forward to working with the community on plans for
long-term site management. As always, EPA welcomes questions and
comments from the community regarding the Superfund activities in
and around Libby and Troy. Please don't hesitate to contact me at
mckean.deborah@epa.gov or call EPA's Libby office at 406-293-6194.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Cottondale Elem.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Taylor, writing for Tuscaloosa News, reported that Cottondale
Elementary School will be going through a process to remove some
asbestos found in the building.

The Tuscaloosa County Board of Education has approved a contract
of $99,960 to Tri-State Abatement of Brookwood to remove asbestos
in the ceiling area around three hallways in the school. Jeff
Crocker, director of operations and maintenance for the Tuscaloosa
County School System, said the work involved removing pipe
insulation and pipe elbows that contain asbestos.

Crocker said the work is being done as the school undergoes work
to install additional wiring for increase its technological
capabilities and improve security surveillance.

"We're addressing it so they can do what they need to do," Crocker
said.

Both Crocker and Superintendent Walter Davie maintained that the
asbestos is not friable, meaning it is not airborne or broken.
When airborne, asbestos can present health risks if breathed in,
including mesothelioma. However, Davie said the asbestos in
question is located above the ceiling, which leaves people out of
danger.

No test results were given by school administrators.

"There's a lot of asbestos in buildings around this town, but if
it's sealed or in a contained area, there's no harm," Davie said.

Asbestos can be commonly found in older buildings. Cottondale
Elementary was completed in 1955.

"It's been a non-friable and presents no harm to students, faculty
or staff," Davie said.

The abatement will take roughly three or four weeks to complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., is still facing personal injury
lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in certain
product components, 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 (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few
thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the
claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are
indemnified for most of the costs.  However, we have agreed to
defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products
manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to
their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007.

"We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities
associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with our products or products of divested businesses
for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.
We initiated litigation against several insurers to pursue
coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's policy
limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County Superior
Court.  In September 2016, we entered into settlement agreements
with certain insurance company defendants, and we continue to
pursue our claims against the remaining defendants.  We believe
these settlement agreements will continue to provide partial
coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life
of asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible for
satisfying those liabilities if the divested business is unable to
do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FPJBw0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 Cases at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is facing less than 500 active and inactive cases by
claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to
asbestos, 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 many years we have been and continue
to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket
of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.  A
small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in
industries other than automotive.  We believe, based on scientific
and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to
asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would
not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on
their work with these products.  Further, many of these cases
involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases
exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries.
Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify
any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for
damages.  As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to
go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an
increased number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.
In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to
earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.
To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable
resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently believe that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on
our future consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bej54v


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Defending Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s unit, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC),
is still defending itself against asbestos-related lawsuits
generally focusing on activities from 1920's to 1950's, 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, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos litigation
matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous
variables, including differences in legal rulings in various
jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of
certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty
to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute, or sell
the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while
other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no
assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in
the future.  While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received
approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016.  During the
three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received
approximately 1,104 and 1,386 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively.  The number of asbestos cases that may be brought,
the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the
total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain
and may vary significantly from year to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos
exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years
further in the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a
future point after which losses cease to be probable and
reasonably estimable.  It is reasonably possible that the
Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially
greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that
future charges to income may be necessary.  While the potential
future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or
annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information
currently known by management, management does not believe any
such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's
financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis.  These variables include bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and
judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving
serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and
other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are
pending.  Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from
asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for
asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aR86TT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Fuels Inc. is still facing claims over an alleged asbestos
exposure resulting from the operation of the White Mesa Mill,
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 2012, the Company was served with
a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from
the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure
to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by
being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the
White Mesa Mill.

"The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and
therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  In January, 2013,
the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction
and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim.  No
other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred
since that date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/nLLBQ3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $53.7MM Accrued Liability at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has accrued asbestos liability of US$53,680,000
and long-term asbestos liability of US$325,251,000 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 accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, overpayments by
certain insurers and unpaid legal costs related to defending
themselves against asbestos-related liability claims and legal
action against the Company's insurers, which is included in
Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On the other hand, the long-term liability is included in Other
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Following a Delaware Supreme Court ruling on
September 12, 2016, the Company received US$20.6 million of
previously unreimbursed costs funded by the Company in defense and
settlement of asbestos claims from insurance companies during the
three months ended March 31, 2017.  Certain matters, including
potential interest which could be awarded to a specific
subsidiary, are subject to further rulings from the Delaware
courts.  While the outcome is uncertain, none of these matters is
expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TuHKbB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 515 Exposure Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. still defends itself against approximately 515
lawsuits involving around 1,135 claims related to asbestos
exposure 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, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.  As of March 31, 2017, we are
named a defendant in approximately 515 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,135 claims.  No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims.  Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable.  It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings.  However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mILjJD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 43 Asbestos Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation plc still defends itself against 43 asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At March 31, 2017, there were 43 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants.  These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and
Mississippi.  We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation.  We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NI9nEq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 285 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were fewer than 285 asbestos-related claims pending against
Univar Inc., 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 Company is subject to liabilities from
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  The
claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related
to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company
from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar USA is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims.  As of March 31,
2017, there were fewer than 285 asbestos-related claims for which
the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to
the indemnification obligation.  The volume of such cases has
increased in recent quarters.  Historically, the vast majority of
the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been
dismissed without payment.  The Company does incur costs in
defending these claims.  While the Company is unable to predict
the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon
currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of
these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims
or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact
earnings or cash flows in a particular future period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/r9oqSq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company 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 still facing a number of personal
injury claims related to asbestos exposure.

BNSF Railway states, "The Company is party to a number of personal
injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been
exposed to asbestos.  The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF
Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use
of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years
of 1950 and 1967.  However, other types of exposures, including
exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials,
continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at
BNSF Railway by 1985.

"BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter.  BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim.  Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

"Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050.  The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study.  BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 65, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3v1WGf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 35,560 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is defending itself against 35,560 claims related to
asbestos exposure, 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, "Of the 35,560 pending claims as of March 31,
2017, approximately 18,300 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 800 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
4,700 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.
The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

"In the fourth quarter of 2016, we extended our estimate of the
asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity
payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims
and future claims projected to be filed against us through the
generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059.  Our estimate
of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through
2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting
from our experience using a range of reference periods for claims
filed, settled and dismissed.  Based on this estimate, we recorded
a US$227 million additional liability in the fourth quarter of
2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yEA7ph


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has US$674MM Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded US$674 million aggregate asbestos liability 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 Company has retained the firm of
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally
recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating
the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system.  HR&A reviews
information provided by the Company concerning claims filed,
settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant
claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related
disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and
the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim.

"The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is
based on the Company's recent historical experience for claims
filed, settled and dismissed during a base reference period.  The
Company's experience is then compared to estimates of the number
of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases
determined based on widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies augmented with current data inputs.

"Those studies were undertaken in connection with national
analyses of the population of workers believed to have been
exposed to asbestos.  Using that information, HR&A estimates the
number of future claims that would be filed against the Company
and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based
upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference
period.

"This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.  After
discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate
for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system
using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions
with its defense counsel.  Based on this information, HR&A
compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for
pending and future claims using a range of reference periods based
on claim experience and covering claims expected to be filed
through the indicated forecast period.

"The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company.  These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate.

"In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level.  In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation
in the tort system have been significantly affected by the
substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy
protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until
the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a
number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which
have been estimated to provide US$36 billion for payments to
current and future claimants.  These trend factors have both
positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

"With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2016,
the Company extended its estimate of the asbestos liability,
including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and
defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against the Company through the
generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059.  The
Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or
projected to be filed through 2021.  The Company's estimate of the
asbestos liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is
based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting from the
Company's experience using a range of reference periods for claims
filed, settled and dismissed.

"Based on this estimate, the Company recorded an additional
liability of US$227 million as of December 31, 2016.  This action
was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's
ability to reasonably estimate this liability through 2059.
First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although
constituting approximately 10% of the Company's total pending
asbestos claims, have consistently accounted for approximately 90%
of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being
filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have
stabilized.  Second, there have been generally favorable
developments in the trend of case law which has been a
contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity
and related settlement costs.  Third, there have been significant
actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts that have
reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial,
which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity.  Fourth, recent court decisions in certain
jurisdictions have provided additional clarity regarding the
nature of claims that may proceed to trial in those jurisdictions
and greater predictability regarding future claim activity.
Fifth, the Company has coverage-in-place agreements with almost
all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a
stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by
the Company and reimbursements from its insurers.  Sixth, annual
settlements with respect to groups of cases with certain plaintiff
firms have helped to stabilize indemnity payments and defense
costs.  Taking these factors into account, the Company believes
that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending
claims and future claims to be filed through 2059.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities.  In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.

"These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yEA7ph


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Defends 16 PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group 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 its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, is
"currently" a defendant in 16 multi-defendant personal injury
cases in Maryland that allege claims arising from asbestos and
tobacco exposure.

The Company states, "The tobacco defendants, including Liggett,
moved to dismiss the cases.  In the past, motions to dismiss have
generally been successful, typically resulting in the dismissal
without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants.  Recently,
however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled, in
Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., that
dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate
where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco
exposure ("synergy cases").  In May 2016, the Court of Appeals for
Maryland (Maryland's highest court) heard oral argument on the
appeal of the intermediate appellate court's decision.  In July
2016, the Court of Appeals ruled that joinder of tobacco and
asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but
plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such
cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to
prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants
and 'the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures
applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies.'
The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the
trial court level.  It is possible that Liggett and other tobacco
company defendants will not be dismissed from pending synergy
cases, and may be named as defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury actions in Maryland going forward, including approximately
20 additional synergy cases currently pending in Maryland state
court."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/776tPL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had US$604.1MM Liabilities at April 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation has recorded liabilities of US$604.1 million for
asbestos product liability matters at April 1, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017.

The Company states, "Our asbestos-related claims are typical in
certain of the industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy
businesses we no longer operate.  It is not unusual in these cases
for fifty or more corporate entities to be named as defendants.
We vigorously defend these claims, many of which are dismissed
without payment, and the significant majority of costs related to
these claims have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance
arrangements.  During the three months ended April 1, 2017, our
insurance recoveries for asbestos-related matters, net of
payments, were US$9.0 million, which included cash proceeds
received during the period of US$8.5 million related to a
settlement reached with an insurance carrier.  During the three
months ended April 2, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related
matters, net of insurance recoveries, were US$1.3 million.  A
significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing
insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of
insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on our share of
future payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$554.0 million and US$564.4 million at April 1, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, respectively, and included in "Other assets"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets.  These assets
represent amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to
recover under agreements we have with insurance companies.  The
assets we record for these insurance recoveries are based on a
number of assumptions, including the continued solvency of the
insurers, and are subject to a variety of uncertainties.  Our
current assumptions for estimating these assets may not prove
accurate, and we may be required to adjust these assets in the
future, which could result in additional charges to earnings.
These variances relative to current expectations could have a
material impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

"During the three months ended April 1, 2017 and April 2, 2016,
there were no changes in estimates associated with the liabilities
and assets related to our asbestos product liability matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wQ4W1D


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, 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 or its subsidiaries have been
named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required
by Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously. Given the state of these claims it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mjpCzU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 19 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 19 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,492 silica cases and 48 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL.  One new asbestos case, previously disclosed in the
Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, was filed in the
first quarter of 2017, and a second new asbestos case was filed
subsequent to the end of the first quarter.  No asbestos or silica
cases were dismissed during the quarter.  Most of these claims do
not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude
of such liability, if any.  Additional claims of this nature may
be made against the Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time
management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability,
if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a
material effect on its financial position or results of
operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of
amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court
pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the
claimed damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal
defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant.  The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.  Of the 19 pending asbestos cases all
except two allege liability based on products sold largely or
entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the
Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such
agreements.  The two exceptions pertain to one pending asbestos
case against American Colloid Company, and one for which no period
of alleged exposure has been stated by plaintiffs.  Our experience
has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of
these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any
settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/m0iamr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., still defends itself against a number of asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company.  In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company
against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").  The Indemnified
Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such
seller.  The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and
the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would
fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.  To date, no
judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes it has strong
defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iDf9gM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$217.1MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded US$217.1 million for indemnity and
defense costs for pending and future claims at March 31, 2017,
determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-
related exposures, 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 amount is reflected in "Other
liabilities" of its financial statement.

The Company states, "We acquired Dana Companies, LLC ("Dana") on
December 30, 2016.  Dana continues to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately
managed.

"Other liabilities included US$217.1 million and US$220.5 million
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at
March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, determined
using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related
exposures.  Other liabilities also included US$2.2 million and
US$2.3 million for environmental liabilities associated with Dana
properties at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

"Other assets included US$130.9 million and US$133.0 million at
March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for estimated
insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities.  The recorded
asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance
agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and
indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands.
The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of
the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the
financial strength of the insurers.  The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and
defense costs were paid in full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Hd1S0n


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending
against Mallinckrodt public limited company 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, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos.  A limited number of the cases allege
premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed
to asbestos while on the Company's property.  Each case typically
names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos.  The Company's involvement in asbestos cases
has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts.  The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to
continue to defend these lawsuits.  When appropriate, the Company
settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all
asbestos claims have been immaterial.  As of March 31, 2017, there
were approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending against
the Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that
were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries,
which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters.  While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known
and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iSC60w


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 37,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 37,000 claimants as of March 31, 2017, in
pending cases asserting claims against Cabot Corporation's
American Optical Corporation in connection with respiratory
products, 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 have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.  In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

"In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

"The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

"As of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, there were
approximately 37,000 and 38,000 claimants, respectively, in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products.  We have a reserve to cover our expected
share of liability for existing and future respirator liability
claims.  At March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, the reserve was
US$19 million and US$21 million, respectively.  Cash payments
related to this liability were approximately US$2 million in the
first six months of both fiscal 2017 and 2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CMmz5x


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 PI Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 27,000 pending claims against ITT Inc.
subsidiaries as of March 31, 2017, filed in various state and
federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, 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, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have
contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)
material and was non-friable.  As of March 31, 2017, there were
approximately 27 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries,
including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal
courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little
or no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed
in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more asbestos-
related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue
to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims.  Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.  In light
of the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may
be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for
estimating those costs at this time.

"The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events.  However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated.  Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending
and unasserted asbestos claims.  We believe it is possible that
future events affecting the key factors and other variables within
the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed
beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/coc6Zc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has US$942.9MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
of US$942.9 million as of March 31, 2017, for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years,
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 record a liability for pending asbestos
claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years.  While it is probable that we will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably
estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the
long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and
potential recoveries.  As of March 31, 2017, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$942.9 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated
asset of US$367.3 million which represents estimated recoveries
from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$575.6
million.

"As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each
quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative
data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the
data to expectations on which the most recent annual liability and
asset estimates were calculated.  Based on this evaluation, the
Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted
for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 other than the incremental
accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period.  The net
asbestos charge for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016
was US$14.9 million and US$15.4 million, respectively.
Additionally, during the first quarter of 2016, we entered into a
settlement agreement with an insurer to settle responsibility for
multiple insurance claims, resulting in a benefit of US$2.6
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/coc6Zc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 71 Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 71 asbestos cases pending
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.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products,
or in manufacturing operations.  The majority of cases are pending
in Texas and Illinois.  There were 71 asbestos cases pending as of
March 31, 2017.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  As of March 31, 2017, the estimated loss and
accrued amount on a pending claim was US$0.3 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pon0xT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Mar 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. still defends itself against 103 asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us.  There are 103 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs.  In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio state court.  We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims.  We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability
to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.  To date, we have
not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

"Based on information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,

   * the rate of new claims,

   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and

   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are
not material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim.  In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies.  These insurers may seek indemnification from us.

"In addition to the litigation, we and our affiliates are also
involved in various other environmental, contractual, product
liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other
claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses.
In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items,
although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage
for environmental matters.

"We currently believe the disposition of all of these various
other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate,
should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/T0qgUQ





                         *********


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  * * *