CAR_Public/170714.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, July 14, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 138



                            Headlines

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oct. 3 Fairness Hearing on $2.9M Deal
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Eaton" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Papazoros" Suit in E.D. New York
AETNA LIFE: Faces "Reisner" Suit in Northern District of Ohio
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Patton" Suit in E.D. New York

ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Bob Porto Builders Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
APPLE INC: Oral Argument Held in "Opperman" False Ad Suit
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Calif. Court Consolidates 2 Cases
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Dismiss
ARIZONA: Final Briefs Due July 21 in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio

ASICSOFT INC: "Ghazanfari" Sues Under Calif. Labor Code
BAR 20 DAIRY: "Maciel" Suit Moved to E.D. California
BARCLAYS BANK: "Knaak" Sues Over Derogatory Credit Report
BLATT HASENMILLER: Lillegard's Class Certification Bid Stricken
BONCHON USA: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

BRANDED RESTAURANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Sok" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CARDCONNECT CORP: "Rothman" Files Suit Over Sale to First Data
CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Douglas" Securities Class Suit
CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Podstupka" Suit in E.D. New York
CONSERVICE LLC: Faces "Cruz" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
COPLEY PRESS: Newspaper Carriers are Employees, App. Court Says
CORIZON HEALTH: Doesn't Pay Workers Overtime, "Soltis" Suit Says
COUNTY OF BUCKS, PA: 3rd Cir. Affirmed "Taha" Class Certification

CURE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
DOUGHNUT PLANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
DUBUQUE, IA: Iowa App. Affirms Funds Distribution in "Zaber"

DUKE ENERGY: Final Approval of Price Reporting Case Deal Pending
DUKE ENERGY: Appeal in Florida Action Remains Pending
ENERVEST OPERATING: Mojave Oil Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
ENERVEST OPERATING: Mojave Oil's Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
FLORIDA: Deprived Public Colleges of $1-Bil. in Grant, Suit Says

FORREST RIVER: Court Issues Protective Order in "Rangel"
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces "Konstandinou" Suit in E.D. New York
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Technicians Class Certified in "Redmon" Suit
GLOBAL QUALITY: "Styles" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
GO NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Tour Bus Drivers

HENRY SCHEIN: SourceOne Dental Suit Remains Pending
HENRY SCHEIN: 2016 Class Suit over Price Fixing Remains Pending
HYPERION MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Gress" Suit
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Federal Mogul Case Pending
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Sanders" Michigan Action Stayed

IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Nguyen" Class Suit Still Pending
INSULET CORP: Still Faces Arkansas Teacher Retirement Suit
J&M COMMS: Home Healthcare Workers Lose Bid for Conditional Cert
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Arreola" Suit in S.D. New York
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Class Action Pending

KONG TECHNOLOGIES: "Opperman" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit over ARCP Note Offerings
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Faces Suit over Miller Energy Offerings
LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Suit over Plains All American Offering
LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss CTI Offering Suit Pending

LIBERTY MUTUAL: OT Pay, Reimbursements Claimed by "Watson"
LIMOLINK INC: Court Narrows Claims in Limousine Drivers' Suit
LUXOTTICA GROUP: Selling Glasses at Bogus Discounts, Suit Says
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Suit by Thrift Plan Participant
MASSACHUSETTS: Court Dismisses "Spencer" Civil Rights Suit

MDL 2492: Langston v. Mid-America Consolidated in Concussion Suit
MDL 2492: "Hewitt" Suit v. NCAA Consolidated in Concussion Suit
MISSOURI: Court Denies Sex Offenders' Claims
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending
NCR PENSION: "Stanton" Seeks Retirement Benefits Reinstatement

NEW YORK: Court Grants State's Bid to Dismiss Uber Drivers' Suit
OCWEN LOAN: Class Cert Denied, Jury Demand Stricken in "Poynter"
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Says Settlement Funds Remitted
PATHEON NV: "Sciabacucchi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
PETROBRAS: 2nd Cir. Partially Decertifies Securities Class Suit

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in ATV Buyers' Suit
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Faces "D'Andria" Suit in E.D. New York
QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" v. TNS Suit Underway
REAL CARE: Faces "Nesterenko" Suit in New York Supreme Court
REMINGTON LODGING: "Corona" Suit Moved to C.D. California

SAFECO INSURANCE: Bob Porto Builders Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
SARABETH'S HOLDING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
SEMPRA ENERGY: 266 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Superior Court
SHELL OIL: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Camacho Seeks Prelim. Settlement Approval

STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit over Data Breach Dismissed
SUSHI NOMADO: Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay Sought in "Jian" Suit
SUNSHINE USA: Faces "Porfirio" Suit in S.D. New York
TACOS AL SUADERO: "Villalba" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
TAX HELP: Payton Moves to Certify TCPA and Privacy Act Classes

TELUS COMM: Court Narrows Claims in Invasion of Privacy Suit
TESORO REFINING: "Bonner" Transferred to Northern California
TOYOTA: Must Pay $14MM for Acceleration Deaths, 8th Cir. Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Rojas" Suit
UNITED SITE: Court Denies Madison's Bid for Class Certification

UNITED STATES: Kennedy Moves to Certify Class in Suit v. US Army
USCB INC: "Wiseman" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Wins Final Nod of "O'Brien" Class Settlement
WILLIS TOWERS: $120-Mil. Settlement Still Pending

WILLIS TOWERS: $9.75-Mil. Settlement Reached in "Sanchez" Case
WORLD WATERS: Faces "Pizzirusso" Suit in E.D. New York
YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Stockholder Action Underway
YAHOO! INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Continued to Oct. 19
YAHOO! INC: 43 Consumer Suits Filed over Security Incidents

ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid to Reinstate Plaintiffs Okayed


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran's Negligence Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: July 17 Trial in "Carroll"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Summary Ruling in "O'Connor"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay Remand Order in "Legendre" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Verdicts for Exxon, Ford

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Bid to Dismiss "Hovsepian"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Type Has No Effect on Latency Period
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABIA Outlines Response to Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at Fire Station Almost Done
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies After Being Exposed to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Man Says Cos. Negligently Used Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro-Policyholder Case Endorses Allocation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Missouri Cos. Over Failure to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fieldfisher Strengthens Asbestos Claims Practice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawsuit Revived in California

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 225 Scottish Hospitals Riddled with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building Contamined with Asbestos in Montreal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Man Gets Prison For Not Removing Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Children At Risk of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Closes Auckland YMCA Facility

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uckfield Widow Seeks Asbestos Risk Register
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Contaminates 3 Homes, Contractor Fined
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dying of Cancer Says More Could Get Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Wagga Hospital Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Hampshire Worker Claims Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Raises Awareness of Asbestos Dangers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Help Sought After Death of Power Station Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitui to Sue Nema, Firm for Dumping Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingsland Man Dies from Asbestos Exposure







                            *********


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oct. 3 Fairness Hearing on $2.9M Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jeff Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No.
15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB (S.D. Cal.), the Court on June 9 entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement of the case.

The court will hold a settlement fairness hearing on October 3,
2017 at 2:00 p.m.

Paul and Sharyn Levine are lead plaintiffs in the case.  Lead
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel engaged in arm's-length
negotiations to resolve the claims by Lead Plaintiffs and the
Class against Defendants, and agreed to settle those claims on
terms that include the payment of $2,925,000 for the benefit of
the Class.

Pursuant to the June 9 Order, the hearing will be held before the
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, at the United States Courthouse for
the Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, Courtroom
15B, San Diego, CA 92101, for the purpose of determining:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
         Action for the principal amount of $2,925,000 for the
         Class should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
         reasonable, and adequate;

     (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
         prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the
         Action with prejudice;

     (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
         adequate and should be approved; and

     (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement
         Fund, an award to the Class Representatives not to exceed
         $5,000, and Litigation Expenses not to exceed $125,000
         should be approved.

KCC Class Action Services serves as claims administrator.

A copy of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement dated March 13,
2017 is available at https://is.gd/W4i6bD

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/W7TheG

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "In March 2015,
following our announcement of the update to the timing of our
planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID for the treatment
of PD Psychosis and the subsequent decline of the price of our
common stock, two putative securities class action complaints
(captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-
0575-BTM-DHB, and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No.
15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, or the Court, against us and
certain of our current and former officers. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the timing of our
planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead
counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed
separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed
lead plaintiff.

"On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order consolidating the
two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and assigning lead
counsel. On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accuses
the defendants of making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated timing of our planned NDA
submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID.

"On January 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2016, the Court issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

"On December 6, 2016, the parties had a mediation and agreed in
principle to settle the action. On March 13, 2017, the parties
signed a Stipulation of Settlement setting forth the terms of the
proposed settlement, which is subject to Court approval. A hearing
on lead plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement [was] scheduled for May 26, 2017."

Additional information is available at:

           http://www.acadiasecuritiessettlement.com/

Attorneys for Defendants Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Uli
Hacksell, Stephen R. Davis, and Roger G. Mills:

     Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
     Peter Adams, Esq.
     Blake Zollar, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     4401 Eastgate Mall
     San Diego, CA 92121
     Telephone: (858) 550-6000
     Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
     E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com
             padams@cooley.com
             bzollar@cooley.com

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical
needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company was
originally incorporated in Vermont in 1993 as Receptor
Technologies, Inc. and reincorporated in Delaware in 1997.


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Eaton" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC. The case is captioned as Brian C. Eaton, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04050 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

Advanced Call provides contact center and back office support
services to companies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Papazoros" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Diana Papazoros, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04051 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

Advanced Call provides contact center and back office support
services to companies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AETNA LIFE: Faces "Reisner" Suit in Northern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna Life Insurance
Company. The case is titled as Sharon Reisner, individually and as
class action representative on behalf of all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETNA Life Insurance Company
and Sunshine Creating Community, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01427 (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2017).

Aetna Life offers life insurance products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Portnoy, Esq.
          810 West South Boundary Road
          Perrysburg, OH 43551
          Telephone: (419) 874 2775
          Facsimile: (419) 874 2777
          E-mail: hawkport@aol.com


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Patton" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldous & Associates,
PLLC. The case is entitled as Melissa Patton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aldous
& Associates, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04068
(E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2017).

Aldous & Associates is debt collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Bob Porto Builders Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bob Porto, doing business as: Bob
Porto Builders, For Himself and All Other Arkansans Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Allstate Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 60CV-17-02804, was
removed on July 7, 2017 from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-
00440-SWW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Susan Webber Wright.

Allstate offers property and casualty insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587
          E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Heller, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 370 1506
          E-mail: heller@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Leah R. Bruno, Esq.
          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          Sears Tower
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876 8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876 7934
          E-mail: leah.bruno@dentons.com
                  mark.hanover@dentons.com

APPLE INC: Oral Argument Held in "Opperman" False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that urging denial of class certification, an Apple attorney told
a federal judge in San Francisco, July 6, that the Silicon Valley
giant did not trick customers into paying more for iPhones with
false promises about data security.

"They know they can't get damages for Apple making general
statements about security and privacy," Robert Hawk told U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar.

The lawsuit began in 2013 when lead plaintiff Marc Opperman sued
Apple and a host of app developers that downloaded iPhone users'
contacts data without their knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs
sought class certification in August last year.

The plaintiffs claim Apple owes iPhone buyers restitution for
making false representations about the privacy and security of
their phone data.

Specifically, the plaintiffs say Apple advertised that each
offering in its app store was "curated" to meet privacy standards
and that a "sandboxing" security feature prevented apps from
accessing iPhone data without consent.

Hawk told Tigar that plaintiffs' attorneys pushing the theory of a
deceptive "Big Tobacco-style, long-term advertising strategy,"
lack evidence of any "uniform misrepresentation" made to
consumers.

Plaintiffs' attorney Michael von Loewenfeldt replied that this
case is not about "a specific set of words that was said to
everybody." Rather, it's about a common theme: "that it's safe to
put your data on this phone," he said.

Hawk said the plaintiffs failed to show most class members were
exposed to misrepresentations in third-party blogs, technical
documents, website statements or a Steve Jobs speech about iPhone
privacy protections.

"There's no evidence of consumer reach on any of those sources,"
he said.

But Von Loewenfeldt urged the judge to consider "a ton of
circumstantial evidence" on Apple's security-focused branding
campaign, including the harsh public reaction in 2012 after it was
revealed that apps were stealing iPhone users' private data.

Tigar appeared unwilling to buy that argument.

"Isn't there a limit to that logic?" Tigar asked. "If there must
be a representation out there, then they must be easy to find."

Hawk also attacked a damages model proposed by plaintiffs' expert
Elizabeth Howlett, who proposed estimating the value iPhone users
place on privacy and how much extra they paid for iPhones due to
false assurances about data security.

Apple contends that Howlett's model can't measure damages as
defined by the class because she "has no idea how many potential
class members were exposed to statements about sandboxing,"
according to Apple's opposition brief.

Also debated on July 6 was whether a "choice of law" provision in
Apple's terms and conditions requires that California law apply to
all claims against Apple, including to those of class members in
different states.

Apple claims the choice-of-law provision applies only to issues
arising from its iPhone license, and false advertising claims must
be interpreted under separate state laws. The differences in each
state make nationwide class certification impractical, Apple says.

After almost an hour of debate, Tigar took the arguments under
advisement.

Tigar on July 6, also tentatively approved a $5.3 million
settlement in the same case with Twitter, Instagram, Yelp,
Foursquare, Foodspotting, Gowalla, Kik Interactive and Kong
Technologies, which acquired the social media app Path.

Hawk is with Hogan Lovells in Menlo Park; Von Loewenfeldt with
Kerr & Wagstaffe in San Francisco.

The case is captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Apple:

     Robert B. Hawk, Esq.
     Clay James, Esq.
     J. Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
     Stacy Hovan, Esq.
     HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
     4085 Campbell Ave., Ste. 100
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     Telephone: (650) 463-4000
     Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
     E-mail: robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com
             clay.james@hoganlovells.com
             chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com
             stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Calif. Court Consolidates 2 Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an order consolidating the cases captioned
SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a GENERAL
PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC., APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, and PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., a California corporation
and all those similarly situated and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a
GENERAL PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC.,
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:16-CV-00158-WBS-AC, 2:16-CV-01211-
WBS-AC (E.D. Calif.).

These are two related class action lawsuits filed in this district
and both actions are putative class actions involving the same
parties and similar claims.

Consolidation of these related actions will promote judicial
economy, avoid duplicative law and motion and discovery
proceedings, and streamline adjudication of these matters, the
District Court held.

Accordingly, the District Court held that the two cases are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes only but not for the purposes
of trial, and set the following dates:

   * Defendants to answer, move or otherwise plead: August 10,
2017

   * Plaintiffs to file opposition/reply to counterclaim:
September 14, 2017

   * Defendants to file reply to opposition: October 5, 2017

Discovery will continue during the pleading/motion schedule and
the pendency of any motion(s) to dismiss filed by Defendants.

The new deadlines will be:

   Discovery Expert disclosures: October 31, 2018

   Rebuttal expert disclosures: November 28, 2018

   Completion of fact discovery: September 28, 2018

   Completion of all discovery: January 31, 2019

   Discovery motions filed: January 31, 2019

   Motion Hearing Schedules Filing of motions for class
   certification: February 22, 2018

   Opposition to class certification motion: April 6, 2018

   Reply to opposition: May 7, 2018

   All other motions to be filed by: January 31, 2019

   Trial Deadlines Final Pretrial Conference: April 15, 2019 at
   1:30 p.m.

   Trial: June 11, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/HEYexd from Leagle.com.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig E.
Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane Llp.
Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John L. Hall-
-  Farmer Smith & Lane Llp.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion
Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- Dla Piper
Llp & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Shand Scott
Stephens, Dla Piper Llp.

California Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion
Kennedy, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Spencer Y.
Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Shand Scott Stephens, Dla Piper Llp.

Applied Risk Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion
Kennedy, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Spencer Y.
Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand Scott Stephens, Dla Piper
Llp & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Raoul
Dion Kennedy, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Shand
Scott Stephens, Dla Piper Llp & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Craig
E. Farmer, Farmer Smith & Lane Llp & John L. Hall, Farmer Smith &
Lane LLP.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the District Court
has denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against us and certain
of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of
certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were
brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general,
include allegations that we and certain of our current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ
program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common
stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1,
2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On March 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead
plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint.

"On November 5, 2013, the District Court dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties
except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action
with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended
complaint.

"On March 20, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion
and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his
appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
or Ninth Circuit.

"On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to
the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed his reply brief.

"A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on
May 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed
the District Court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended
complaint and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings.

"On January 25, 2017, the District Court permitted us to submit a
renewed motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint. On February 2, 2017, we filed the renewed motion to
dismiss.

"On February 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition,
and on March 2, 2017, we filed our reply. On April 28, 2017, the
District Court denied our renewed motion to dismiss. Due to the
stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."

Arena is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel,
small-molecule drugs with optimized receptor pharmacology designed
to deliver broad clinical utility across multiple therapeutic
areas.


ARIZONA: Final Briefs Due July 21 in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Joe
Arpaio's attorneys told a federal judge in Phoenix in closing
arguments on July 6, that the former sheriff did not act with
intent to violate a court order in a racial profiling class action
and should be cleared of criminal contempt of court.

Arpaio's fate is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Susan
Bolton, who could sentence him to up to six months in jail if she
convicted him on misdemeanor criminal contempt for ordering or
allowing his deputies to detain undocumented immigrants for 18
months after a federal judge ordered him to stop it in 2011.

Attorneys are expected to file final briefs on July 21.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued the order came in a 2007
class action accusing Arpaio and his office of racially profiling
Latinos during traffic stops.

Arpaio's attorney Dennis Wilenchik on July 6, told Bolton that as
sheriff Arpaio delegated the command staff of his agency to work
with his attorneys to make sure the order was understood.

"Do you think he likes to be here?" Wilenchik asked. "Please, give
me a break, that's ridiculous.

"He's now left standing here to be responsible when the order
didn't go out to the troops."

The closing arguments followed a four-day trial, during which
federal prosecutors argued that Arpaio knowingly defied the court
order to gain re-election in 2012.

Arpaio, a Republican, won his sixth term that year, but was denied
a seventh in 2016 when voters elected Paul Penzone, a Democrat.

Prosecutors claimed on July 6, that Arpaio's defiance was visible
in interviews he gave after Judge Snow issued the order.

"He wanted to raise money, and he wanted to win re-election, and
it worked," said prosecutor John Keller. "He raised millions of
dollars across the country."

In one interview, Arpaio told then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly that
the idea of a federally appointed monitor overseeing the Sheriff's
Office was "garbage."

"I publicly in the past said I would never give in to a control by
the federal government," Arpaio told Kelly.

Prosecutors used news releases from the Sheriff's Office to show
that Arpaio allowed deputies to detain undocumented immigrants for
transfer into the custody of the Border Patrol or Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.

"And as a result, at least 170 people were detained, based solely
on their immigration status, in violation of the preliminary
injunction order, in violation of the law," Keller said.

Wilenchik said the news releases indicate that Arpaio did not
think he was violating the order.

"The sheriff wasn't hiding anything," Wilenchik said. "He wasn't
hiding what the office was doing."

Throughout the trial, Arpaio's attorneys blamed Tim Casey,
Arpaio's former attorney, for any failure to abide by the court
order. Arpaio's attorneys say Casey failed to see that Arpaio and
his command staff fully understood the order and sent out training
scenarios for deputies.

Wilenchik did not stray from that theory during closing arguments,
citing Casey's withdrawal in 2014 as indication of his failures.

"He must have realized that the best thing for him to do is get
out," Wilenchik said. "Not one document, not one note to his file
has been produced by the entire power of the U.S. government. . .
. That said, I've got concerns here."

But Keller said Casey had no reason to believe Arpaio was
violating the law.

"The sheriff lied to Casey about what his office was doing,"
Keller told the court. "He told Casey they weren't turning people
over to federal authorities anymore."


ASICSOFT INC: "Ghazanfari" Sues Under Calif. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------
Iraj Ghazanfari, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Asicsoft, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17CV312001 (Cal. Super., June 20,
2017), seeks recovery of all applicable civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs as provided by the California Labor Code
and such other and further relief.

ASICSoft provides engineering and IT staffing solutions to
companies, where Plaintiff was assigned do worked for clients in
Sta. Clara.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

             - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      Paul M. Yi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, PC
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

             - and -

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


BAR 20 DAIRY: "Maciel" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jose Maciel, on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee"
on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004, and Elvis Bonilla, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, the
Plaintiffs, v. Bar 20 Dairy, LLC, a California limited liability
company, the Defendant, Case No. 15CECG00475, was removed on July
7, 2017 from the Fresno Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Bar 20 was founded in 1956. The company's line of business
includes operating farms that produce milk and other dairy
products.[BN]

Attorneys for Jose Maciel, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of
other "aggrieved employees":

          Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Esq.
          David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3142
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: caroline@spivaklaw.com
                  david@spivaklaw.com

Attorneys for Elvis Bonilla, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of
other "aggrieved employees":

          Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 3800
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

Attorneys for Bar 20 Dairy, LLC:

          Jared Hague, Esq.
          Joseph Vidal Macias, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, PC
          5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 325 0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981 1217
          E-mail: jared@suttonhague.com
                  joseph@suttonhague.com

               - and -

          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Wesley Lawrence Carlson, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, PC
          5200 N. Palm Ave., Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704-2225
          Telephone: (559) 325 0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981 1217
          E-mail: brett@suttonhague.com
                  wesley@suttonhague.com


BARCLAYS BANK: "Knaak" Sues Over Derogatory Credit Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Wendi Knaak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Barclays Bank, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04537 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2017), seeks an award of actual
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Civil
Code; punitive damages; equitable and injunctive relief; and
preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in
unlawful credit reporting practices that violate the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Defendant is a creditor and debt collector regularly engaged in
the business of collecting consumer debts from consumers. On or
about October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed for a no asset Chapter 7
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California in Los Angeles in relation to Plaintiff's
obligation to Barclays, a consumer credit card account on default.

Barclays allegedly reported inaccurate information after the
Plaintiff's bankruptcy was filed and discharged, in the form of
reporting the account as "charged off," owing an outstanding
balance of $ 5,118.00, and with a past due amount of $632.00, as
opposed to "Discharged in Bankruptcy" or the equivalent. This
information reported by Barclays after the Bankruptcy was
discharged was made available to potential creditors, the
complaint says. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Tel: (323) 940-1700
      Email: tom@mblawapc.com
             nick@mblawapc.com


BLATT HASENMILLER: Lillegard's Class Certification Bid Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 5, 2017, in the case styled
Jane Bishop Lillegard v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08075 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable John Z. Lee.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is stricken without prejudice to renewal when
discovery has been completed.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed "to avoid
any attempt by Defendant to 'pick off' the named plaintiffs or
moot the class claims" by way of an offer of settlement, according
to the Court's docket entry.  But, as the Supreme Court and
Seventh Circuit have recently articulated, such placeholder
motions are unnecessary.  Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
663, 672 (2016) ("[A]n unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiffs case."); Fulton Dental, LLC v.
Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 WL 2641124, at *4 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017) ("[A]s long as the proposed class representative has not
lost on the merits before a class certification motion is filed,
it is not barred from seeking class treatment.").

In addition, the Court says, the parties are currently engaged in
discovery as to the formation of an arbitration agreement that may
affect whether certification is proper, as well as in continued
settlement discussions.  The Plaintiff's motion is, therefore,
stricken without prejudice to renewal when discovery has been
completed.

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


BONCHON USA: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonchon U.S.A., Inc.
The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bonchon
U.S.A., Inc., Bonchon LLC, Bonchon Franchise LLC, Bonchon Brooklyn
INC., and Bonchon Holdings INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05167 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2017).

Bonchon is a Korean food restaurant specializing in sweet and
savory Korean fried chicken.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BRANDED RESTAURANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Branded Restaurant
Foods LLC. The case is titled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Branded
Restaurant Foods LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05133
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

The Defendant operates a fast-food restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Sok" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Sok By, Tsung Yu Shieh, Andy Diep, Suzanne Rutherford, Alex Wai
Pui Lei and Antolin Dizon, individually and on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current
employees, Plaintiffs, v. California Commerce Club, Inc. and Does
1 Through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC665746, (Cal.
Super., June 20, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon
for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, claims of illegal tip
pooling, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California
labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the
California Business and Professions Code, and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

California Commerce Club, Inc. operates as a poker casino offering
poker, blackjack, Caribbean stud, baccarat and Asian style games
in Los Angeles where Plaintiffs worked as a poker dealer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Tel: (213) 814-4940
      Fax: (213) 814-2550
      Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com
             grant@soloukisavoy.com


CARDCONNECT CORP: "Rothman" Files Suit Over Sale to First Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rothman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cardconnect Corp., Jeffrey Shanahan, Peter
Burns, Toos Daruvala, Richard Garman, Ronald Taylor and
Christopher Winship, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02777 (E.D. Pa.,
June 20, 2017), seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
acquisition of Cardconnect by First Data; rescinding the merger
and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the said merger; costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

First Data is set to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
CardConnect common stock through an all-cash tender offer at a
purchase price of $15.00 per share of which Plaintiff, a
shareholder of Cardconnect, deems inadequate in light of the
Company's recent financial performance and prospects for future
growth. Indeed, says the Plaintiff, the company enjoyed continued
growth for the full-year 2016 and in the first fiscal quarter of
2017.

CardConnect is a provider of payment processing solutions to
merchants throughout the United States via merchant acquiring
services and its payment solutions, customer support and tools for
its distribution partners and merchants as well as its enterprise
resource planning services.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PN 19046
      Phone: (215) 277-5770
      Fax: (215) 277-5771
      Email: sguber@faruqilaw.com


CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Douglas" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Care Capital
Properties shareholders claims in a lawsuit in Chicago that the
company's directors filed misleading and incomplete financial
statements about a proposed $7.4 billion merger with Sabra Health
Care REIT, leaving shareholders without the information needed to
cast an informed vote on the deal.

The case is captioned, GARY DOUGLAS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CARE CAPITAL PROPERTIES,
RAYMOND J. LEWIS, DOUGLAS CROCKER, JOHN L. WORKMAN, JEFFREY A.
MALEHORN, RONALD G. GEARY, DALE ANNE REISS, JOHN S. GATES,
Defendants, Case: 1:17-cv-04942 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2017).

Counsel to Plaintiff:

     Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
     DITOMMASO LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
     17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
     Tel: (630) 333-0000
     Fax: (630) 333-0333
     E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
     Washington, D.C.
     Tel: (292) 524-4291
     E-mail: Etripodi@zlk.com


CENTRAL PONY: "Townsend" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Michele Townsend, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Pony Express, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00552 (W.D. Tex., June 20, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Central Pony Express, Inc. is a commercial and industrial
equipment supplier. Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher at its New
Braunfels, Texas location where she regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week without receiving all compensation due.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      Justin Jenson, Esq.
      Katie McGregor, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com
             jjenson@bpblaw.com
             kmcgregor@bpblaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Podstupka" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is captioned as Tracy Podstupka, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04067 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 8, 2017).

Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management
firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSERVICE LLC: Faces "Cruz" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conservice, LLC.
The case is entitled as Adolfo Cruz and Rodney Parker, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Conservice, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22545-KMM
(S.D. Fla., July 7, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge K. Michael Moore.

Conservice provides utility management and billing services for
property owners. It offers utility and ancillary billing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq.
          David Buckner, Esq.
          Seth Eric Miles, Esq.
          BUCKNER + MILES
          3350 Mary Street
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 964 8003
          Facsimile: (786) 523 0485
          E-mail: vonborke@bucknermiles.com
                  David@bucknermiles.com
                  seth@bucknermiles.com


COPLEY PRESS: Newspaper Carriers are Employees, App. Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a California appeals court
agreed on July 7 that a class of San Diego Union Tribune newspaper
carriers are employees and not independent contractors, and are
therefore entitled to minimum and overtime wages, but found a $3.1
million restitution award must be reduced to reflect the paper's
reimbursement of work-related expenses.

The case is captioned, LILIANA ESPEJO et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. THE COPLEY PRESS, INC., Defendant and Appellant.


CORIZON HEALTH: Doesn't Pay Workers Overtime, "Soltis" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Corizon Health, one of the nation's largest providers of prison
health care, stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class claims in Fresno Superior Court.

The case is captioned, WILLIAM SOLTIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CORIZON HEALTH,
INC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17CECG02245 (Cal. Super. Ct.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

     Joshua F. Richtel, Esq.
     TUTTLE & McCLOSKEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     750 East Bullard Avenue, Suite 101
     Fresno, CA 93710
     Telephone: (559)437-1770
     Facsimile: (559)437-0150


COUNTY OF BUCKS, PA: 3rd Cir. Affirmed "Taha" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the order granting class certification in the case captioned
DARYOUSH TAHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. COUNTY OF BUCKS; BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES LLC, d/b/a Mugshotonline.com, d/b/a
bustedmugshots.com; UNPUBLISH LLC, d/b/a Mugshots.com COUNTY OF
BUCKS; BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Appellants, No. 16-3077
(3rd Cir.).

Defendant-appellants Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and the Bucks
County Correctional Facility bring this interlocutory appeal of
the District Court's May 4, 2016 order certifying a class to
pursue claims.  In 2011, defendants created a publicly searchable
"Inmate Lookup Tool" into which they uploaded information about
tens of thousands of people who had been held or incarcerated at
the Bucks County Correctional Facility since 1938. alleging that
they had publicly disseminated information on the internet in
violation of the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information
Act ("CHRIA").

The Court granted Taha's motion for partial summary judgment on
liability on March 28, 2016, before certifying a plaintiffs'
punitive damages class of individuals about whom information of
their incarceration had been disseminated online.

Defendants claim that the District Court erred in granting Taha
partial summary judgment on liability before ruling on his motion
seeking class certification. First, they maintain that the Court
erred by granting Taha's motion for partial summary judgment on
liability prior to deciding Taha's motion seeking class
certification. Second, they challenge the certification decision.
They also assert that the Court erred on a number of grounds in
certifying a punitive damages class.

The Court's holding that punitive damages can be imposed in a case
in which the plaintiff does not recover compensatory damages, the
Court's holding that punitive damages can be imposed on government
agencies, and the Court's finding that the predominance
requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) had
been met so that a class could be certified, the Third Circuit
held.

A full-copy text of the Third Circuit's July 6, 2017, Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/RViQXF from Leagle.com.

Frank A. Chernak, -- CHERNAKFBALLARDSPAHR.COM-- Burt M. Rublin
[Argued], Ballard Spahr, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Attorneys for Appellants.

Alan E. Denenberg, Abramson & Denenberg, 1315 Walnut Street, 12th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Robert J. LaRocca [Argued],
Jonathan Shub, Kohn Swift & Graf, One South Broad Street, Suite
2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Attorneys for Appellee.

Crystal H. Clark, McNees Wallace & Nurick, 570 Lausch Lane, Suite
200, Lancaster, PA 17601, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae County,
Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.

Janet F. Ginzberg, Community Legal Services, 1424 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Community
Legal Service


CURE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cure Management,
LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cure
Management, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05130 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 7, 2017).

Cure Management provides comprehensive, world-class healthcare
management services to international healthcare organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: "Kryszkiewicz" Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jamie KRYSZKIEWICZ, individually
and in her capacity as Next of Friend of NATASHA BERND
KRYSZKIEWICZ, the Plaintiff, v. DePuy Orthopedics Inc., Johnson &
Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:11-md-02244-K, was transferred on July 7,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-11252 to the proceeding.

DePuy delivers innovative medical devices and solutions in
orthopaedics, spinal care and neuroscience that help patients live
full lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Ciporkin, Esq.
          LAWSON & WEITZEN
          88 Black Falcon Avenue, Suite 345
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 4990
          E-mail: rciporkin@lawson-weitzen.com


DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joel Rios Martinez, and other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Diaz Supermarket
Opa Locka, Inc., and Jimmy Diaz, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 17-014756 CA 01, was removed on July 8, 2017 from the
11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-22546-UU to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Diaz Supermarket provides grocery stores, cafeteria, check
cashing, and money transfer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq.
          PERERA LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485 5232
          Facsimile: (786) 485 1519
          E-mail: freddy@pereralaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448 9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448 9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


DOUGHNUT PLANT: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doughnut Plant, Inc.
The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Doughnut
Plant, INC., Doughnut Plant Chelsea INC., Doughnut Plant
Management INC., Doughnut Plant Les INC., Doughnut Plant Flatbush
INC., Doughnut Plant Queens Falchi, INC., and Doughnut Plant
Falchi, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05169 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 9, 2017).

Doughnut Plant offers handcrafted doughnuts in unusual varieties
such as creme brulee and tres leches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


DUBUQUE, IA: Iowa App. Affirms Funds Distribution in "Zaber"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the judgment in the
captioned case MARY PATRICIA ZABER, as successor in interest to J.
Thomas Zaber, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA, Defendant-
Appellant, No. 16-1513 (Iowa App.).

The City of Dubuque appeals from the district court's ruling
ordering the remaining funds held in an escrow account from a
class action settlement agreement be distributed equally among
four charitable organizations serving Dubuque residents as cy pres
recipients.

The City argues the district court should have ordered the funds
be returned to the City because doing so would serve the best
interests of the class, cy pres is not appropriate in this case,
the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure provide the funds should be
returned to the City, and, alternatively, even if cy pres were
appropriate here, the City is the best cy pres recipient.

The district court determined that a return of the remaining funds
to the City would not reasonably approximate the interests that
were pursued by the class because the group of persons who paid
illegal franchise fees are not one and the same with the persons
who pay property taxes.  The district court further found the City
was not an appropriate cy pres recipient because the City will
merely be using the remaining funds to reduce a debt obligation
which benefits property tax payers generally without advancing the
interests specific to the class.  The court found the state was
"not an appropriate recipient of the remaining funds. The court
ordered the funds distributed the remaining funds equally among
four charitable organizations serving Dubuque residents was most
consistent and best represents the interest pursued by the class.

The Iowa Appellate Court concluded the district court did not
abuse its discretion in ordering a cy pres distribution of the
remaining funds in the settlement escrow account to the four
charitable organizations

A full-copy text of the Iowa Appellate Court's July 6, 2017
Decision is available at https://is.gd/odN2gr from Leagle.com.

Ivan T. Webber -- www.ahlerslaw.com-- and James R. Wainwright --
www.ahlerslaw.com -- of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.

Richard A. Davidson -- rdavidson@l-wlaw.com -- of Lane & Waterman
L.L.P., Davenport, for appellee


DUKE ENERGY: Final Approval of Price Reporting Case Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that final approval of a
class settlement remains pending.

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating
Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other
energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth
single-plaintiff lawsuit in a consolidated federal court
proceeding in Nevada.

Each of these lawsuits contained similar claims that defendants
allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means,
including providing false information to natural gas trade
publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs sought damages in unspecified amounts.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff
settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016.

The proposed settlement of the class action lawsuits was submitted
to the Court and preliminarily approved on January 26, 2017.

The Court will consider final approval of the class settlement
following notice to the class members. The settlement amounts are
not material to Duke Energy.

Duke Energy is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC).


DUKE ENERGY: Appeal in Florida Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal in
a class action lawsuit in Florida remains pending.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of
all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a
result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future
charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS
has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on
alternative grounds.

Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on May 5, 2016.

On September 21, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss
with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied.

On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs filed an appellate brief on March 16, 2017, and Duke
Energy Florida filed responses on April 17, 2017. Duke Energy
Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.

Duke Energy is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC).


ENERVEST OPERATING: Mojave Oil Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mojave Oil & Gas, L.L.C., on
behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Enervest Operating LLC, Enervest Energy
Institutional Fund XIII-A LP, Enervest Energy Institutional Fund
XIII-WIB LP, and Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIC LP,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00582, was transferred on July 7, 2017 from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma
City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00723-HE
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joe
Heaton.

Enervest owns and operates oil and gas producing properties. The
Company acquires, develops, and produces oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C Woltz, Esq.
          Robert N Lawrence, Esq.
          Terry J Barker, Esq.
          PEZOLD BARKER & WOLTZ
          2431 East 61st St., Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74136-1242
          Telephone: (918) 584 0506
          Facsimile: (918) 584 0720
          E-mail: jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com
                  rlawrence@pbwtulsa.com
                  tbarker@pbwtulsa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D Christiansen, Esq.
          Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq.
          Michael F Smith, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 552 2235
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7435
          E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com
                  maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com


ENERVEST OPERATING: Mojave Oil's Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer to the Western
District of Oklahoma the case captioned MOJAVE OIL & GAS, L.L.C.,
on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. ENERVEST OPERATING, L.L.C.; ENERVEST ENERGY
INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL
FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; and ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-
WIC, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-582-JHP-FHM (N.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff initiated this purported class action by filing a
petition in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a non-operating working interest
owner in three wells located in Beckham County, Oklahoma, in which
Defendants act as an operator. In October 2015, Defendants billed
Plaintiff over $120,000 in litigation settlement costs and fees,
which Defendants claimed was Plaintiff's proportionately allocated
share of $52 million paid by Defendants to settle the case of
Chieftain Royalty Co. v. SM Energy Co., et al., No. 11-CV-177-D.

Plaintiff was not a party to the Chieftain case and did not
participate in or agree to the settlement in the Chieftain case.
Defendants then began netting the Chieftain litigation settlement
amount and attorney fees against amounts that Defendants owed to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks damages on its own behalf and on behalf
of a class of those similarly situated to recover the wrongfully
withheld royalty payments pursuant to Oklahoma law. Plaintiff also
seeks to recover for breach of contract, breach of trust, and
constructive fraud, and it seeks a declaratory judgment that
EnerVest is not entitled to recover its litigation settlement
costs and legal fees from the Chieftain case from Plaintiff and
other non-operating working interest owners.

Defendants now ask that this action be transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims arise exclusively from
Defendants' involvement in the Chieftain case, which remains
pending before Judge Timothy DeGiusti in the Western District.

Plaintiff opposes a change of venue to the Western District.

A federal district court may transfer a civil action for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice
to any other district or division where it might have been
brought. In considering a motion to transfer under Section
1404(a), the court should weigh the following discretionary
factors: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the
accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, including
the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of
witnesses; (3) the cost of making the necessary proof; (4)
questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is
obtained; (5) relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;
(6) difficulties that may arise from congested dockets; (7) the
possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area of
conflict of laws; (8) the advantage of having a local court
determine the questions of local law; and (9) all other
considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy,
expeditious, and economical.

After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case, the
Northern District finds that Defendants have met their burden of
proving the existing forum is inconvenient for purposes of 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The balance of factors dictate that this
case be transferred to the Western District.  Hence, Defendants'
Motion to Transfer Action to the Western District of Oklahoma is
granted.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/pexmC7 from Leagle.com.

Mojave Oil & Gas, L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph C.
Woltz -- jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com -- Pezold Barker & Woltz.
Mojave Oil & Gas, L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Neil
Lawrence, Pezold Barker & Woltz, 401 South Boston Avenue Suite
3400 Tulsa, OK 74103-4017Phones: (918) 584-0506 Fax: (918) 584-
0720 & Terry Joe Barker, Pezold Barker & Woltz.

Enervest Operating, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Mark D.
Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft,
Mary Quinn-Cooper -- maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee &
Taft & Michael Franklin Smith -- michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com --
McAfee & Taft.

Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, Mary Quinn-
Cooper, McAfee & Taft & Michael Franklin Smith, McAfee & Taft.
Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIB, L.P., Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, Mary Quinn-
Cooper, McAfee & Taft & Michael Franklin Smith, McAfee & Taft.
Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIC, L.P., Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, Mary Quinn-
Cooper, McAfee & Taft & Michael Franklin Smith, McAfee & Taft.


FLORIDA: Deprived Public Colleges of $1-Bil. in Grant, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action in Tallahassee, Fla. claims that Florida's governor
and other officials unconstitutionally deprived public colleges of
$1 billion in grant aid in order to fund tax cuts.

As outlined in the complaint filed in the Leon County Circuit
Court, the state is required to match private donations to public
colleges and universities depriving the schools -- and their
students -- of much-needed funding for facility improvements,
financial aid, and scholarships.

"Florida, since 1979, had matching statutes that matched private
donations to Florida colleges and universities," explained Grace
Mead of Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson,
who represents the sibling lead plaintiffs, Alexis and Ryan
Geffin.

"The Great Recession hit, and when that happened, we agreed to
stop funding. But in 2012, we then had huge surpluses and they
still won't fund the colleges and universities. They hid it," Mead
said.

The lawsuit, filed June 30, accuses the defendants of violating
the Florida Constitution "by defunding the matching statutes
through appropriations bills during years with large projected and
realized budget surpluses."

By law, the plaintiffs state that in order to defund the statutes,
the defendants must pass legislation to amend the statutes so that
that the amendments are up for debate in the legislature.

"Rather than appropriate the over $600 million in State funds
owed, the Governor and the Legislature have spent general revenue
surpluses on multi-billion dollar tax cuts and to set aside
billions in reserves," the complaint states.

Florida has 28 state and community colleges, which hundreds of
thousands of students attend. The Geffins say that the defendants
are harming the students.

"Florida's elected officials have not publicly acknowledged that
the State has defaulted on its obligations under the matching
gifts statue and claimed a degree of financial support for this
critically important investment in the future that vastly
overstates the State's contribution . . . Instead of using its
[the state's] improved financial circumstances to meet its
obligations, however, the State enacted multi-billion dollar tax
cuts and set aside billions in reserves," the complaint states.

Alexis Geffin, who graduated from the University of Florida in
2017, and Ryan Geffin, who graduated from the University of
Florida in 2016, say they could have benefited from improvements
throughout the campus, particularly at the university's Computer
Science Engineering building and the Harn Museum.

Representatives of the defendants said they were reviewing the
claims in the lawsuit and declined further comment.


FORREST RIVER: Court Issues Protective Order in "Rangel"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered a Stipulated Protect Order in the case FIDELINA
RANGEL as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
0613 JFW (SSx)(C.D. Calif.).

Plaintiff Fidelina Rangel, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Defendant Forest River, Inc.,
agreed to petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective
Order.

This action is likely to involve the disclosure by Defendant of
(1) personal and private contact information, including addresses,
telephone and cell phone numbers, and email addresses for
Defendant's current and former employees who may be identified as
putative class members in this class action lawsuit; (2) payroll
and other financial information and documents pertaining to
Defendant's current and former employees who may be identified as
putative class members in this class action lawsuit; (3) non-
public documents and/or information concerning Defendant's
finances, including financial reports, profit and loss statements,
and financial projections; (4) non-public documents and/or
information concerning Defendant's business policies, internal
business procedures and operational practices; and (5) non-public
documents and/or information containing Defendant's trade secrets
and non-public technical and/or proprietary information.  The
parties believe that good cause exists to provide these categories
of documents and information, (1) through (5), with special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than for prosecution of this action.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/XDEx8O from Leagle.com.

Fidelina Rangel, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John Rowbotham -
- arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC.
Fidelina Rangel, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W.H. Schmidt,
Haines Law Group APC & Paul Keith Haines --
phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC.
Forest River, Inc., Defendant, represented by Noah A. Levin,
Pacific Employment Law LLP & Maureen K. Bogue --
maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- Pacific Employment Law LLP.


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces "Konstandinou" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Collection
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Eleni Konstandinou, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Franklin Collection Service, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04040 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

Franklin Collection is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Technicians Class Certified in "Redmon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nancy F. Atlas certifies this class in the lawsuit
captioned BRYAN REDMON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S
ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, and
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-01119 (S.D.
Tex.):

     All individuals Defendants classified as Independent
     Contractors who worked as garage door "Technicians"
     throughout the country and who provided services from
     July 5, 2014 to the present.

Judge Atlas directs the Defendant to provide the last known names,
addresses, and e-mail addresses of the potential class members to
the Plaintiff's counsel within 20 days after the Initial Pretrial
and Scheduling Conference on July 10, 2017.

The Class shall not include individuals employed by the Defendants
as W-2 employees that worked in California and Arizona.

The Plaintiff's counsel will distribute the notice and consent
forms to the potential class members via either mail or e-mail no
later than 20 days after the Defendants produce contact
information for the Class Members.  Potential class members will
have 60 days from the date of mailing or e-mailing of the first
notice to opt in to the litigation as party plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=miP31mbb


GLOBAL QUALITY: "Styles" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Vivian Styles and Ramon Gomez, for themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Global Quality, Inc.
d/b/a Global Quality Transportation, One Link Limo, Inc., and
Landmark Worldwide Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 155621/2017
(N.Y. Sup., June 20, 2017), seeks overtime compensation plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Laws.

Defendants provide limousine services and jointly employed
Plaintiffs as drivers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082


GO NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Tour Bus Drivers
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and denied motion for conditional
certification in the case captioned, VICTOR H. ALVARADO BALDERRAMO
and LUIS FALQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GO NEW YORK TOURS INC. and ASEN
KOSTADINOV, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ.
2326 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo and Luis Falquez (Plaintiffs) bring
the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs allege that they and all similarly
situated employees are entitled to unpaid minimum wages, overtime,
spread-of-hours pay, and uniform maintenance pay from Go New York
Tours Inc. and its President, Asen Kostadinov (Defendants).

On January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint,
adding Falquez as a named plaintiff, and including additional
relevant allegations pertaining to his employment with Defendants.

Plaintiffs' move for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) for a class composed of all tour bus
drivers employed by Defendants within six years prior to the
filing of the Complaint and Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action constituting all tour
guides employed by Defendants within the three years prior to the
filing of the Complaint.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/c5uzJD from Leagle.com, Judge Ramos concluded that
the Plaintiffs have established compliance with every Rule 23
requirement. The court appointed The Law Office of Justin A.
Zeller, P.C. as class counsel. As to motion for conditional class
certification, Plaintiff does not make any showing about a
widespread failure to pay minimum wage based on Defendants' pay
records.

Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, et al. are represented by Brandon
David Sherr, Esq. -- bsherr@zellerlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.

Go New York Tours Inc. is represented by Andrew Joseph Bayne, Esq.
-- abayne@baynelaw.com -- and -- Jennifer Marie Mohamed, Esq. --
jennifer@baynelaw -- THE BAYNE LAW GROUP LLC


HENRY SCHEIN: SourceOne Dental Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson
Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply
Company.

In September 2015, Henry Schein, Inc. was served with a summons
and complaint in an action commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled SourceOne
Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and
Benco Dental Supply Company, Civil Action No. 15-cv-05440-JMA-GRB.
Plaintiff alleges that, through its website, it markets and sells
dental supplies and equipment to dentists.  Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that defendants conspired to eliminate
plaintiff as a viable competitor and to exclude plaintiff from the
market for the marketing, distribution and sale of dental supplies
and equipment in the United States and that defendants unlawfully
agreed with one another to boycott dentists, manufacturers and
state dental associations that deal with, or considered dealing
with, plaintiff.  Plaintiff asserts the following claims:  (i)
unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws; (ii) tortious interference with prospective
business relations; (iii) civil conspiracy; and (iv) aiding and
abetting the other defendants' ongoing tortious and
anticompetitive conduct.  Plaintiff seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, punitive
damages, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the action," the
Company said.

Henry Schein believes it is the world's largest provider of health
care products and services primarily to office-based dental,
animal health and medical practitioners.


HENRY SCHEIN: 2016 Class Suit over Price Fixing Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against a 2016 class action case alleging that
defendants conspired to fix prices.

Beginning in January 2016, class action complaints were filed
against Patterson Companies, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and
Henry Schein, Inc.  Each of these complaints allege, among other
things, that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate
customers and foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers,
state dental associations and others that deal with defendants'
competitors.  Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to
represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment
in the United States directly from any of the defendants or
Burkhart Dental Supply Co. since August 31, 2008.

Each class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and
treble damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.

Henry Schein believes it is the world's largest provider of health
care products and services primarily to office-based dental,
animal health and medical practitioners.


HYPERION MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Gress" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William P. Gress asks the Court to enter an order determining
that the action titled DR. WILLIAM P. GRESS, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. HYPERION MEDICAL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-04996
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658),
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Hyperion
     Medical Technologies, Inc., promoting its goods or services
     for sale (d) with respect to which defendant Hyperion
     Medical Technologies, Inc., 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, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Hyperion Medical Technologies,
     Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with
     respect to which defendant Hyperion Medical Technologies,
     Inc., does not have evidence of consent or an established
     business relationship prior to sending the fax.

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

The Plaintiff further asks that he 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=PeGpNIhu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Federal Mogul Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that in the case, In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and to stay discovery pending determination of that
motion remains pending.

On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and
October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions,
captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v.
Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A.
No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the Board of Directors of Federal-Mogul (the "FM Board") and Icahn
Enterprises, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, certain of their
affiliates and Icahn Enterprises' Board of Directors (the "Icahn
Defendants"), and, in the case of Raul, Federal-Mogul. The
complaints allege that, among other things, the FM Board breached
its fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger Agreement,
that the Icahn Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
minority stockholders of Federal-Mogul and/or aided and abetted
the FM Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as
alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the
Schedule 14D-9 filed by Federal-Mogul (the "Schedule 14D-9"). The
complaints allege that, among other things, the then-Offer Price
was inadequate and, together with that the Merger Agreement, was
the result of a flawed and unfair sales process and conflicts of
interest of the FM Board and the special committee of independent
directors of Federal-Mogul (the "Special Committee"), alleging
that the Special Committee and Federal-Mogul's management lacked
independence from the Icahn Defendants.

In addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement
contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions,
including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the
complaints sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Raul and Mercado complaints further seek to rescind the
transaction or award rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul)
award a quasi-appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction
was consummated, as well as award money damages.

On October 28, 2016, all four actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 12790-CB (the "Delaware Action").

On March 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint that does not name Federal-Mogul as a defendant. Among
other things, the consolidated amended complaint also adds
allegations regarding the commencement and extension of the Offer,
the increase in the Offer price, the closing of the transaction,
Federal-Mogul's subsequent performance and public statements, Mr.
Ninivaggi's post-merger employment with Icahn Enterprises and the
independence of the chairman of the Special Committee. Defendants
have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to stay discovery
pending determination of that motion.

No further updates were provide in the Company's SEC report.

Icahn Enterprises owns a 99% limited partner interest in Icahn
Enterprises Holdings.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Sanders" Michigan Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that in the case, Sanders v. Federal-Mogul Holdings
Corporation et al., the Court has entered a stipulated order
staying the Michigan Action pending final determination of the
Delaware Action.

On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v.
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of
Michigan against Federal-Mogul, the FM Board and the Icahn
Defendants (the "Michigan Action"). The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the FM Board breached its fiduciary duties and
that Federal-Mogul and the Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the
FM Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging
certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-
9. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer
Price was unfair and the result of an unfair sales process that
included conflicts of interest.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement
contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions,
including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the
complaint sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, or, in the event that the transactions were
consummated, rescind the transactions or award rescissory damages,
as well as award money damages and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which,
among other things, dropped Federal-Mogul as a defendant.  The
amended complaint also: named certain additional Icahn-affiliated
individuals and entities as defendants; deleted various
allegations relating to process and purported disclosure
deficiencies; added allegations regarding the commencement and
extension of the Offer, the increase in the Offer price, the
closing of the transaction, Federal-Mogul's subsequent performance
and public statements, Mr. Ninivaggi's post-merger employment with
Icahn Enterprises, and the independence of certain directors; and
eliminated the request for injunctive relief given the
consummation of the transaction.

On April 4, 2017 the Court entered a stipulated order staying the
Michigan Action pending final determination of the Delaware
Action.

Each of Icahn Enterprises and Federal-Mogul believes that the
claims in the Delaware and Michigan Actions are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.

Icahn Enterprises owns a 99% limited partner interest in Icahn
Enterprises Holdings.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Nguyen" Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage
Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et al.

On April 20, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court, Central District of California,
entitled Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et
al.   The Plaintiff contends IMC did not pay purported class
members overtime compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as
required by law.   The action seeks to invalidate any waiver
signed by a purported class member of their right to bring a class
action and seeks damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees,
interest, and an injunction against unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful activities.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the Company or IMH) is a Maryland
corporation incorporated in August 1995 and has the following
wholly-owned subsidiaries: Integrated Real Estate Service
Corporation (IRES), Impac Mortgage Corp. (IMC), IMH Assets Corp.
(IMH Assets) and Impac Funding Corporation (IFC).  The Company's
operations include the mortgage lending operations and real estate
services conducted by IRES and IMC and the long-term mortgage
portfolio (residual interests in securitizations reflected as net
trust assets and liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets)
conducted by IMH.  IMC's mortgage lending operations include the
activities of CashCall Mortgage (CCM).


INSULET CORP: Still Faces Arkansas Teacher Retirement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend against the case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v.
Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of
loss, in connection with this matter.

Insulet Corporation, the "Company," is primarily engaged in the
development, manufacturing and sale of its proprietary Omnipod
Insulin Management System ("Omnipod System"), an innovative,
discreet and easy-to-use continuous insulin delivery system for
people with insulin-dependent diabetes.


J&M COMMS: Home Healthcare Workers Lose Bid for Conditional Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas denied Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certitifcation and
Notice in the case captioned PAMELA CRANE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J & M
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a ULTIMATE HOME HEALTH CARE, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2855-L-BH (N.D. Tex.).

On October 11, 2016, Pamela Crane brought this collective action
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all current or former home
healthcare workers employed by Defendant from January 1, 2015 to
the present.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 &
215(a)(2) of the FLSA by failing to comply with new regulations
from the Department of Labor that require third-party employers to
pay overtime compensation. Plaintiff moves for conditional
certification of a collective action class comprised of all
current and former home healthcare workers employed by Defendant,
who were paid hourly and who were not paid overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in a work week.

Defendant objects and moves to strike certain paragraphs from
Plaintiff's declaration because she lacks personal knowledge and
personal observation to make those statements.

Plaintiff's Declaration states that she is employed as a home
healthcare worker by Defendant and that she and the other home
healthcare workers have the same responsibilities but it does not,
among others, provide any information as to the approximate number
of other "home healthcare workers" that Defendant employs and also
does not include any statements that Plaintiff spoke with, worked
with, or personally knew the other home healthcare workers who
were also denied overtime compensation, the District Court pointed
out.

Plaintiff's evidence offers support to her individual claim
against Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation, but it
does not meet her burden to show a reasonable basis for the
existence of other aggrieved individuals who are similarly
situated to her, the Court concluded.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
notice to potential plaintiffs is denied.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/RqRyHN at Leagle.com.

Pamela Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Bohrer, Bohrer
Brady LLC.

Pamela Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Corinna Pia Chandler,
Chandler Law PC & Scott E. Brady, Bohrer Brady LLC.

J & M Communications Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Reagan, Reagan & McLain & Grace Hojin Sundberg, Reagan McLain &
Hatch LLP.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Arreola" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimberly-Clark
Corporation. The case is titled as Heidi Arreola and Tim Dostal,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-05127 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an American multinational personal
care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP PC
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 722 4266
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a purported wage and
hour class action lawsuit is currently pending against the Company
in federal district court for the Northern District of California.
This lawsuit pertains to alleged errors made by the Company with
respect to minimum wage and overtime payments resulting from a
piece-rate payment system. The Company has recorded a $2.0 million
loss provision in the first quarter of 2017 related to this
lawsuit. At this time, no estimate of the possible loss or range
of loss in excess of the amount accrued can be made regarding this
lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations made in this lawsuit
and will defend this action and any related claims vigorously.

The Company is a healthcare services company that through its
subsidiaries operates a home health, hospice and community care
business, TC hospitals, IRFs, a contract rehabilitation services
business, nursing centers, and assisted living facilities across
the United States.


KONG TECHNOLOGIES: "Opperman" Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in the
case captioned MARC OPPERMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

This is a class action against Apple and various mobile
application ("app") developers for alleged invasions of privacy.
The Plaintiffs allege that the apps unlawfully uploaded their
address book data without their knowledge or consent, and that
Apple aided and abetted them in that conduct.

In July 2016, the Court certified nominal and punitive damage
claims against Path and Apple for a class comprising all persons
in the United States who downloaded an offending version of the
Path app from the App Store and activated the app via their Apple
device.

Two of the App Defendants settled with Plaintiffs prior to joint
mediation. The Plaintiffs have now moved for preliminary approval
of their class action settlement with the App Defendants.

In examining the means by which the parties arrived at the
settlement agreement, the Court concludes that the negotiations
and agreement were non-collusive. The settlement was reached after
the parties engaged in five years of litigation, extensive motion
practice, and negotiations that were overseen by a neutral third-
party mediator, the court pointed out.  These facts support the
conclusion that the settlement agreement is non-collusive and
likely to benefit the class members. Hence, the Court grants the
motion for preliminary approval.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mAGdyb from Leagle.com.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP.
Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com
-- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton
Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin
LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac
vice, Dirk M. Jordan -- dirk@dirkjordan.com -- Frank H. Busch --
busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar
-- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe --  wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Rachelle King, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Guili Biondi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Jason Green, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Nirali Mandaywala, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James S. Notis, Gardy &
Notis, LLP, pro hac vice, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP, Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Orin Kurtz, Gardy and
Notis, LLP, pro hac vice.

Oscar Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Francisco Espitia, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Haig Arabian, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Steven Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John
Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Lauren Carter, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Stephanie Cooley, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Hodgins, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Paul, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Theda Sandiford, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J.
Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com --  Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah
Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com --  Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon -
- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G.
Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael
Henry Page -- mpage@durietangri.com   -- Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com  --  Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall
Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright --
alan.albright@bracewell.com -- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP,
Clayton Cole James -- clay.james@hoganlovells.com  -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston --
jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com  -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R.
Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.
Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.
Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com --Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A.
Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick &
West LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee
Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP,
Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. &
Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P.,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda
Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason --
lmason@law.utexas.edu -- Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley
LLP, Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com --  Cooley LLP,
Christopher Brian Durbin -- cdurbin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa
Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc.,
James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet
K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit over ARCP Note Offerings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against the case related to American
Realty Capital Partners, Inc.'s note offerings.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000
common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings. The complaints have been consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of
the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's
July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-
calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and
misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as
to ARCP's internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to
dismiss the complaint. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Ladenburg is a full service registered broker-dealer that has been
a member of the New York Stock Exchange since 1879.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Faces Suit over Miller Energy Offerings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against the case related to Miller
Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's
auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings
in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was
one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of
certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in November
2016, the cases were consolidated. Defendants' motions to dismiss
are currently pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Ladenburg is a full service registered broker-dealer that has been
a member of the New York Stock Exchange since 1879.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Suit over Plains All American Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against the case related to Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P.'s securities offerings.

In January 2016, an amended complaint for a purported class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., related entities
and their officers and directors. The amended complaint added as
defendants Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities
offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised
approximately $2,900,000.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial
public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that
the offering materials were misleading based on representations
concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's
pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of
federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, as well as other relief.

In March 2017 the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
without prejudice, and granted the plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint by May 15, 2017. If a new amended complaint is
filed, Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against it.

Ladenburg is a full service registered broker-dealer that has been
a member of the New York Stock Exchange since 1879.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss CTI Offering Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that motions
to dismiss the case related to CTI Biopharma Corp.'s securities
offerings are pending.

In November 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against CTI Biopharma Corp., its directors and officers, as well
as the underwriters of two securities offerings in 2015 that
raised approximately $105,000. Ladenburg was one of the
underwriters of the offerings. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the offering materials were misleading in their
descriptions of safety results of Phase 3 clinical drug trials for
the issuer's lead drug candidate for myelofibrosis, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending.
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg is a full service registered broker-dealer that has been
a member of the New York Stock Exchange since 1879.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: OT Pay, Reimbursements Claimed by "Watson"
----------------------------------------------------------
Chetera Watson, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Liberty
Mutual Group Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC665695, (Cal. Super., June 20, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages and interest thereon for Defendant's failure to pay for
overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required
rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business
expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California
labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Watson worked as a Sales Representative for Liberty Mutual Group
Inc., a provider of auto, home and life insurance products and
services based out of 4701 W Slauson Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90056.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Mallen, Esq.
      Adrian C. Byrne, Esq.
      EMPLOYEE LAW GROUP
      840 Apollo Street, Suite 311
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 606-0065
      Facsimile: (310) 606-0064
      Email: david@employeelawgroup.com


LIMOLINK INC: Court Narrows Claims in Limousine Drivers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In VLADIMIR CHEBOTNIKOV, EUGENE PANTYUKHIN, and YOGESH SHARMA, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LIMOLINK, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-13475-FDS (D.
Mass.), is a putative class action alleging violations of
Massachusetts wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Defendant LimoLink, Inc., is a company that, in substance,
provides a platform for customers seeking to use limousine
services. Plaintiffs are three limousine drivers who operate their
own limousine companies and, through those companies, contracted
with LimoLink to provide limousine services to its customers. The
contracts included various restrictions and requirements,
including adherence to certain standards set by LimoLink.
Plaintiffs allege that LimoLink violated state and federal wage
laws by improperly classifying them as independent contractors,
failing to pay them overtime compensation, and failing to
distribute to them all gratuities paid by its customers.

The complaint in this action was originally filed on August 26,
2014, by plaintiff Chebotnikov. The third amended complaint, which
is a putative class action, also includes claims by Pantyukhin and
Sharma and asserts seven counts: misclassification in violation of
the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws,
violation of the Massachusetts Tips Law; Mass Gen. Laws; violation
of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws,  and the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws; misclassification
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); failure to
pay overtime in violation of FLSA and tip misappropriation in
violation of Fair Labor Standard Act.

LimoLink has moved for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs
have cross-moved for partial summary judgment on counts one
(misclassification under the Massachusetts Independent Contractor
Statute) and three (violation of the Massachusetts Tips Law).

The role of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to
assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need
for trial. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party
shows that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  A
genuine issue is "one that must be decided at trial because the
evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant
would permit a rational fact finder to resolve the issue in favor
of either party. When "a properly supported motion for summary
judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.  The nonmoving
party may not simply "rest upon mere allegation or denials of his
pleading," but instead must "present affirmative evidence.

Under the independent-contractor statute, an individual performing
any service shall be considered an employee" unless the purported
employer can make three showings. (1) the individual is free from
control and direction in connection with the performance of the
service, both under his contract for the performance of service
and in fact;(2) the service is performed outside the usual course
of business of the employer; and(3) the individual is customarily
engaged in an independently established trade, occupation,
profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the
service performed.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted in part and denied in part the parties motions.  The
motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs Chebotnikov, Pantyukhin,
and Sharma is granted as to Count Three (violation of the
Massachusetts Tips Law, Mass Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sec. 152A) and is
otherwise denied.  The motion for summary judgment of defendant
LimoLink is granted to the extent it seeks summary judgment on
Count Seven (misappropriation of tips under the Fair Labor
Standard Act), and otherwise denied.

The Court held that the Plaintiff's investment in their own
equipment weighs in favor of finding independent-contractor
status.  Plaintiffs purchased and maintained their own vehicles
and paid their own insurance premiums, which entail "considerable
costs" not normally borne by employees, the Court pointed out.

Similarly, the lack of permanence in the working relationship
between plaintiffs and LimoLink weighs in favor of finding
independent-contractor status, the Court said.  It is undisputed
that the parties could terminate their agreement at will.

On the other hand, it does not appear that driving for LimoLink
requires the kind of special skill that is typically indicative of
an independent contractor. Whether plaintiffs' services were an
integral part of LimoLink's business, and the weight to be
assigned to that factor, appears to depend in large part on the
definition of the business.  Although drivers are of course
necessary to the success of the entire enterprise, the same could
be said of many independent contractors or subcontractors (such
as, for example, electricians or plumbers on a construction job).
On the other hand, if the business is defined as providing
limousine services, chauffeurs are obviously an essential part of
any such business.

The combination of disputed facts, factors pointing towards
independent contractor status, and factors pointing toward an
employer-employee relationship preclude the granting of summary
judgment on Counts Five and Six.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/RZQbPT from Leagle.com.

Vladimir Chebotnikov, Plaintiff, represented by Hillary A. Schwab
-- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C..

Vladimir Chebotnikov, Plaintiff, represented by Brant Casavant --
brant@fairworklaw.com  -- Fair Work P.C., Edward L. Manchur --
kbmlawfirm.com-- Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC, James R.
Knudsen -- pview.findlaw.com -- Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC &
Rachel J. Smit -- rachel@fairworklaw.com --  Fair Work, P.C..
Eugene Pantyukhin, Plaintiff, represented by Hillary A. Schwab,
Fair Work, P.C., Brant Casavant, Fair Work P.C., Edward L.
Manchur, Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC, James R. Knudsen,
Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC & Rachel J. Smit, Fair Work, P.C.

Yogesh Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Hillary A. Schwab, Fair
Work, P.C., Brant Casavant, Fair Work P.C., Edward L. Manchur,
Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC, James R. Knudsen, Knudsen,
Burbridge & Manchur, PC & Rachel J. Smit, Fair Work, P.C.

LimoLink, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert P. Sherman --
robert.sherman@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Matthew J.
Iverson -- matthew.iverson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP &
Miles D. Norton -- miles.norton@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP.
LimoLink, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert P.
Sherman, DLA Piper US LLP, Matthew J. Iverson, DLA Piper US LLP &
Miles D. Norton, DLA Piper US LLP.

Vladimir Chebotnikov, Counter Defendant, represented by Hillary A.
Schwab, Fair Work, P.C., Edward L. Manchur, Knudsen, Burbridge &
Manchur, PC, James R. Knudsen, Knudsen, Burbridge & Manchur, PC &
Rachel J. Smit, Fair Work, P.C.


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Selling Glasses at Bogus Discounts, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Diego, claims Lenscrafters and
Luxottica Group sell prescription glasses at a bogus "discounted"
price that exaggerates the supposed original price.

The case is captioned, SANDRA SEEGERT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v LENSCRAFTERS, INC., an
Ohio corporation, LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., an Ohio
corporation, LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A., an Italian corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.: 17CV1372JM
(S.D. Cal., July 5, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 756-6994
     Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carsonlynch.com


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Suit by Thrift Plan Participant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a participant in the
Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan claims in a federal class action in
Toledo, Ohio that administrators heavily invested plan assets in
Marathon Oil stock based on the mistaken belief that it still
qualified as an employer security, causing the retirement plan to
lose tens of millions of dollars when the stock underperformed.

The case is captioned, JEFFEREY YATES, on behalf of the Marathon
Petroleum Thrift Plan and a class of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. RODNEY P. NICHOLS, as administrator for
the Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan, THE MARATHON PETROLEUM
CORPORATION SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, TIMOTHY
GRIFFITH, TOM KACZYNSKI and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case:
3:17-cv-01389-JGC (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2017).

Counsel to Plaintiff:

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             rjenny@baileyglasser.com
             mboyko@baileyglasser.com

          - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
     IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
     Email: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
     Email: dneedham@ikrlaw.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Court Dismisses "Spencer" Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted motion to dismiss,
and denied all Plaintiff's motions, in the cases captioned, BARRY
SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. ANNIE DOOKHAN, et al., Defendants, BARRY
SPENCER Plaintiff, v. SONYA FARAK, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
1:16-cv-12076-ADB, 1:16-cv-12080-ADB (D. Mass.).

In the civil rights actions, Plaintiff Barry Spencer alleges
violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Mass. Gen. Laws.  On
December 10, 2003, Spencer was arrested on charges of narcotics
distribution, and on January 21, 2004, he was indicted in the
Suffolk County Superior Court.  Spencer alleges that Sonya Farak,
a chemist and Annie Dookhan tampered with the samples and engaged
in misconduct that deprived him of his constitutional, civil, and
other rights.

Spencer seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.

In the motion, Defendant Walsh argues that Spencer's complaints in
both Spencer II and Spencer III must be dismissed because the
claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, since
Spencer raised similar sets of claims in prior actions filed in
the state and federal courts.

In a Memorandum and Order dated June 27, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/HzRy03 from Leagle.com, Judge Burroughs held that
all three elements of claim preclusion under both Massachusetts
and federal law have been satisfied.

"Whether or not Spencer was entitled to a stay or dismissal
without prejudice pursuant to Heck is an issue that should have
been raised in the courts that previously considered his claims,
or that could have been raised by appealing the decisions of those
courts.  Indeed, Spencer may still be able to move for
reconsideration in those courts in light of the new developments
related to his 2003 and 2006 convictions," Judge Burroughs opines.

"Spencer cannot, however, repeatedly file similar cases involving
the same convictions and allegations, and earn additional
opportunities to litigate the same claims, all because the
underlying criminal matter has not been fully resolved," Judge
Burroughs adds.

The Court orders: (1) Defendant Walsh's motions to dismiss are
granted; (2) Spencer's motion to certify class action is denied as
moot; (3) Spencer's motions to appoint class counsel are denied a
moot; (4) Spencer's motions to amend the complaints are denied as
moot; (5) the motions to intervene are denied as moot.

Jr. Paul McKenzie, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jose L. Rodriguez, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Darren McFadden, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Barry Spencer, II, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Martin J. Walsh is represented by Nieve Anjomi, Esq. --
nieve.anjomi@boston.gov -- CITY OF BOSTON LAW DEPARTMENT

Kenneth Wallace, Intervenor, Pro Se.


MDL 2492: Langston v. Mid-America Consolidated in Concussion Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charles Marcus Langston, as
Administrator of the Estate of Zack Langston and all others
similarly situated, and Danae Young, as Mother and next friend for
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mid-America
Intercollegiate Athletics Association and National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 2:17-cv-02323, was transferred on
July 7 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
(Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
04978 to the proceeding.

The Langston 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn R. Gulick, Jr., Esq.
          GLENN R. GULICK, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW
          510 West 6th Street
          Joplin, MO 64801
          Telephone: (417) 206 0100
          E-mail: glenn@4stateslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Marshall McHugh, Esq.
          Gregory B. Whiston, Esq.
          SEIGFREID BINGHAM, P.C.
          2323 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421 4460
          E-mail: cmchugh@sb-kc.com
                  gwhiston@sb-kc.com


MDL 2492: "Hewitt" Suit v. NCAA Consolidated in Concussion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOSEPH HEWITT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01884, was transferred on July 7, 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-04976 to the
proceeding.

The Hewitt 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:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


MISSOURI: Court Denies Sex Offenders' Claims
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, E.D. Missouri vacated the
memorandum and denied the claims in the captioned case JOHN VAN
ORDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFF STRINGER, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 4:09CV00971 AGF. (Eastern Division)

The approximately 225 Plaintiffs in this class action are civilly
committed residents of Sex Offenders Rehabilitation and Treatment
Services (SORTS), who have been declared sexually violent
predators under Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP
Act). Plaintiffs asserted that the SVP Act was unconstitutional as
written and as applied to SORTS, and that the reimbursement sought
by the state from SORTS residents was also unconstitutional.

In its Liability Opinion, the Court denied relief on Plaintiffs'
facial challenge to the SVP Act, Plaintiffs' claim challenging the
state's reimbursement scheme, and Plaintiffs' as applied challenge
regarding the adequacy of SORTS' treatment modalities. However,
the Court concluded that the SVP Act was unconstitutional as
applied to SORTS with respect to certain discrete aspects of risk
assessment and release.

The District Court believes that reconsideration is required here
in light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit's decision in Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir.
2017).  In that case, the Eighth Circuit clearly held that to
maintain an as-applied due process challenge, the class plaintiffs
have the burden of showing the state actors' actions were
conscience-shocking and violate a fundamental liberty interest.
The Eighth Circuit further held that claims substantially similar
to the ones alleged here do not implicate a fundamental liberty
interest and without a fundamental liberty interest, Plaintiffs'
as-applied claim fails no matter how shocking the state
defendants' conduct.

Accordingly, the District Court's December 22, 2015 Amended
Memorandum Opinion is vacated in part, to the extent that it
granted Plaintiffs' claims in part, and Plaintiffs' claims are
denied.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/2e1fcw from Leagle.com.

John R. Van Orden, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert --
www.aclu-mo.org  -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION.

John R. Van Orden, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. O'Toole --
dotoole@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, John H.
Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak --
skozak@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Christopher LaRose -- clarose@armstrongteasdale.com  -- ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R.
Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M.
Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION &
Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Michael D. McCord, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin --
jmartin@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP, John H. Quinn, III,
JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Eric M. Selig,
ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN
CAVE LLP.

Joseph Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Macon Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Chance Tyree, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Walter W. Ritchey, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

David Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Anthony Amonette, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Richard Tyson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Wade A. Turpin, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Matthew King, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Andre Cokes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony E. Rothert,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION, Daniel K.
O'Toole, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, James G. Martin, DOWD BENNETT,
LLP, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G. Kozak,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Christopher LaRose, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ, P.C., Gillian R. Wilcox,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, Jessie M. Steffan,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E.
Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Joseph Bowen, Class Representative, Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G.
Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ,
P.C., Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

William Murphy, Class Representative, Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony E. Rothert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI
FOUNDATION, John H. Quinn, III, JOHN H. QUINN III, Scott K.G.
Kozak, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Eric M. Selig, ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ,
P.C., Jessie M. Steffan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MISSOURI FOUNDATION & Thomas E. Wack, BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Harold Myers, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Alan Blake, Chief Operating Officer, MSOTC, Individually and
Officially, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Julie Inman, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Jay Englehart, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Justin Arnett, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Rick Gowdy, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Robert Reitz, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Linda Moll, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Daman Longworth, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Donna Augustine, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Dave Schmitt, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI &
Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Ericka L. Kempker, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Kristina Bender-Crice, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Angeline Stanislaus, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI.

Anne Precythe, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Rikki Wright, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Jeff Stringer, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

David Schmitt, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Andy Atkinson, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Lee Ann McVay, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MISSOURI.

Susan Knopflein, Defendant, represented by Dean John Sauer,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Katherine S. Walsh, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the motions to dismiss
the complaint in the case, In re Newport Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, remains pending.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's stockholders for claims related to
the February 22, 2016 Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") between the Company, Newport Corporation ("Newport"),
and PSI Equipment, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, which was merged with Newport on April
29, 2016 and is the surviving corporation of such merger ("Merger
Sub").

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger
Sub, and certain then-current and former members of Newport's
former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's
stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and
unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration,
and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint
also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin
or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that
the definitive proxy statement filed by Newport on March 29, 2016
("the Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint
also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and
then-current members of Newport's board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The
complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub
and the members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleges
that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an
inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and
by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint
also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin
or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing
on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and
notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger
Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on
plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In
August, plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the
court ordered.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to
the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's former
board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led
to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company and Newport
aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including
pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, both the
Company and the Newport defendants filed motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on
January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the Company and the Newport
defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to
dismiss. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on February
15, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the amended
complaint have no merit and the Company, Newport and the named
directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

MKS Instruments is a global provider of instruments, subsystems
and process control solutions that measure, control, power,
deliver, monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced
manufacturing processes to improve process performance and
productivity.


NCR PENSION: "Stanton" Seeks Retirement Benefits Reinstatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Stanton, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The NCR Pension Plan, The Pension and
Benefits Committee of the NCR Pension Plan; NCR, as Plan
Administrator and Andrea Ledford, Linda Fayne Levinson, Edward P.
Boykin, Gary J. Daichendt, Chinh E. Chu and Richard T. McGuire,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02309, (N.D. Ga., June 20, 2017),
seeks an award of all benefits wrongfully withheld with pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest until paid, an order
compelling the Plan to make future payments to Plaintiff in the
correct amount, reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized
by statute, and ordering the payment of reasonable fees and
expenses of this action and such other and further relief pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

NCR sponsors and maintains the defined benefit plan for the
benefit of its eligible employees. Stanton was a full-time
employee of NCR in Ohio from October 10, 1961 through January 1,
1970. Stanton took an unpaid leave of absence authorized by the
company and returned to full-time employment at NCR on or about
October 1, 1971, and remained there full-time until February 15,
1980. Because NCR authorized his leave of absence in 1970,
Stanton's leave of absence between January 1, 1970 and October 1,
1971 did not break his continuous employment and should be
included in computing his credited service per the terms of the
1972 Plan, says the complaint. Despite this, NCR contended that
Mr. Stanton failed to meet the 10-year service requirement under
the Plan to receive benefits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Phone: (678) 242-5297
      Fax: (678) 802-2129
      Email: paul@sharman-law.com


NEW YORK: Court Grants State's Bid to Dismiss Uber Drivers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
LEVON ALEKSANIAN, JAKIR HOSSAIN, and NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS
ALLIANCE, Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and ROBERTA
REARDON, as COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Defendants, No. 16-CV-4183
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Aleksanian and Hossain, are both former drivers for
Uber Technologies Inc. in New York City who purport to bring this
case on behalf of themselves and other former Uber drivers. They
are both members of the NYTWA, a non-profit membership
organization with 19,000 members, including 5,000 Uber drivers,
that works to ensure the fair treatment of its member drivers and
to promote the dignity of all workers in the taxi, limousine, and
black car industries in New York.

Plaintiff Aleksian and Hossain worked as an Uber driver their
employment with Uber were terminated.

Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 28, 2016. They alleged
that Defendants were refusing to investigate or adjudicate
applications for unemployment benefits of all former Uber drivers,
including the Individual Plaintiffs, in violation of the federal
"when due" clause. They seek (1) an order that Defendants
immediately investigate and adjudicate Individual Plaintiffs' and
all Uber drivers' applications and claims for unemployment
insurance] benefits; (2) a declaration that Defendants' actions
violate the Social Security Act and the Equal Protection and Due
Process clauses of the United States Constitution; and (3)
reasonable attorney's.

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. Sec. 12(b)(1), alleging that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case.

The District Court held that the NYTWA does not identify any
former Uber driver it anticipates, or is currently, assisting who
is applying for or awaiting a determination from the Department of
Labao.  While the NYTWA may have suffered a past injury sufficient
to confer standing for compensatory damages, it has not alleged an
injury that can be redressed through the prospective declaratory
and injunctive relief sought in this action, the Court sayd.
Without evidence that "anticipated expenditures and ensuing harm
to [its] activities is certainly impending, the NYTWA lacks
standing to assert its claims, the Court ruled.  Defendants'
motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/GUTCrL from Leagle.com.

Levon Aleksanian, Plaintiff, represented by Christine Clarke,
Legal Sevices NYC.

Levon Aleksanian, Plaintiff, represented by Edward J. Josephson,
South Brooklyn Legal Services Corp., Sarah E. Dranoff, Brooklyn
Legal Services & Nicole E. Salk, South Brooklyn Legal Services.
Jakir Hossain, Plaintiff, represented by Christine Clarke, Legal
Sevices NYC, Edward J. Josephson, South Brooklyn Legal Services
Corp., Sarah E. Dranoff, Brooklyn Legal Services & Nicole E. Salk,
South Brooklyn Legal Services.

New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Plaintiff, represented by
Christine Clarke, Legal Sevices NYC, Edward J. Josephson, South
Brooklyn Legal Services Corp., Sarah E. Dranoff, Brooklyn Legal
Services & Nicole E. Salk, South Brooklyn Legal Services.

New York State Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by
Alissa Schecter Wright, NYS Office of the Attorney General &
Jonathan Conley, New York State Attorney General Office.
Roberta Reardon, Defendant, represented by Alissa Schecter Wright,
NYS Office of the Attorney General & Jonathan Conley, New York
State Attorney General Office.


OCWEN LOAN: Class Cert Denied, Jury Demand Stricken in "Poynter"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David J. Hale of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky granted motion to strike jury
demand and denied class certification in the case captioned, DEAN
POYNTER and LOIS POYNTER, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-773-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.).

Plaintiffs Dean and Lois Poynter claim that Defendants Wells Fargo
and Ocwen Loan Servicing violated their rights under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Kentucky Consumer Protection
Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act when the
Poynters defaulted on their home loan. Wells Fargo initiated
foreclosure proceedings and retained Ocwen to service the loan.

The parties were able to negotiate a loan modification agreement.
Throughout the process, the Poynters were represented by counsel.
The agreement contained three provisions relevant here: (1) a jury
waiver provision, (2) a provision that all communications from
Ocwen were to be sent directly to the Poynters, and (3) a
provision that the terms of the agreement could only be changed by
written consent from both the Poynters and Ocwen.

In the motion, Ocwen moves to strike Plaintiffs' jury demand and
Plaintiffs move to certify a class consisting of themselves and
others who were contacted by Ocwen while represented counsel.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2017 available
at https://is.gd/cpuPaL from Leagle.com, Judge Hale held that the
jury waiver provision is enforceable in the loan modification
agreement and because Poynters have not demonstrated that they
meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, the
Court denied their class certification motion.

Dean Poynter and Lois Poynter are represented by:

      Teddy B. Gordon, Esq.
      807 W Market St,
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Tel: (502)585-3534

            -- and --

      Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
      807 W Market St,
      Louisville, KY 40202, USA
      Tel: (646)783-9810

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, NA are represented
by Christopher M. Hill, Esq. --- CHRISTOPHER M. HILL AND
ASSOCIATES, PSC -- Michael R. Pennington, Esq. --
mpennington@bradley.com -- Robert J. Campbell, Esq. --
rcampbell@bradley.com -- and -- Edmund S. Sauer, Esq. --
esauer@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Says Settlement Funds Remitted
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Pacific
Continental Bank has remitted the settlement funds to the
plaintiffs' representatives.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against PCB, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb
Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth, P.C., and Umpqua Bank,
as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that PCB is jointly and
severally liable for materially aiding or participating in
Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the Oregon Securities
Law. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of
Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and
attorneys' fees. The current version of the complaint seeks $100
million in damages from all defendants.

On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for
Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint ("Trustee's
Lawsuit") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon
alleging that PCC, PCB, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit Bank
provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of the alleged
Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two partners of
the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael Holcomb and
Gary Holcomb. The Company acquired Century Bank on February 1,
2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was transferred from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon (Eugene Division), where it is currently pending.

In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee
is asserting fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an
effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and PCB.
Among other claims for relief, the trustee is seeking the
disgorgement of monies advanced to the Holcomb Family Limited
Partnership by Century Bank and returned to the estate by court
order following the post-petition cash collateral hearing, and of
monies received by PCB from the proceeds of the sale of stock held
by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and securing one of the
lines of credit previously held by Century Bank. The trustee also
asserts a claim for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches of
duties owed to Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit
indicates the range of damages sought by the trustee which
include, among other claims for relief, an award of punitive
damages not to exceed $10 million, recovery of payments associated
with allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately
$55.3 million, including up to $20.7 million from Century Bank and
up to $7.7 million from PCB. This case is not currently set for
trial.

On November 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court judge stayed all
deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to
participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial
settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and
April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference, PCB
reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and the
Trustee's Lawsuit. Per the December 2, 2016 Trustee's Motion and
Notice of Intent to Settle and Compromise Adversary Proceeding
("Motion"), and subsequently ordered by District Court Judge Aiken
on December 6, the settlement and compromise between PCB and the
Trustee was to be deemed effective without further order within 23
days unless a written objection to the Trustee's Motion was filed
and served on the Trustee. No written objection was filed, and PCB
is informed that no written objection was served on the Trustee.
Accordingly, final approval of the settlement of the Trustee's
Action was effective December 29, 2016. The state Circuit Court
gave final approval of the settlement of the Class Action at a
hearing on January 6, 2017. In April 2017, PCB remitted the
settlement funds to the plaintiffs' representatives, and the
matter was concluded. The settlement is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on PCC's financial condition.

Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company.  Its
wholly owned subsidiary is Pacific Continental Bank.  The Bank's
wholly owned subsidiaries are PCB Services Corporation and PCB
Loan Services Corporation (both of which are presently inactive).


PATHEON NV: "Sciabacucchi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Patheon N.V., Paul S. Levy,
James C. Mullen, Daniel Agroskin, Philip Eykerman, William B.
Hayes, Stephan B. Tanda, Hugh C. Welsh, Hans Peter Hasler, Pamela
Daley, Jeffrey P. Mcmullen, Gary P. Pisano, Thermo Fisher
Scientific Inc. and Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.A.R.L.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04657 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Patheon N.V. by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.Ö
r.l., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the said merger.

The lawsuit further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The merger agreement provides for a termination fee payable by
Patheon to Thermo Fisher if the merger is terminated, thus
precluding other bidders from making successful competing offers
for the Company. The merger's solicitation statement failed to
disclose income loss from continuing operations, repositioning
expenses, interest expense, foreign exchange losses, refinancing
expenses, acquisition and integration costs, gains and losses on
sale of capital assets, income taxes, impairment charges,
remediation costs, depreciation and amortization, stock-based
compensation expense, consulting costs related to operational
initiatives, purchase accounting adjustments and acquisition-
related litigation expenses, says the complaint.

Patheon is a global provider of pharmaceutical development and
manufacturing services with approximately 9,100 employees and
contractors worldwide, providing comprehensive, integrated and
customizable set of solutions to help customers of all sizes
satisfy complex development and manufacturing needs at any stage
of the pharmaceutical development cycle. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 683-3516


PETROBRAS: 2nd Cir. Partially Decertifies Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
battered for three years by a corruption scandal, the Brazilian
oil giant Petrobras persuaded a U.S. appeals court on July 7, to
partly decertify a shareholders class in Manhattan accusing the
state-run company of fraud.

In the wake of the corruption investigation Operation Car Wash,
the New York litigation is one of continuing aftershocks for
Petrobras, its executives and at least one third of the Brazilian
Congress.

By August 2015, Brazilian prosecutors had handed down 117
indictments, with five politicians charged and 13 companies facing
criminal cases.

Though never implicated in the scheme herself, Brazil's then-
President Dilma Rousseff had trouble untangling her anti-
corruption platform from her seat on the company's board.
Opponents of Rousseff, who had been Brazil's first female
president, milked that association to impeach her in favor of the
far more right-leaning Michel Temer.

More than a dozen shareholder lawsuits against Petrobras poured
into the Southern District of New York in the meantime. Following
a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, the investors
alleged that Petrobras hid its bribery woes while selling $98
billion in securities.

Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), a Liverpool-based
pension fund at the head of the case, won class certification last
year, but the New York-based Second Circuit directed the lower
court to reconsider such status in light of Supreme Court
precedent.

"It is a longstanding principle of American law that legislation
of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,"
the 66-page opinion states, citing the 2010 ruling in Morrison v.
National Australia Bank.

"Because Petrobras notes do not trade on any U.S.-based exchange,
noteholders in both classes are only entitled to assert claims
under the Exchange Act and the Securities Act if they can show
that they acquired their notes in 'domestic transactions,'" U.S.
District Judge Nicholas Garaufis wrote for the court, sitting on a
three-judge panel by designation from Brooklyn.

Petrobras did not appeal the portion of Rakoff's decision
certifying the class of investors who purchased American
Depositary Receipts on the New York Stock Exchange.

As for the other proposed investor classes, the three-judge panel
sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to apply this
test.

Depicting this finding as a temporary setback, Petrobras investors
touted other parts of the ruling as a "significant victory."

Petrobras had wanted the circuit to set a high bar for class
certification by forcing investors to prove it "administratively
feasible," but the three-judge panel denied creating this
standard.

Jeremy Lieberman, a managing partner of Pomerantz, argued that
this holding will benefit future shareholders as well as his
clients.

"This decision represents a victory for class action plaintiffs in
securities, antitrust and consumer cases," he said. "Most
significantly, the Second Circuit's decision allows this important
case against Petrobras and other defendants to proceed apace,
lifting the automatic stay imposed by the Second Circuit. As a
result, we intend to ask Judge Rakoff to set a trial date as
quickly as possible, to allow the defrauded class members to
finally have their day in court."

Attorneys for Petrobras did not immediately respond to an email
request for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges Peter Hall and Debra Ann Livingston rounded
out the Second Circuit panel.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in ATV Buyers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part the motion to
dismiss the case captioned, RILEY JOHANNESSOHN; DANIEL C. BADILLA;
JAMES KELLY; RONALD KRANS; KEVIN R. WONDERS; WILLIAM BATES; and
JAMES PINION, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 16-CV-3348 (PJS/LIB)(D. Minn.).

Plaintiffs are seven individuals living, respectively, in
Minnesota, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, and
North Carolina. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased new
Sportsman four-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) from defendant
Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris) in 2015 and 2016, and that
their four-wheel all-terrain vehicles ATVs  were manufactured
between 2009 and 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased Sportsman ATVs between October 4, 2010 and October 4,
2016. Alternatively, if the Court finds that Minnesota law does
not apply to all purchases of Sportsman ATVs in the United States,
plaintiffs seek to represent seven subclasses of Sportsman
purchasers, one for each of their states of residence. Plaintiffs
assert claims under the consumer-protection laws of their states1
as well as a claim for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability. Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims are
largely premised on their allegation that Polaris failed to
disclose the defect.

The matter is before the Court on Polaris's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consumer-protection claims and demand for punitive
damages.

In his Order dated June 27, 2017 available at https://is.gd/meqgoI
from Leagle.com, Judge Schiltz held that to the extent that
Polaris moves to dismiss plaintiffs' Minnesota, New York, and
North Carolina consumer-protection claims for failure to plead
causation or reliance but dismissed claim under Section 325F.67
because plaintiffs have not identified any false or misleading
advertisement. As to the issue of standing, plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded standing by alleging that the entire Sportsman
line shares the same design defect. As to injunctive relief, the
Court disagreed with Polaris holding that an injunction could
prevent harm to those who remain unaware of the design defect and
as to punitive damages, the Court granted dismissal because the
plaintiffs still later seek the Court's permission to pursue
punitive damages.

Daniel C. Badilla, et al. are represented by Andrew N. Friedman,
Esq. -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. -
- dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
-- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC -- Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- and -
- Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com --
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP -- Robert E. Gordon, Esq. --
rgordon@fortheinjured.com -- and -- Steven Calamusa, Esq. --
scalamusa@fortheinjured.com -- GORDON & DONER

Polaris Industries, Inc. is represented by Isaac W. Messmore, Esq.
-- issac.messmore@nathanandbowman.com -- Nathan J. Marcusen, Esq.
-- nathan.marcusen@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Paul G. Cereghini, Esq.
-- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- and -- Robert Latane
Wise, Esq. -- robert.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND BROOKE
LLP


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Faces "D'Andria" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Placement Services, LLC. The case is styled as Suellen D'Andria,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Professional Placement Services, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04066 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2017).

Founded in 1998, Professional Placement Services is a nationally
licensed, full-service collection agency located in Milwaukee
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" v. TNS Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., remains
pending.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton seeks to
represent a class of workers that includes all persons who worked
on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained
through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this
matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated
with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime
wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In September 2015, the trial court certified the class as to
workers from the various staffing companies at issue. In January
2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by
the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the
class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest
breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

Quanta believes this decision is not supported by controlling law
and continues to contest liability in this matter.

Quanta is a provider of specialty contracting services, offering
infrastructure solutions primarily to the electric power, oil and
gas and communications industries in the United States, Canada and
Australia and select other international markets.


REAL CARE: Faces "Nesterenko" Suit in New York Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Care, Inc. The
case is captioned as NESTERENKO, ALLA AND INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. REAL
CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 510951/2017 (New York Sup.
Ct., July 7, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Ellen M.
Spodek.[BN]

Real Care is a family owned and operated organization that began
providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities
in 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          VIRGINA & AMBINDER
          40 Broad St.
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080

The Defendant is represented by:

          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          60 East 42nd Street 51st Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 453 5900


REMINGTON LODGING: "Corona" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Corona and Horacio Villela,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. Remington Lodging &
Hospitality, LLC; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; and Lucy Granados,
the Defendants, Case No. RIC1709686, was removed on July 7, 2017
from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
05021 to the proceeding.

Remington is a prestigious hospitality services company with a
variety of management offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James W Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW FIRM
          3890 Eleventh Street Suite 203
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (213) 291 0648
          Facsimile: (877) 571 0091
          E-mail: jj@johnstonlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Larry R Hoddick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LARRY HODDICK PC
          74000 Country Club Drive Suite C5
          Palm Desert, CA 92260
          Telephone: (760) 636 5256
          Facsimile: (760) 299 4220
          E-mail: lhoddick@dc.rr.com

Attorneys for Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC

          Linda Claxton, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
          SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239 9045
          E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletreedeakins.com


SAFECO INSURANCE: Bob Porto Builders Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bob Porto, doing business as: Bob
Porto Builders For Himself and All Other Arkansas Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Safeco Insurance Company of America,
the Defendant, Case No. 60CV-17-02816, was removed on July 8, 2017
from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00436-JM to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr.

Safeco, an insurance and financial services company, sells
insurance and investment products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587
          E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ann Yackshaw, Esq.
          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTELLER LLP
          200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228 1541
          Facsimile: (614) 462 2616
          E-mail: reckelberry@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688 8869
          E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com
                  mhargraves@mwlaw.com


SARABETH'S HOLDING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarabeth's Holding,
Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sarabeth's
Holding, INC., Sarabeth's at the Chelsea Market LTD., Sarabeth's
Bakery LTD., Sarabeth's Tribeca, LLC, Sarabeth's Pas LLC, and
Sarabeth's Kitchen, LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05135
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: 266 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of May 8, 2017, 266
lawsuits, including over 22,000 plaintiffs, are pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against SoCalGas, some of which have
also named Sempra Energy.

The Company said, "These various lawsuits assert causes of action
for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property
damage, fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent
concealment, unfair business practices and loss of consortium,
among other things, and additional litigation may be filed against
us in the future related to this incident. A complaint alleging
violations of Proposition 65 was also filed. These complaints seek
compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, costs of future medical monitoring and attorneys' fees,
and several seek class action status. All of these cases, other
than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney,
the federal securities class action and one of the shareholder
derivative actions, are coordinated before a single court in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial management."


SHELL OIL: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAMES REYNOLDS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SHELL OIL COMPANY,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01276 (S.D. Tex.), seeks conditional
certification for a Fair Labor Standards Act class consisting of:

     Current and former oilfield workers employed by, or working
     on behalf of, Shell Oil Company from ________________, 2014*
     to the present who were classified as independent
     contractors and paid a day-rate.

     * This date will be three years preceding the date the Court
       enters an Order granting conditional certification.

James Reynolds, Glenn Avants, and all those similarly situated
regularly worked more than twelve-hour days for weeks at a time
for Shell, according to the Motion.  Mr. Reynolds' claims are
straightforward: Shell's uniform compensation plan for the day-
rate oilfield workers it misclassified as independent contractors
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act because it failed to pay
them overtime.

Mr. Reynolds also asks the Court to approve his proposed
Notice/Consent Forms, timeline and proposed procedures.  He
further asks that the Court order Shell to provide his Counsel
with the names, last known home addresses, e-mail addresses
(personal and work, if available), and phone numbers for all
putative class members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  jbresler@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com


SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Camacho Seeks Prelim. Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAVIER CAMACHO, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST
HARVESTING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 5:16-cv-05744-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order
granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement he
reached with the Defendant.

Mr. Camacho asks the Court to preliminarily certify, for
settlement purposes, the Settlement Class described in the
Settlement, which is comprised of all persons, who worked for the
Defendant as seasonal agricultural workers, who performed field
work harvesting produce and worked more than six hours but less
than eight hours in a workday, at any time during the period of
October 6, 2012, to June 25, 2017.

The material terms of the Settlement include:

   * the Defendant will pay the Gross Settlement Amount of
     $750,000 on a non-reversionary basis. s Class members are
     not required to submit claims to receive settlement
     benefits.  The Defendant will pay the employer's share of
     payroll taxes on the portion of settlement benefits
     allocated to wages separately from the Gross Settlement
     Amount;

   * After all required deductions are made from the Gross
     Settlement Amount, the Net Settlement Amount of
     approximately $532,500 will be distributed to class members;

   * The Defendant will not oppose an application by the
     Plaintiff for an award of attorney's fees of up to $187,500
     (25% of the Gross Settlement Amount) or an award of
     litigation costs up to $10,000; and

   * The Defendant will not oppose an application by the
     Plaintiff for an enhancement award of up to $7,500.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to:

   -- appoint him as representative for the Settlement Class;

   -- appoint Gregory N. Karasik, Esq., of Karasik Law Firm and
      Santos Gomez, Esq., of Law Offices of Santos Gomez as
      counsel for the Settlement Class;

   -- appoint Atticus Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator;

   -- direct the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to
      class members as set forth in the Settlement;

   -- establish the deadlines for members of the Settlement Class
      to opt out of the Settlement or to object to the
      Settlement; and

   -- schedule a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 90 days after preliminary approval of the
      Settlement.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 7, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=teo3jEHR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831) 228-2560
          Facsimile: (831) 228-1542
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
                  esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com

               - and -

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com


STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit over Data Breach Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge tossed a proposed class action, Paul Dugas v.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00014 (S.D. Cal.), against Starwood Hotels alleging the hotelier
did not timely report a data breach of customer information,
saying that the customer who sued did not respond adequately to a
request for more information.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel dismissed without prejudice
lead plaintiff Paul Dugas' second amended complaint against
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., ruling that the San
Diego resident failed to respond to three deficiencies in his
pleading and address the court's concerns over whether it has
original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The first deficiency, Judge Curiel said, involved a question of
whether the amount of money Dugas claimed in the controversy
exceeded the CAFA jurisdictional threshold. The second, involving
the "local controversy" exception under CAFA, failed to establish
whether more than two-thirds of the putative class members are
citizens of California, and the third misidentified the
citizenship of defendants HST Lessee San Diego and HST GP San
Diego.

Regarding the third deficiency, Judge Curiel pointed out that
Dugas' statement of jurisdiction said the defendants "were all
'Maryland and Delaware' corporations, yet the court pointed out
that this was inaccurate given that the SAC also described one
defendant as a limited partnership and another as a limited
liability company."

On Jan. 5, 2016, Dugas filed his putative class action against
defendants Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc., HST Lessee
San Diego LP and HST GP San Diego LLC, claiming a company news
release had not fully disclosed the dates when the data breach
occurred. Starwood said in the release there had been a data
breach on April 13, 2015, but malware had allegedly been installed
on Starwood's customer systems since November 2014, according to
Dugas.

Starwood moved to dismiss Dugas' suit on April 1, 2016, saying he
had failed to state a claim and lacked standing, and the court
granted the motion on Nov. 3, 2016, according to court filings.
Dugas on Dec. 7 then filed his second amended complaint, asserting
jurisdiction under the CAFA, court filings say.

Soon after that, the court issued an order to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pointing out three deficiencies in Dugas' second
amended complaint, according to court filings. Both Dugas and
Starwood responded to the order on April 24.

Dugas has 14 days from June 28 order to file an amended complaint
that cures the identified deficiencies. Failure to do so will
result in a final order dismissing the action, Judge Curiel said.

Dugas is represented by Will Lemkul of Morris Sullivan & Lemkul
LLP, and Mark Potter and Dennis Price of Potter Handy LLP.

Starwood is represented by Jeffrey L. Poston, Charles D. Austin,
Jennifer S. Romano and Nathanial J. Wood of Crowell & Moring LLP.

                           *     *     *

Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on September 23,
2016 (the "Merger Date"), Marriott completed the acquisition of
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, formerly known as
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ("Starwood"), through a
series of transactions (the "Starwood Combination"), after which
Starwood became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company.

In November 2015, Starwood announced a malware intrusion had
affected point of sale systems at various outlets within certain
Legacy-Starwood branded hotels. This resulted in the potential
compromise of credit card data and associated personal
information. The affected credit card companies are evaluating
whether and to what extent financial penalties should be imposed.

In addition, a putative class action arising from the malware
intrusion was filed against Starwood on January 5, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. The named plaintiff, Paul Dugas, does not specify any
damages sought.

Starwood initially filed a motion to dismiss that was granted in
part and denied in part in November 2016. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in December 2016, and in March 2017, the Company
filed another motion to dismiss.

On April 6, 2017, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why the
case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, to which the parties have responded. A hearing was
scheduled for May 12, 2017.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotels and timeshare properties in 124 countries and territories
under 30 brand names at the end of the 2017 first quarter.


SUSHI NOMADO: Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay Sought in "Jian" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Wu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. d/b/a Nomado 33,
Sushi Para 33 Corporation d/b/a Nomado 33, Sushi Para Manhattan,
Corp. d/b/a Sushi Para d/b/a Sushi Para (14th Street) d/b/a Sushi
Para (Third Avenue) d/b/a Sushi Para 88, Wei Loong Chan, Wenwu
Chen, Zhou Lin, Sheng R Dong and Ding Feng Zhang, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04661 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, unpaid spread-of-hours as well as
unreimbursed business-related expenses under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act 2009.

Defendants jointly own and operate a chain of Japanese restaurants
doing business under variations on the names "Nomado" and "Sushi
Para" where Plaintiff worked as a deliveryman. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


SUNSHINE USA: Faces "Porfirio" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunshine USA Inc.
The case is titled as Javier Porfirio, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sunshine USA
Inc., doing business as: Wu Liang Ye; Ru Qiu Li; and Liang Zhang,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05146 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017).

Sunshine USA operates four gift shops in the heart of the French
Quarter: Trades Emporium, Dixieland Outlet, Southland and New
Orleans Gift Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TACOS AL SUADERO: "Villalba" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Fulgencio Villalba, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amado Herreros (d/b/a Tacos Al Suadero),
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03719 (E.D. N.Y., June 20, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Laws.

Herreros owns and operates a Mexican restaurant located at 8721
Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11372 where Villalba worked
as a stockman, food preparer and deliveryman, regularly working
over 40 hours per work week without overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     4008 Case Street, 2nd Floor
     Elmhurst, NY 11373
     Tel: (646) 342-2019
     Fax: (646) 661-1317


TAX HELP: Payton Moves to Certify TCPA and Privacy Act Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN PAYTON,
Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TAX
HELP GROUP, LLC and GERARD THORNTON, Case No. 2:17-cv-00694-SJO-
MRW (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify a class under Section
632.7 of the California Penal Code consisting of:

     All persons in California whose inbound or outbound
     telephone conversations were recorded without their consent
     by Defendant on their cellular or cordless telephone within
     one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint in
     this action.

Mr. Payton also moves the Court to certify a 47 U.S.C. Section 227
Class consisting of:

     All persons within the United States who received any
     unsolicited text message from Defendants which text message
     was not made for emergency purposes or with the recipient's
     prior express consent within the four years prior to the
     filing of this Complaint.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, and to appoint his attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 5, 2018, 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=OPQ8eFbv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, 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@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


TELUS COMM: Court Narrows Claims in Invasion of Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part
motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in the
case captioned, KELISSA RONQUILLO-GRIFFIN; KHOI NGUYEN; and
RUSSELL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TELUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; TRANSUNION
RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.; and TRANSACTEL (BARBADOS), INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv129 JM (BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs KelissaRonquillo-Griffin, Khoi Nguyen, and Russell
Smith (Plaintiffs) filed the FAC on March 16, 2017, alleging two
counts: (1) violation of California Penal Code section 632.7
(section 632.7); and (2) invasion of privacy, intrusion into
private affairs. The crux of the FAC is that after Plaintiffs
requested copies of their credit reports from Transunion Rental
Screening, Inc. (TransUnion) in December 2016, Transactel
(Barbados), Inc. (Transactel), acting on TransUnion's behalf,
called Plaintiffs and recorded those calls without their consent.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of "all persons in
California whose inbound and outbound cellular telephone
conversations were recorded without consent by Defendant/s and/or
their agent/s within the two years prior to the filing of the
FAC." Plaintiffs seek special, general, compensatory, and punitive
damages, as well as "an amount of $5,000 for each violation of
section 632 et seq. of the California Penal Code, or three times
the amount of any actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs,
whichever is greater."

On May 16, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC.
Transactel contends that "Plaintiffs' claim fails because they
have not, and cannot, allege that Transactel intercepted or
received their communications without consent."

In his Order dated June 27, 2017 available at https://is.gd/g90Zf7
from Leagle.com, Judge Miller denied motion to dismiss as to Count
I holding that section 632.7 is ambiguous and agreed to the
reasoning of Simpson v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-04672-JCS
that said section applies to parties to the call; as to Count II,
the Court granted without prejudice dismissal holding that the
alleged recordings, which were limited in both frequency and
duration, and which were never used to harm Plaintiffs.

Transactel's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' prayer for $5,000 per
violation of section 632.7. Plaintiffs are given 20 days to file
second amended complaint.

Khoi Nguyen, et al. are represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. --
and -- Jason A. Ibey, Esq. -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC -- Joshua
Swigart, Esq. -- and -- Yana A. Hart, Esq. -- HYDE &SWIGART --
Daniel G. Shay, Esq. -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com --
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY

TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. is represented by
Cristina Anastassia Guido, Esq. -- cguido@stroock.com -- Julia
Beatrice Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Shannon E.
Dudic, Esq. -- sdudic@stroock.com -- and -- Stephen J. Newman,
Esq. -- snewman@stroock.com -- STROOCK&STROOCK&LAVAN LLP

Transactel (Barbados), Inc. is represented by Amanda Catherine
Fitzsimmons, Esq. -- amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com -- Edward D.
Totino, Esq. -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- and -- Perrie M.
Weiner, Esq. -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP


TESORO REFINING: "Bonner" Transferred to Northern California
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Plaintiff's Motion to transfer the case
captioned JINETRA BONNER, individually, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No. 2:17-00936 WBS
DB (E.D. Calif.), to United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Plaintiff Jinetra Bonner brought this putative class action
against defendant Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC,
alleging state and federal employment law violations.  Before the
court is defendant's Motion to dismiss and plaintiff's Motion to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's
Motion to transfer and consented to plaintiff's request to have
the case transferred to the Northern District of California.

All parties consent to transfer this action and represent that the
Northern District will be more convenient because the parties,
witnesses, and evidence are in the Northern District, and because
a related action was filed first in the Northern District

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to transfer venue to the Northern
District of California and the same is, granted. The defendant's
Motion to dismiss be, and the same is, denied as moot.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/KnrDv0 from Leagle.com.

Jinetra Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan & Khoury & Singer.

Jinetra Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy Douglas
Cohelan, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.


TOYOTA: Must Pay $14MM for Acceleration Deaths, 8th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Toyota must pay $14 million to survivors of a multiple-
fatality car accident caused by a 1996 Camry's uncontrolled
acceleration, the Eighth Circuit ruled.

After a three-week trial in 2015, a jury found Toyota liable and
awarded more than $14 million in damages for a June 10, 2006
collision that tore apart two families.

Toyota recalled nearly 8 million vehicles in 2010, including its
2008 and 2009 Camry models, for unintended acceleration problems,
and paid a $1.2 billion fine for hiding the problems from
government regulators.

In the case at issue, Koua Fong Lee said that his Camry
experienced the same problem on an interstate in St. Paul 12 years
ago. Driving his pregnant wife and other family members, Lee said
his 1996 Camry accelerated up an off-ramp of its own accord and
hit an Oldsmobile Cierra stopped at a red light. The crash killed
the father and son in the Cierra, rendered a niece quadriplegic,
and severely injured two other passengers. Lee served an 8-year
sentence for criminal convictions of vehicular homicide and
careless driving.

But Toyota's Camry recalls later gave Lee grounds to successfully
challenge his convictions.

A jury found Lee 40% responsible for the accident and awarded him
$1.25 million for the 60% that was the car's fault.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery on Friday awarded far more to
the family members in the Cierra.

Devyn Bolton died at the age of 6, a year after the crash rendered
her a quadriplegic. Montgomery raised the $4 million award to her
estate to more than $7.3 million, including interest and funeral
and medical expenses.

The judge refused to reduce the award for the "horrific, tragic
and distressing event" suffered by teenager Jassmine Adams, who
survived, but was trapped in the car with her dead and dying
family members.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the jury's finding that the accident was
caused by a defect in the car: not because Lee stepped on the
wrong pedal.

"The jury heard testimony from two qualified experts with
competing opinions regarding the cause of the accident. Both of
them testified extensively about their respective theories of
defect and causation and both were subjected to lengthy and
detailed cross-examination," Ninth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly wrote
for the panel.

"Though Toyota disagrees with [plaintiffs' mechanical engineering
expert John] Stilson's opinions and conclusions -- including his
explanation that moving the cruise control lever did not affect
the validity of his testing -- 'questions of conflicting evidence
must be left for the jury's determination.'"

The circuit court reversed the award of pre-judgment interest, but
said that the award to Devyn's estate should not be reduced by the
amount of a prior settlement entered with Lee and Lee's insurer.

"Allowing Devyn Bolton's next of kin to recover the full amount of
the jury award in this case is not inequitable because Devyn
recovered for her own injuries while she was living," Kelly wrote.

Joining her on the unanimous panel were Eighth Circuit Judges
James Loken and Senior Judge Diana Murphy.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Rojas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of collective action filed in the
lawsuit titled Sebastian A. Rojas v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
others, Case No. 1:16-cv-23670-RNS (S.D. Fla.).

Sebastian Rojas seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  Mr. Rojas began working
for Uber in April 2015.  Uber provides transportation services
throughout the United States through a mobile phone application.
He alleges that Uber has failed to pay its drivers minimum wage
for all hours worked as well as overtime premiums for work
performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

Judge Scola opines that simply put, Mr. Rojas has made no
independent effort to substantiate his allegations that there are
other Uber drivers, who desire to opt-in to this litigation or
that such drivers are similarly situated to Rojas in terms of job
requirements and pay provisions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGA5eL33


UNITED SITE: Court Denies Madison's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel C. Irick entered an order in the lawsuit styled
JERMAINE MADISON v. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., Case
No. 6:16-cv-01991-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.):

   1. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification, facilitation of Court-authorized notice
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216;

   2. denying without prejudice the joint motion for
      certification;

   3. directing the parties to file a renewed motion for
      certification on or before July 26, 2017;

   4. ruling that the renewed motion for certification shall
      address each of the concerns raised in this Order;

   5. directing the parties to attach their agreed, proposed
      notice to the renewed motion for certification.  In the
      event the parties cannot agree on a proposed notice, then
      they shall attached their respective proposed notices to
      the renewed motion for certification; and

   6. ruling that the failure to comply with the foregoing
      provisions may result in the renewed motion for
      certification being denied.

Mr. Madison, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, instituted the putative collective action against the
Defendant in November 2016, asserting a single claim that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Two other individuals -- Michael McLendon
and Tardarius Taylor -- joined this action as Opt-in Plaintiffs in
May 2017.  The parties represent that they have agreed to
stipulate to the issuance of a notice to these individuals:

     All Pick-Up and Delivery Technicians and/or Service
     Technicians who worked at Defendant's Orlando location,
     going back three years from the date notice is issued.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iw3aHE2L


UNITED STATES: Kennedy Moves to Certify Class in Suit v. US Army
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case
styled STEPHEN M. KENNEDY and ALICIA J. CARSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ROBERT SPEER,
Acting Secretary of the Army, Case No. 3:16-cv-02010-WWE (D.
Conn.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative for issue certification
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a proposed class
consisting of all Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard
veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Era who: (a) were discharged
with less-than-Honorable discharges; (b) have not received
discharge upgrades to Honorable; and (c) have diagnoses of
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or PTSD-related conditions,
or records documenting one or more symptoms of PTSD or PTSD-
related conditions at the time of discharge, attributable to their
military service.

Robert M. Speer was designated as the Acting Secretary of the U.S.
Army, effective January 20, 2017.  He was previously appointed as
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller on December 1, 2014.  He was designated the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller) in October 2009.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cq8tczPO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Wenzloff, Esq.
          Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
          Tyler Ames, Law Student Intern
          Mario O. Gazzola, Law Student Intern
          Jonathan Petkun, Law Student Intern
          Jenna Rowan, Law Student Intern
          VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC
          JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
          YALE LAW SCHOOL
          P.O. Box 209090
          New Haven, CT 06520-9090
          Telephone: (203) 432-4800
          Facsimile: (203) 432-1426
          E-mail: aaron.wenzloff@ylsclinics.org
                  michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org

               - and -

          Susan J. Kohlmann, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-3908
          Telephone: (212) 891-1600
          Facsimile: (212) 891-1699
          E-mail: skohlmann@jenner.com
                  jcreelan@jenner.com


USCB INC: "Wiseman" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Wiseman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. USCB, Inc. d/b/a USCB America,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01256 (S.D. Cal., June 20, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief and other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a legal recovery and collection company that focuses
on national collections. Defendant used an auto-dialer to contact
the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in an attempt to collect a
debt. Plaintiff expressly revoked any consent that could have
existed to contact her on her cellular telephone. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Yana Hart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned DARLENE
DEZELAN, individually, on behalf of the Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center 403(b) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all similarly
situated Plans, Plaintiff, v. VOYA RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 3:16-cv-1251 (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, concerning retirement
funds that Voya managed on Plaintiff's behalf.  She brings claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), on
behalf of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 403(b) Retirement Plan,
in which she was a participant, as well as all other ERISA-covered
employee pension benefit plans whose assets were invested in
similar funds managed by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant "offers and sells" stable value funds. A key feature of
the stable value fund an investor is that she can withdraw from
the fund at any time and receive the book value of her investment,
even if its market value would be lower.

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
It argues that Plaintiff's claims concerning Defendant's general
account stable value funds should be dismissed because Ms. Dezelan
does not have standing to bring these claims. Defendant did not
offer general account products to her Plan, and because she cannot
bring this claim on behalf of purported class-members who did
invest in these products. Defendant also moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims concerning the Separate Account product in
which she invested, arguing that she fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

The Court agrees with both of Defendant's arguments.

To bring an ERISA suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate both
constitutional standing and a cause of action under such act. To
demonstrate constitutional standing: "(1) the plaintiff must have
suffered an injury-in-fact; (2) there must be a causal connection
between the injury and the conduct at issue; and (3) the injury
must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

Because Plaintiff did not own any general account stable value
funds, she cannot show that any of Defendant's alleged misdeeds
concerning those funds caused her to suffer a "distinct and
palpable injury," and therefore lacks standing to bring all three
causes of action to the extent that they relate to those products,
the Court held.

An ERISA plaintiff must be a participant or beneficiary of an
ERISA-covered plan before bringing a cause of action.  Section
502(a) of ERISA provides that a civil action may be brought "by a
participant or beneficiary" of an ERISA plan.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted without
prejudice to renewal.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 6, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/btcb5S from Leagle.com.

Darlene Dezelan, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr.,
Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Darlene Dezelan, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Barrett,
Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, Defendant,
represented by Melissa D. Hill, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, William J. Delany, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac
vice & Andrew D. O'Toole, O'Toole O'Toole LLC.


WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Wins Final Nod of "O'Brien" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian R. Martinotti entered a final approval order
granting the parties' Class Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit
styled CHRISTINE O'BRIEN and JOHN O'BRIEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALDMAN & KAPLAN, P.A.
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-07429-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.).

The certified Settlement Class consists of:

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent an initial collection
     letter and/or notice from WKPA during the period of
     October 13, 2014 to present, that included the following
     language: "You may contact a representative at FCI Lender
     Services, Inc., with a mailing address P.O. Box 27370,
     Anaheim, CA 92809-0112 toll free at 1-800-931-2422 between
     the hours of 8:00am to 6:0opm PST if you disagree with the
     Lender's assertion that a default has occurred or the
     correctness of the mortgage lender's calculation of the
     amount required to cure the default within thirty (30) days
     of this Letter."

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
WKPA will make these payments:

   (a) WKPA shall create a class settlement fund of $1,850, which
       the Class Administrator shall distribute pro rata among
       those Settlement Class Members who did not exclude
       themselves.  Claimants will receive a pro rata share of
       the Class Recovery by check;

   (b) WKPA will pay the Plaintiffs $1,500; and

   (c) WKPA will pay Class Counsel $27,500 for their attorneys'
       fees and costs incurred in the action.

A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tiFzaL88


WILLIS TOWERS: $120-Mil. Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a
settlement in principle for $120 million relating to the Stanford
Financial Group litigation remains pending.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which  contain statements about Stanford and the
insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford,
contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in
this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly
fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

   * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

* Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was
filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

* Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

* Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below,
and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24,
2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on
September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.

* Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

* Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer
of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is
currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with
the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

* MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of
Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to
stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether
it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for
consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur
in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the
Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with
the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the
parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris
County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court
(in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on
October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in MacArthur.

* Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for 7 days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

* Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

* Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115,
was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court
(Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

* Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-
cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than
300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual
damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys'
fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more
Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we
have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million. Further
details on this settlement in principle are given below.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

                            Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to
the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the
Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if
the settlement and the related bar orders described below are
approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-
combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar
orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged
to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and
agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford
litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed
a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in
his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for
The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-
Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez
Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and
dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or
related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders
described below, is approved by the Court and is not subject to
further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time
cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to
all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver
pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment
is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, but
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs
in the other actions above have objected to the settlement. A
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on
January 20, 2017, and the Court reserved decision. The Actions are
stayed pending final approval of the settlement. The timing of any
final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any
appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement.


WILLIS TOWERS: $9.75-Mil. Settlement Reached in "Sanchez" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Towers
Perrin and the Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have
participated in a mediation and reached a settlement in principle
in the case by Elma Sanchez, et. al.

On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action suit against the California Public Employees'
Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior
Court.  On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS'
Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities,
Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
('Towers Perrin').

Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long
Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC
Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and
2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the
long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85%
Increase').

The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single
cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence
relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS
relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004.

Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC
Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and
breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to
make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset
of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions
in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers
Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end
of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85%
Increase.

In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by
CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the
complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The certified class as currently
defined includes those long term care policy holders whose
policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter
set an October 2, 2017 trial date.

In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The
court agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary
judgment which was initially scheduled to be heard on February 3,
2017. The motion was then fully briefed, and the hearing date was
thereafter moved to March 8, 2017.

On March 1, 2017, Towers Perrin and Plaintiffs participated in a
mediation and reached a settlement in principle. Pursuant to the
settlement in principle, in exchange for a dismissal of the claims
of all class members and a release of Towers Perrin by all class
members, Towers Perrin would pay a total of $9.75 million into an
interest-bearing settlement fund, to be used to reimburse class
counsel's costs, and for later distribution to class members as
approved by the court when the case is fully resolved. The
settlement in principle is currently being documented, and its
effectiveness is conditioned on the parties obtaining court
approval after notice to all class members. The settlement in
principle is also subject to the court's separate good faith
settlement determination.

Based on the stage of the proceedings, in the event the settlement
in principle is not approved, the Company is unable to provide an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in
respect of the plaintiffs' complaint in excess of the proposed
settlement.


WORLD WATERS: Faces "Pizzirusso" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Waters LLC.
The case is captioned as Michael Pizzirusso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. World
Waters LLC and World Waters Holdings, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04071 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2017).

World Waters is in the fruit juices business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792 0046
          Facsimile: (212) 563 7108
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com


YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Stockholder Action Underway
----------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied the Company's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in the "Buch"
stockholder action.

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors. The complaint asserts both derivative claims,
purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims,
purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated
stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance
payments made to, the Company's former chief operating officer,
Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff claims that certain current and
former board members allegedly violated or acquiesced in the
violation of the Company's Bylaws when Mr. de Castro was
terminated without cause, and breached fiduciary duties by
allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the value of his severance. The plaintiff has also
asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to have
the full Board reassess the propriety of terminating Mr. de Castro
without cause, potentially leading to disgorgement in favor of the
Company of the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable
accounting, monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the action, which the Court denied in part and granted in
part on July 27, 2016. On April 5, 2017, the Court denied the
Company's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.

                           *     *     *

Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reported that the request of
a Yahoo Inc. investor for expedited handling of a preliminary
injunction motion seeking to delay an executive pay vote at the
company's June 8 annual meeting if the company doesn't meet a
disclosure demand.  Stockholder Cathy Buch said the injunction
would support direct and derivative damage claims for allegedly
false and misleading company statements about a $57.96 million
severance that the company's chief operating officer got in 2014
after 15 months on the job.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster denied without comment the motion
to expedite a decision on the injunction, rejecting arguments that
approval of the company's proposed $4.47 billion sale to Verizon
June 8 could block further progress on a shareholder action filed
in April 2015.

Yahoo, meanwhile, on May 26 filed with the court a report by the
company's special litigation committee that concluded there was no
reason for the company or shareholders to pursue damages against
the directors for the COO episode. The findings could neutralize
Buch's attempt to sue on the company's behalf.  The suit claims
that Yahoo misled investors with a 2014 disclosure regarding Chief
Operating Officer Henrique de Castro's anticipated severance pay.
The allegation was part of a breach of duty claim against Yahoo,
CEO Marissa A. Mayer, Chairman Maynard Webb and others that the
vice chancellor allowed to go forward in July 2016.

"This will be the last opportunity for defendants Mayer and Webb
to remedy their disclosure violations and it will be the last
opportunity for stockholders to have their voices heard with
regard to defendant Mayer's compensation," Buch's motion to
expedite the injunction decision said.

The breach of duty suit argues that Yahoo fired de Castro without
cause and triggered severance negotiations that ultimately
resulted in the $58 million separation package. It says details
regarding the termination and severance were approved by a two-
person compensation committee rather than the required full board
of directors. Details in a 2014 proxy statement, meanwhile,
understated the value of De Castro's actual severance deal.

"The theory is that de Castro got a pile of money he shouldn't
have gotten and when the court goes through and trues this stuff
up, some of that money might have to come back," Vice Chancellor
Laster said at the time he rejected a dismissal motion last year.

According to the heavily redacted preliminary injunction motion,
the 2014 proxy understated the share-related value of the
severance that De Castro agreed to when he signed his contract in
2012 by $7.32 million.

By the time of the 2015 breach of duty complaint, the shareholders
were describing the severance chart as "wholly unnecessary, self-
serving and misleading," and alleged that it "used inaccurate
numbers based on incorrect dates to soften the fact that de
Castro's severance after just 15 months at Yahoo was $57.96
million."

The motion for the preliminary injunction said that "discovery in
this action has revealed several facts confirming that the false
numbers that were included in the 2014 proxy statement were
intended to deceive Yahoo stockholders."

Directors named in the suit opposed the accelerated injunction,
saying that "although Yahoo's name will change after the
transaction, the company will still exist and any purported
'corrective disclosure' could be made at a later date if plaintiff
were to prevail on her claim."

Yahoo said in its opposition that the de Castro dispute is not an
issue for the stockholder meeting, and accused Buch of pushing for
quick action because Yahoo's special litigation committee was
seeking to terminate her litigation claim.

Yahoo agreed to consider corrective disclosures about de Castro's
severance, according to the Buch's suit, but has not produced the
information. Without action before the June 8 stockholder vote,
the suit asserts, Mayer and Webb will depart the company and the
Chancery Court will be unable to compel release of information
central to the breach of fiduciary duty case.

The company already has released a supplemental disclosure
prompted by the filing of a different direct and derivative
shareholder action seeking to block the Verizon stock purchase in
the California state court. A preliminary injunction hearing in
that case was scheduled for early June.

In that suit, stockholders also accuse current and former officers
and directors of duty breaches in connection with a security
incidents, insider trading allegations and negotiations with
Verizon, among other issues.

Cathy Buch is represented by Peter B. Andrews and Craig J.
Springer of Andrews & Springer LLC and Alexander Arnold Gershon,
Michael A. Toomey, Daniel E. Bacine, Jeffrey W. Golan and Julie B.
Palley of Barrack Rodos & Bacine.

Yahoo is represented by Kathaleen S. McCormick and Richard J.
Thomas of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP and Jordan Eth, Mark
R.S. Foster and Su-Han Wang of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The directors are represented by Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M.
Gallagher and Nicholas R. Rodrigues of Richards Layton & Finger PA
and Jonathan C. Dickey, Jennifer L. Conn, Jefferson E. Bell and
Catherine A. Conway of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Cathy Buch v. David Filo et al., case number 10933, in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing,
connecting, and entertaining users through its search,
communications, and digital content products.


YAHOO! INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Continued to Oct. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Madrack v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-
00373 (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2017), a further case management
conference has been set for July 26, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose.  A Joint Case Management
Conference Statement is due seven days before the scheduled
conference date.

Judge Lucy H. Koh granted a Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date on
Motion to Dismiss.  The hearing is continued to Oct. 19, 2017, at
1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H.
Koh.

Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the case, In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation.

On January 24, 2017, a stockholder action captioned Madrack v.
Yahoo! Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its current officers.

On March 21, 2017, a similar stockholder action captioned Talukder
v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs in both actions purport to represent a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
between November 12, 2013 and December 14, 2016. The complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints allege that the Company's
public disclosures about its business, operations, and compliance
policies were materially misleading in light of the Security
Incidents. The complaints seek class certification, damages,
interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 24, 2017, the District Court consolidated the two
actions, now styled as In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation,
and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs.

Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing,
connecting, and entertaining users through its search,
communications, and digital content products.


YAHOO! INC: 43 Consumer Suits Filed over Security Incidents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that approximately 43 putative consumer
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in U.S.
federal and state courts, and in foreign courts, relating to
security incidents.

On September 22, 2016, the Company disclosed that a copy of
certain user account information for approximately 500 million
user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014 (the
"2014 Security Incident").

On December 14, 2016, the Company disclosed that, based on its
outside forensic expert's analysis of data files provided to the
Company in November 2016 by law enforcement, the Company believes
an unauthorized third party stole data associated with more than
one billion user accounts in August 2013 (the "2013 Security
Incident").

In November and December 2016, the Company disclosed that based on
an investigation by its outside forensic experts, it believes an
unauthorized third party accessed the Company's proprietary code
to learn how to forge certain cookies. The outside forensic
experts have identified approximately 32 million user accounts for
which they believe forged cookies were used or taken in 2015 and
2016 (the "Cookie Forging Activity").

The 2013 Security Incident, the 2014 Security Incident, and the
Cookie Forging Activity are collectively referred to herein as the
"Security Incidents."

To date, approximately 43 putative consumer class action lawsuits
have been filed against the Company in U.S. federal and state
courts, and in foreign courts, relating to the Security Incidents,
two of which were voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiffs, who
purport to represent various classes of users, generally claim to
have been harmed by the Company's alleged actions and/or omissions
in connection with the Security Incidents and assert a variety of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages or other
related relief.

In addition, two putative stockholder class actions have been
filed against Yahoo, and certain officers of Yahoo, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
between November 12, 2013 and December 14, 2016, two additional
putative class actions have been filed against certain current and
former directors and officers of Yahoo on behalf of current
shareholders of Yahoo, and six stockholder derivative actions have
been filed purportedly on behalf of Yahoo against certain of its
current and former directors and officers, each asserting claims
related to the Security Incidents.

Additional lawsuits and claims related to the Security Incidents
may be asserted by or on behalf of users, partners, shareholders,
or others seeking damages or other related relief.

While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses
related to these legal proceedings at this time because the legal
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved. Based on current information, the Company does not
believe that a loss from these matters is probable and therefore
has not recorded an accrual for litigation or other contingencies
relating to the Security Incidents. The Company will continue to
evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an
accrual for estimated losses at the time or times it is determined
that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.

Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing,
connecting, and entertaining users through its search,
communications, and digital content products.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid to Reinstate Plaintiffs Okayed
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00815 (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr.
granted a Motion to Administratively Reinstate Plaintiffs Matt
Brierley, Eric Levy, and UFCW Local 1500.

The Motion to Administratively Reinstate Plaintiffs Matt Brierley,
Eric Levy, and UFCW Local 1500, was filed June 30.

An Amended Complaint was filed June 28 by Matt Brierley, Rajesh M
Shah, Eric Levy, UFCW 1500 against Christopher B Begley, Betsy J
Bernard, Paul M Bisaro, Gail K Boudreaux, Tony W Collins, David C
Dvorak, Daniel P. Florin, Larry Glasscock, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Robert A Hagemann, Arthur J Higgins, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Robert J. Marshall, Jr, Michael W Michelson, Cecil B Pickett PhD,
Jeffrey K Rhodes, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., Michael J.
Farrell.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
defending against a securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah
v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us and three of
our officers as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative
class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock
between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing
to disclose that supply chain issues led to a decrease in order
fulfillment rates in the third quarter of 2016 and would cause us
to lower our revenue and earnings guidance for full-year 2016. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other relief."

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the
individual defendants are defending it vigorously," the Company
said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran's Negligence Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
In LAWRENCE PYSCHER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-14055 (E.D. Mich.), Plaintiff Lawrence
Psycher filed a complaint against Defendant United States of
America on November 15, 2016, alleging that his treating
physicians at the Veterans Affairs hospital were negligent because
they did not adequately investigate the possibility that Psycher
might have asbestosis or another lung-related medical condition.
On April 21, 2017, the Government filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division granted the
motion, holding that Psycher has not alleged a claim in his
complaint nor alleged that he has exhausted any administrative
remedies he might have.

A full-text copy of Judge Ludington's Opinion and Order dated July
7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/nFyq73 from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Pyscher, Plaintiff, represented by Collin H. Nyeholt, Law
Offices of Casey D. Conklin PLC.

Lawrence Pyscher, Plaintiff, represented by Joni M. Fixel, Fixel
Law Offices, PLLC.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Zak Toomey,
United States Attorney's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: July 17 Trial in "Carroll"
-------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin set the matter in the case
captioned PATRICIA CARROLL, individually and as personal
representative of THE ESTATE OF RONALD KENNETH CARROLL, deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-373-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), for trial commencing July 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

In advance of the telephonic final pretrial conference, the court
issued an Opinion and Order dated July 7, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/0uZrDP from Leagle.com, on the parties' motions in
limine.

Among other things, Judge Conley ordered that defendant is barred
from discussing whether any money received by plaintiffs would be
subject to taxation and from discussing whether plaintiffs have
received or will receive money from the defendants with whom they
reached settlement agreements.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam
Iola, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
Scott Schulte, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David
Warren Henderson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig
Ronald Steger, Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

Patricia L. Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Iola, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, Steven Scott Schulte, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger, Hale,
Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram
Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC,
Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel
Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram
Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC,
Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel
Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram
Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Flips Summary Ruling in "O'Connor"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In EILEEN A. O'CONNOR et al., Appellants, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al., Defendants and FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC, et
al., Respondents, 523122 (N.Y. App. Div.), are appeals (1) from an
order of the Supreme Court (Aulisi, J.), entered April 26, 2016,
in Saratoga County, which, among other things, granted a motion by
defendant Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint against it, (2) from an order of said
court, entered April 26, 2016, in Saratoga County, which, among
other things, granted a motion by defendant Thomas Scientific,
Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it,
and (3) from an order of said court, entered April 26, 2016, in
Saratoga County, which, among other things, granted a motion by
defendant VWR International, LLC for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint against it.

In February 2015, plaintiff Eileen A. O'Connor was diagnosed with
pleural mesothelioma.  Alleging that her illness stemmed from
exposure to equipment containing asbestos while working at the
Westchester County Department of Labs and Research from
approximately 1975 to 1979, O'Connor, along with her husband,
derivatively, commenced a personal injury action in 2015 against,
among others, defendants Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Thomas
Scientific, Inc. and VWR International, LLC.  After joinder of
issue and discovery, defendants each moved for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them,
contending, among other things, that plaintiffs failed to identify
them as the suppliers of the asbestos-containing products in
question. Thereafter, in three separate orders, Supreme Court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint against them, finding that plaintiffs failed to
adequately identify any defendants as the supplier of the
asbestos-containing products at issue. Plaintiffs appeal, and the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, reverses.

According to the App. Div., the proof submitted by defendants
failed to establish that they did not sell asbestos-containing
products to WCDLR during the time that O'Connor was employed or
that O'Connor was not exposed to any of those products.  Viewing
the evidence in light most favorable to plaintiffs and granting
them the benefit of every favorable inference, the App. Div. finds
that defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could
not have caused O'Connor's asbestos-related illness.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated July 6, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/WKpRQf from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, PC, New York City (Gennaro Savastano of
counsel), for appellants.

Hinkhouse Williams Walsh, LLP, Chicago, Illinois (Jason H. Nash,
admitted pro hac vice) and Troutman Sanders, LLP, New York City
(John T. Williams of counsel), for Fisher Scientific Company, LLC,
respondent.

Marhall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Roseland, New Jersey
(Arthur D. Bromberg of counsel), for Thomas Scientific, Inc.,
respondent.

Littleton, Joyce, Ughetta, Park & Kelly, LLP, Purchase (Denis J.
Dozis of counsel), for VWR International, LLC, respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Stay Remand Order in "Legendre" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In STEPHEN R. LEGENDRE, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC. ET AL., SECTION
I, Civil Action No. 17-2162 (E.D. La.), arguing that a remand
order was "patently erroneous," because it "irreconcilably
conflicts with express holdings by the Fifth Circuit," and
"disregard[ed]" statutory language, Huntington Ingalls
("Avondale") moves to stay the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana's remand order.  Because a
remand is presently likely regardless of however the Fifth Circuit
rules, District Judge Lance M. Africk denies the motion to stay.

A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Order dated July 6, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/3JNeY4 from Leagle.com.

Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement.

Stephen R Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett
Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel &
Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Paul L. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Ragus J. Legendre, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Percy J. Legendre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by April Ann McQuillar, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and
Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery Davis, Liskow & Lewis.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented
by Dawn Danna Marullo, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Weatherly Emma
Trotter, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & Walter Scott Brown, Entergy Services,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Verdicts for Exxon, Ford
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marline Petitpas and Joseph Petitpas sued Ford Motor
Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Rossmoor Corporation, and
others, alleging that exposure to asbestos caused by these
defendants resulted in Marline's mesothelioma.  Motions for
summary adjudication were granted before trial, narrowing the
claims against Exxon and Ford.  During trial, the court granted
nonsuit for Rossmoor.  The jury returned defense verdicts for
Exxon and Ford.

Plaintiffs assert five contentions on appeal.  First, they argue
that the trial court erred by granting summary adjudication in
favor of Exxon as to strict product liability and secondary, or
"take home," exposure.  Second, they contend that the trial court
erred by granting nonsuit for Rossmoor as to both direct and
secondary exposure.  Third, plaintiffs maintain that the trial
court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding design defect
issues involving Ford.  Fourth, plaintiffs argue that the trial
court erred by granting summary adjudication in favor of Ford as
to plaintiffs' punitive damages claims.  Finally, plaintiffs
assert that the jury verdict in favor of Exxon was not supported
by the evidence.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, affirmed on all challenged grounds.  First, summary
adjudication for Exxon appropriately was granted because the
evidence did not show that Exxon was within the stream of commerce
for any asbestos-containing products, and Exxon did not have a
duty to Marline regarding secondary exposure because Marline was
not a member of Joseph's household at the relevant time.  Second,
nonsuit as to Rossmoor was appropriate because the causation
evidence against Rossmoor presented at trial was insufficient to
support a verdict for plaintiffs.  Third, jury instructions
relating to Ford accurately reflected the law, and Ford was not
liable under a design defect theory for products it did not
manufacture or supply.  Fourth, because the Cal. App. affirms the
defense verdict in favor of Ford, plaintiffs' challenge to the
summary adjudication of punitive damages claims against Ford is
moot.  Finally, since plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they
were entitled to a verdict in their favor as to Exxon as a matter
of law, there is no basis for reversing the defense verdict in
favor of Exxon.

The appeals case is JOSEPH PETITPAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B245037
(Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the opinion dated July 5, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/T28xEA from Leagle.com.

The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; Farrise Firm; Simona A.
Farrise for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dykema Gossett, John M. Thomas, Jill M. Wheaton and Tamara A. Bush
for Defendant and Respondent Ford Motor Company.

McKenna Long & Aldridge, Jayme C. Long, Frederic W. Norris and
David K. Schultz; Theodore J. Boutrous for Defendant and
Respondent Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Selman Breitman, Brad D. Bleichner, Jerry C. Popovich and Dennis
M. Alexander for Defendant, Respondent and Intervenor Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Bid to Dismiss "Hovsepian"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In DIANE MACCORMACK, NANCY BROUDY and KAREN LOFTUS, as Special
Personal Representatives of BERJ HOVSEPIAN, deceased, Plaintiffs,
v. THE ADEL WIGGINS GROUP, individually and as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-CV-414-CEJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Carol E. Jackson of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, granted the motion of defendant Warren Pumps,
LLC, to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Plaintiffs are the special personal representatives of decedent
Berj Hovsepian, a civilian employee of the United States Navy from
1958 until 1964, in Boston, Massachusetts.  He contracted
asbestos-related mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of exposure
to products that were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed
by the defendants in this case, including Warren Pumps.

In December 2009, Hovsepian brought an action against Warren Pumps
and a number of other entities in the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  In an amended complaint, filed on
April 11, 2012, Hovsepian asserted claims of common law
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and
"malicious, willful, wanton and reckless conduct or gross
negligence."  Warren Pumps moved for summary judgment, arguing
that Hovsepian had "failed to put forth sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that [he] was exposed to asbestos from a product
manufactured, sold, or supplied by Warren or that any such
exposure was a substantial contributing cause of his injuries."
The motion was unopposed, and on July 27, 2012, the Massachusetts
court granted summary judgment in favor of Warren Pumps.

In December 2015, Hovsepian initiated an action in the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, naming Warren Pumps and
others as defendants, and asserting claims identical to those in
the Massachusetts case.  The action was removed to the District
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1442(a)(1) and 1446. Upon
Hovsepian's death, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
proceeding as special personal representatives.  In the instant
motion, Warren Pumps argues that plaintiffs' claims against it are
barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Judge Jackson points out that the Massachusetts Superior Court
granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs
argue that this disposition did not constitute a final judgment on
the merits because Hovsepian did not oppose the motion and did not
have the "opportunity to fully litgate the [causation] issue," due
to an incomplete deposition.

Judge Jackson held that plaintiffs' argument is unavailing.  The
judge pointed out that although Hovsepian never responded to
Warren Pumps' summary judgment motion, he was afforded full
opportunity to be heard on the issues.

Judge Jackson added that plaintiffs' argument regarding
Hovsepian's incomplete deposition also fails.  Hovsepian, the
court noted, could have offered evidence demonstrating a dispute
of material fact pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure
56.  Moreover, Hovsepian could have requested additional discovery
to contest defendant Warren Pumps' motion.  Accordingly, the grant
of summary judgment in the Massachusetts Superior Court
constituted a final judgment on the merits, Judge Jackson held.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated July 5, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/0ZhaXv from Leagle.com.

Diane MacCormack, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla,
FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC.

Diane MacCormack, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Patrick Barth,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Nancy Broudy, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla, FLINT
LAW FIRM, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Karen Loftus, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla, FLINT
LAW FIRM, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine,
SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP & Paul W. Lore.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy A. McGuire,
O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy, BROWN
AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY AND
OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Type Has No Effect on Latency Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that new research
from scientists in Germany sheds more light on the unusually long
latency period associated with mesothelioma and other asbestos-
related diseases.

The study, published earlier this year in the European Respiratory
Journal, is the first to track the presence of asbestos fibers in
lung tissue over time.

Mesothelioma has one of the longest latency periods of any cancer.
It typically takes anywhere from 20 to 50 years after a person's
initial exposure to asbestos before symptoms arise.

Using the German Mesothelioma Register, researchers at Ruhr-
University Bochum discovered the volume of asbestos fibers in
tissue does not decrease over time, regardless of the type of
asbestos involved.

Specifically, the concentration of chrysotile -- the most common
of the six types of asbestos -- remained stable over time, despite
some previous studies suggesting it may be easier for the body to
rid itself of that particular type of the naturally occurring
mineral.

"Our results show that asbestos continues to be demonstrable in
human lungs, that also chrysotile can be identified after many
years, and that there is no significant reduction of asbestos
fibre concentrations in lung tissues over time after exposure
cessation," lead researcher Inke Sabine Feder wrote in the study.
"The unique benefit of the data presented here is to have a
measured starting point of the asbestos fibre burden of the human
lung tissue to compare later findings with."

Although all six types of asbestos minerals are carcinogenic, each
has different physical and chemical characteristics.

Chrysotile, which accounts for 90 percent of asbestos used
commercially in the world, belongs to the serpentine family. The
fibers are curly, comprised of sheets of crystals and are more
flexible compared to other types.

Other forms of asbestos including crocidolite, amosite and
tremolite are amphiboles, characterized by long, straight and
sharp fibers.

When these microscopic asbestos fibers are unknowingly inhaled,
they can become trapped in the pleura, which is the protective
membrane surrounding the lungs. Over many years, the fibers cause
inflammation and scarring, which can lead to serious respiratory
conditions including mesothelioma and lung cancer.

However, there is still much to learn about exactly how and when
these biological changes occur. Most mesothelioma patients don't
experience symptoms until decades after exposures to asbestos.
Many have retired from high-risk occupations.

The German study gives new insight into asbestos' ability to
remain in the body over time, known as biopersistence. Earlier
research only evaluates biopersistence in animal experiments or in
hypothetical models based on asbestos concentrations at workplaces
and autopsy results.

Out of 23,955 datasets in the German Mesothelioma Register, Feder
and his team narrowed it to 12 individuals who met specific
criteria:

   -- At least two biopsies at minimal intervals of four years.

   -- Results of asbestos concentration had to be available.

   -- Earlier asbestos fiber burden from surgery or
bronchoalveolar lavage -- a diagnostic procedure -- had to be
available.

   -- Biopsies must show at least 500 fibers of asbestos per gram
of lung tissue.

"Our samples have been analysed in a quantitative way by phase
contrast microscopy in the same laboratory using the same method,"
Feder wrote. "The laboratory has had experience in this method
since 1987."

Chrysotile Asbestos Just As Dangerous As Other Forms

In the study, the time between biopsies varied from four to 21
years, with a median of eight years. Some biopsies were done
during diagnosis or surgery, while others were completed as part
of an autopsy.

Electron microscope analysis revealed high concentrations of
chrysotile asbestos in 66.7 percent of tissue samples, with the
rest containing mainly amphibole fibers.

The longest asbestos exposure cessation (time since last exposure)
was 37 years, falling in line with the average latency period of
mesothelioma.

Concentrations remained stable over the investigation period,
suggesting the type of asbestos has no significant effect on the
body's ability to rid itself of the toxic fibers. Previous
research proves chrysotile is dissolved completely when acids are
applied. Uncontrolled use of ultrasound can also destroy the most
common asbestos type.

Feder and his team believe previous data showing a reduction of
chrysotile fibers in human lung tissue must have occurred not long
after the accumulation of fibers.

"It is clear that there has been no relevant change in the ratio
of amphibole to chrysotile fibres and that the chrysotile
concentration has remained stable over the investigation period of
4-21 years," Feder wrote.

As the first study to test asbestos biopersistence in humans over
time, the German research proves chrysotile can be just as toxic
as other forms of asbestos and should be treated with the same
level of concern.

"Our unique data experimentally confirmed the well-known
characteristics of the asbestos fibres (asbestos in ancient Greek
means imperishable) for individual human lungs in vivo over many
years," Feder wrote. "Overall, this study very clearly
demonstrates high biopersistence of not only amphibole but also
chrysotile asbestos in the human lung and thus gives mechanistic
explanations for the toxicity of the fibre and the long latency
period of asbestos related diseases."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABIA Outlines Response to Asbestos Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie McGivern and David Barer, writing for KXAN.com, reported
that a KXAN Investigation is making waves with the city of Austin
and the group tasked with recommending change at Austin-Bergstrom
International Airport.

This development comes after airport workers revealed to KXAN a
health and safety concern they say airport management ignored. It
led to the revelation of a significant asbestos contamination
during a construction project there last year.

KXAN's investigation forced the city to admit it had not been
forthcoming about those concerns initially, eventually saying
workers had indeed warned their bosses about the cancer-causing
substance eight months before 120 employees were officially
notified of the exposure. Since then, management has changed its
policy to check for asbestos before beginning any construction.

The investigation also prompted the city council to call for a
closer look at the problem. The city's Airport Advisory Commission
took up the issue. The asbestos exposure topped the commission's
agenda. Each member was armed with details in a packet KXAN put
together ahead of its initial investigation, outlining evidence of
the problem so they knew what questions to ask airport management
themselves.

ABIA's Chief Operating Officer Patti Edwards was front and center,
as she was called to explain the steps airport management is
taking now. For starters, retesting all of the buildings on the
property for asbestos.

Edwards says she's also working with the city's asbestos and mold
abatement team for guidance and direction on how to establish a
training program.

Edwards said "we can all do better," assuring the commission ABIA
is taking precautions so this doesn't happen again.

"As a department, we could have done a better job documenting and
highlighting to staff as a part of their on-boarding process how
to deal with certain situations. That's one of the things that I
want to focus on, actually hiring a staff person to oversee that,"
Edwards said.

When KXAN asked the airport spokesperson about the details of that
position, he didn't immediately have the answers but said he knows
no position has been posted.

"I can assure you that no matter what you've heard or the stories,
we're 100 percent committed to our employee safety," Edwards said,
telling the commission she's going to do another round of meetings
with impacted employees who work in the maintenance complex to do
a refresher training on working in and around areas that could
have an asbestos exposure, and provide an update on the steps
management is taking to establish better processes.

Edwards also said she wants to encourage those who haven't signed
up for medical testing to do so. As KXAN first reported last
month, the city conducted an emergency cleanup of the affected
area and offered eight airport workers directly exposed to the
asbestos lifetime annual health checks. A reminder the asbestos
was not discovered in the public terminal and the material is
harmful if it's in the air and breathed in over a long period of
time. Right now, the only tests provided to KXAN show it was not
airborne, though that testing was done six months after initial
complaints to management.

Background

KXAN first reported on the asbestos exposure in June. At that
time, it did not appear members of the Airport Advisory Commission
were aware of the exposure. KXAN provided each commission member
with an outline of our findings.

The commission is composed of citizens appointed by City Council
members and airport staff; it advises the airport on construction
projects, grants and the yearly budget.

During the spring and early summer, KXAN spoke with multiple
airport employees with knowledge of the renovations. They said
workers alerted airport management about possible asbestos
exposure, but management didn't stop the work to check for the
hazardous material.

The Renovations

In February and June of 2016, Department of Aviation carpenters
and maintenance workers renovated the carpets and floors in
multiple maintenance complex offices. Testing would later confirm
the presence of asbestos in black mastic flooring adhesive.

About eight workers were exposed to the asbestos when they ripped
up the carpet and tiles and scraped the floor, according to city
records.

Workers with knowledge of the renovation and contamination told
KXAN they were concerned the city and airport management
downplayed the issue and failed to act after being alerted to
possible asbestos and contamination.

KXAN spoke with one employee present at the time of the
renovations and confirmed the details with other employees also
present during construction. Each worker spoke on a condition of
anonymity and said they feared retaliation from airport
management.

"The people who run the airport put people in danger that they
knew about, put them in hazardous areas and told them that they
would be safe," said one employee present for the February
renovations. "I am concerned for everybody's health who was in the
building."

The city initially denied the whistleblowers' claims, relayed
through KXAN. In June the city said, "no employees brought
concerns to management during February or May regarding the work."
Later, the city reversed itself in an email.

"Once the work began, two employees expressed concerns about
possible asbestos contamination in the work areas. Aviation
officials again consulted the survey and allowed work to proceed,"
a city spokesman said in June 16 prepared statement.

Previous City Response

The city said airport officials referenced a 2004 asbestos survey
of the maintenance complex, which did not show asbestos present in
the work areas.

"The cty of Austin is committed to the health and safety of all
employees. We are continuing to investigate the circumstances
surrounding this incident," a city spokesman said in a prepared
statement. "The city of Austin and the Department of Aviation
would never intentionally put its employees at risk."

Alerting employees

In late September and early June the Department of Aviation
notified about 120 employees that worked in the building,
including police officers and administrators, of the exposure.
Those employees were told they could fill out workplace injury
forms and make worker's compensation claims, according to records
obtained by KXAN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at Fire Station Almost Done
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kirby, writing for Daily Freeman, reported that asbestos
removal at Kingston's Central Fire Station on East O'Reilly Street
is largely done, the city engineer says.

Ralph Swenson said he has signed a "substantially completed"
document regarding the work in the building at 19 E. O'Reilly St.
in Midtown.

The project, though reported in May to have been slowed by
paperwork problems, was completed in June, Swenson said.

The work was done by Syracuse-based NRC Inc., which was awarded
the contract after an April 3-coin toss at City Hall, necessary
because NRC and Sauquoit, N.Y-based Sullivan Contracting submitted
identical bids of $42,000.

The city received seven bids for the asbestos work in the 110-
year-old fire stationt. They ranged from $42,000 to $174,000.

The Kingston Common Council had authorized spending up to $100,000
for the work.

Swenson has said the asbestos was largely in pipe insulation in
the basement of the firehouse, which dates to 1907-08.

A report prepared for the city by Latham-based consulting firm
C.T. Male Associates outlined significant repairs said to be
needed at the Central Fire Station, as well as work to bring the
building up to current standards.

The firm then created a document that broke the initial report
into high-, medium- and low-priority needs.

The high-priority work alone would cost less than everything
suggested in the initial report, but still amounts to nearly $2
million. That is more than half of C.T. Male's total estimate of
$3,796,868.

The C.T. Male reports came on the heels of one prepared by Peak
Engineering that said reinforcements to the firehouse's concrete
floor, where fire trucks are parked, had deteriorated
significantly.

The floor where the trucks are parked was cited in the original
C.T. Male report and was deemed a "high priority" in the follow-up
document. C.T. Male and city officials have estimated the floor
project alone would cost about $860,000 because it would require
demolition and replacement.

Work classified as being of "medium priority" would cost about
$1.65 million, while "low priority" work would cost roughly
$719,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies After Being Exposed to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Gordon, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a Derbyshire
woman has died due to cancer caused by childhood hugs with her
pipe fitter father wearing overalls covered with asbestos.

Susan Macgregor was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2015
and died 14 months later at the age of 58.

Mesothelioma is the type of cancer which is most commonly
connected to exposure to asbestos.

Mrs Macgregor's husband, Dave, has spoken out ahead of a national
awareness week of his devastation at having the mum of three
"snatched early".

He says Susan was a keen walker and all-round fitness enthusiast
and first noticed something was wrong when she had difficulty
breathing while exercising. She visited hospital and had x-rays
which revealed the terrible news.

She had developed an incurable form of cancer which kills around
70 per cent of people within a year of diagnosis.

Mrs Macgregor went through six courses of chemotherapy and a
separate procedure to remove part of the affected area of her
chest, but she did eventually succumb to the disease.

Mr Macgregor, 66, from Willington, said: "The children are
absolutely devastated. They've lost their mother, they've lost a
friend, the grandchildren have lost their nana and I've lost my
wife.

"It's absolutely gutting and nobody can understand why she got it
-- she was probably the fittest one of us all. It was really hard
losing her and, after a lot of digging into her work background,
we couldn't come up with any answers to that.

"But, following the inquest, the coroner came up with the most
likely cause of her being in contact with asbestos was probably
through her dad's overalls. He was a pipe fitter and used to come
home at night in his work clothes and play with her and cuddle her
and we think that's how she came into contact with asbestos.

"It only needs one little particle to settle in the right place
and 40 to 50 years later you get diagnosed with this awful
disease."

Mrs Macgregor's ashes were scattered at her favourite green spot
in Milldale, Derbyshire, and Mr Macgregor has claimed he was angry
and felt let down by the Government for letting asbestos be used
in building construction.

He said his lawyers were, however, unable to the trace the
asbestos exposure to any individual business so no compensation
could be claimed.

He added: "Money doesn't bring my wife back. I feel like she has
been snatched away from me and I would like to hold somebody
accountable, but I can't."

Mr Macgregor was speaking to our sister title, the Derby Telegraph
ahead of the Action Mesothelioma Day on July 7 -- a national
campaign aimed to raise awareness of asbestos exposure.

Read more: Two Burton brothers to walk 95 miles for charity in
honour of their late father

He has appealed for people going through similar situations to
look for help from support groups like the Derbyshire Asbestos
Support Team (DAST) as soon as possible.

He said: "I can't emphasise how great DAST were through all of
this. It isn't only the victims who are impacted; it is their
families and friends too. The bereavement support they provide has
been fantastic."

DAST supported 209 people diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases
last year and, to reflect that, an art installation with 209 paper
dollies falling out of a "reflection rose" will be unveiled to
remember the victims.

Various experts and campaigners will be giving speeches to raise
awareness of asbestos exposure and "highlight the bravery of those
who have pioneered the way for others to access truth and justice
both legally and medically."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Man Says Cos. Negligently Used Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
Missouri man is suing a number of companies, citing alleged
negligence in using asbestos, which caused illness after exposure
to the products.

Gilbert Jeck filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial
Circuit Court against A.W. Chesterton Co., Allied Paint and
Wallpaper Co. Inc., Borgwarner Morse LLC, et al. alleging the
defendants wrongfully included asbestos fibers in their products
when they should have known that it was toxic and harmful.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on April 1,
he first became aware he had developed asbestos-related lung
disease and later learned that the disease was due to his exposure
to asbestos-containing products. As a result, Jeck claims he
suffered physical pain, mental anguish and loss of earnings and
incurred medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate
substitutes were readily available and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions on how to safely work with products that
contain asbestos.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks seeks judgement
for actual compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, including
costs of action and other relief as the court deems just and
equitable. He is represented by Brian J. Cooke and Drew Sealey of
Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC01214


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro-Policyholder Case Endorses Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Scarbrough, Esq. -- bscarbrough@jenner.com -- Jan A.
Larson, Esq. -- janlarson@jenner.com -- and Alexander J. Bandza,
Esq. -- abandza@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block LLP, in an article
for Lexology.com, wrote that an opinion from the Connecticut
Appellate Court, R.T. VanderbiltCo. v. Hartford Accident &
Indemnity Co., 156 A.3d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017), aides
policyholders seeking coverage for asbestos-related long-tail
liability claims under Commercial General Liability policies when
responding to certain coverage defenses, including the allocation
of risk for uninsured policy periods and the application of the
pollution exclusion.

In Vanderbilt, the court ruled on two significant issues--first,
it endorsed the "unavailability of insurance" exception to the pro
rata allocation method to allocate uninsured policy periods to the
insurer, and second, it rejected the application of the pollution
exclusion to talc-related asbestos exposure. As to the first, the
court confronted a novel question under Connecticut law regarding
whether the policyholder or the insurer should bear the risk for
periods during which insurance coverage was commercial
unavailable--commonly known as the "unavailability of insurance"
exception to the pro rata allocation method. The court affirmed
the existence of the exception, holding that the insurer should
bear this risk. As to the second, the court rejected that the
pollution exclusion applied, reasoning that the exclusions at
issue barred coverage only when the exposure arose from
"traditional environmental pollution" migrating through property
or into the environment, but did not extend to "inhalation or
ingestion of asbestos dust released in small quantities in an
indoor environment during everyday activities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Missouri Cos. Over Failure to Warn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing multiple corporations, citing alleged failure to
warn individuals of the harmful effects of asbestos.

Bobby Knowles and Linda Knowles filed a complaint in the St. Louis
22nd Judicial Circuit Court against CBS Corp.; Crown, Cork & Seal
USA Inc.; FMC Corp., et al., alleging that the defendants failed
their duty to exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety
of employees and others working with or around the products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that while Bobby
Knowles working as a maintenance mechanic and operator in 1962, he
was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products from the
defendants. Bobby Knowles claims he first became aware that he had
lung cancer on March 31, 2016.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how avoid inhaling asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment for
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and for costs, pre and
post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the
court deems just and reasonable. They are represented by Benjamin
R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10698


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fieldfisher Strengthens Asbestos Claims Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Collier, Esq., has been appointed by law firm Fieldfisher
to head up the mesothelioma and asbestos team in Manchester.
Collier has conducted asbestos, industrial disease and accident at
work claims for the past 20 years. She joins from GLP solicitors
and was previously at Slater & Gordon, and has been a member of
the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers executive committee for
the past five years and has specialist accreditation in asbestos
claims.

The Manchester branch of the law firm can be reached at:

     FIELDFISHER
     5th Floor Free Trade Exchange
     37 Peter Street
     Manchester
     M2 5GB
     United Kingdom
     Tel: +44 (0)161 835 8010
     Fax: +44 (0)161 835 8015


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawsuit Revived in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
mesothelioma victim who alleges her asbestos disease was caused by
exposure to her late husband's work clothes has seen her asbestos
mesothelioma lawsuit revived after it was originally lost to a
summary judgement ruling in favor of the defendant.

Plaintiff Wanda Beckering was tasked, over the years, with
laundering her husband's work clothes. Frank Beckering was
employed by Shell Oil Co. and worked primarily as a machinist from
1954 until he retired from his job in 1992. At some point
following the death of her husband in 2009, Wanda Beckering was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease affecting the linings of
the lungs and other internal organs widely held to be caused by
exposure to asbestos. While Beckering regularly laundered her
husband's work clothes, she never once visited his place of
employment, and thus claims that the only pathway to asbestos
exposure would be through her late husband's work clothes.

The allegation is not without precedent. There have been cases
whereby the spouses of employees regularly working around asbestos
have become ill, and in some cases have died from exposure to
asbestos fibers piggybacking on the work clothes of the employee.

Court records did not specify the cause of Frank Beckering's death
in 2009. However, Wanda Beckering launched an asbestos cancer
lawsuit against Shell alleging second-hand exposure to asbestos.

Beckering's asbestos claims appeared to have gone south in 2014
when a trial court granted Shell Oil's motion for summary
judgement in March of that year. Eight months later, in November
2014 an appeals court upheld that ruling.

Beckering appealed to the state high court and found favor, thanks
in part to a ruling in December of last year by the Supreme Court
of California in Kesner v. Superior Court of California. That
ruling by the Supreme Court determined that employers can be held
liable for injuries caused by secondhand asbestos exposure
suffered by household members of employees. The ruling addressed
the potential for duty of care an employer has for family members
who may be adversely affected through an employee.

Taking the lead from the Kesner finding, the state high court this
past March vacated the ruling by the appeals court and sent the
matter back to the appellate panel with instructions to reconsider
Beckering's case in light of the findings inherent with the Kesner
decision.

The Second Appellate District Panel sent the case back to trial
court with instructions to deny the motion for summary judgement
moved by Shell.

That puts Beckering back at square one, but revives her asbestos
lawsuit nonetheless.

"Beckering, whose husband was a Shell employee, was a member of
the worker's household and thus was 'foreseeably in close and
sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of
time,'" the panel said.

Beckering filed her asbestos cancer lawsuit in August, 2013. The
status of her health is unknown. However a diagnosis of
Mesothelioma is usually a death sentence. There is no cure.
Exposure to asbestos can result in asbestos disease, asbestosis or
asbestos mesothelioma that usually emerges years, and sometimes
decades following exposure.

The level of asbestos compensation sought by the plaintiff was not
specified.

The asbestos injury case is Wanda L. Beckering v. Shell Oil Co.,
Case No. B256407, in the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Second Appellate District, Division Three.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 225 Scottish Hospitals Riddled with Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Mcdonald, writing for Daily Record, reported that deadly
asbestos is present in hundreds of hospitals across Scotland.

The cancer-causing substance can be found in 225 buildings used by
patients across the country's regional NHS boards.

According to the Scottish Government, the NHS and councils, the
substance is safe if left undisturbed.

Health boards said they manage it under strict health and safety
guidelines.

But experts claimed the risks are underestimated.

Asbestos was widely used in the construction of public buildings
in the second half of the 20th century. But it can lead to
mesothelioma -- a lung cancer.

Phyllis Craig, of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, said: "While
asbestos remains in hospitals it can be disturbed in many ways if
it's not strictly managed with the utmost responsibility."

A NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde spokesman said: "We have stringent
processes and procedures to effectively manage the asbestos in
compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012."

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said: "It is the
responsibility of those managing any building liable to contain
asbestos to ensure asbestos is managed correctly.

The Scottish Government said: "Asbestos management plans are in
place across the NHS estate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building Contamined with Asbestos in Montreal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siver Times reported that following the suspension of remediation
work, a historic building in the chinese district of Montreal,
which has flamed last fall, the City is now facing a public health
problem.

A significant amount of asbestos has been found inside the remains
of the building that is now blocked off with plastic sheets. The
asbestos was discovered shortly after the fire at the heritage
building, which occurred on November 17, 2016.

The building was a former cinema, which had been screened the
first film in Canada.

The standards Commission, equity, health and safety in the
workplace (CNESST) was adopted to decontaminate the place as
quickly as possible so that it can be demolished.

A costly move

However, as the owner of the property burned is gone, the
contractor in charge of the clean-up has stopped the work he had
undertaken.

"The owner didn't want to decontaminate because it was too
expensive, it would have cost not far from $ 500,000," was said at
the time another contractor who would renovate the building before
it shoots up.

It now estimates the cost of decontamination work between $600,000
and $800,000.

For the moment, the City prefers not to intervene even if asbestos
fibres can escape into the air and, possibly, make people sick.

"We evaluate all the possibilities so that the situation is
corrected. Remember that the responsibility for the building,
regardless of the state in which it is located, is entirely up to
the owner," replied the City by e-mail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Man Gets Prison For Not Removing Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that an Ohio man who authorities say
operated an illegal dump and failed to remove asbestos before
demolishing an old factory has been sentenced to nearly five years
in federal prison and ordered to pay almost $8 million in
restitution.

A U.S. District Judge in Cleveland sentenced 53-year-old
Christopher Gattarello to 57 months in prison for Clean Air Act
violations and an unrelated fraud against a Louisiana company.

Prosecutors say the Cleveland man filled a closed factory on the
city's east side with trash collected by his garbage hauling
businesses in 2011 and 2012. They say he then piled up asbestos-
tainted rubble in a residential neighborhood while demolishing the
building.

The restitution includes $5.9 million to Cleveland for site
cleanup.

Gattarello's attorney couldn't immediately be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Children At Risk of Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Rodger, writing for Herald Scotland, reported that school
children could be at risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases
in the future, according to a charity.

The Clydeside Action on Asbestos(CAA) organisation is warning of
the need to protect future generations from exposure to the deadly
fibres ahead of their annual memorial service.

Every year, staff, volunteers and family members come together to
remember those who have died as a result of mesothelioma and
asbestos-related lung cancer.

Inhaling just one fibre of asbestos can be enough to trigger
mesothelioma -- a fatal cancer in the outer lining of the lung --
with more than 500 people dying of the condition every year in
Scotland.

CAA will hold the ceremony again today, with a wreath being laid
by Glasgow man Jethro Bremner-Allison who lose his father William
to the mesothelioma in 2016.

Jethro said: "I feel honoured to lay this wreath in memory of all
those families who have had to endure losing a loved one to
mesothelioma or other asbestos related diseases.

"Like them, I am living with loss, trying to manage grief and
trying to focus on the many, many happy times we had as a family.

"I miss my father every single day.

"If there is anything that can be done to protect future
generations from the dangers of asbestos, I will wholeheartedly
support it.

"I do not ever want to be at this memorial in years to come and
hear that someone has died from being exposed at school when we
have the chance to do something about it right now.'

Phyllis Craig MBE, Manager at CAA, said: "As Scotland's leading
asbestos charity, we see the direct impact that a diagnosis of
mesothelioma or asbestos related lung cancer can have on a family.

HeraldScotland: Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos at
Prestonfield House, Edinburgh, venue for the 10th annual Scottish
Politician of the Year Awards.

Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos

"We have to remember that when a person dies from an asbestos
related disease, there is a wide network of close family, extended
family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and former colleagues who
are affected by the loss.

"There is a frustration and anger along with grief; how can it be
that a person has died because they were exposed to asbestos when
the dangers of asbestos have been known for so long?

"Every year, the numbers being diagnosed continues to rise, and
every year, the number of people coming along to our memorial
continues to rise.

"That is why, this year, we also want to raise awareness of the
thousands of people who continue to be exposed to asbestos, not
only at work, but also by simply spending time in public buildings
that contain asbestos."

An estimated 1500 school buildings are thought to contain
asbestos, with Phyllis warning that any building built before 2000
could contain the toxic substance.

She said: "We know that removing asbestos from all public
buildings would be a mammoth and costly task and it is therefore
imperative that asbestos in buildings has to be managed with the
utmost responsibility and care.

"However, it is a shocking reality that over 1500 schools and
nurseries in Scotland contain asbestos.

"Our priority is to see asbestos removed from all schools and
nurseries in Scotland by 2040."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Closes Auckland YMCA Facility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reported that an asbestos discovery has closed a YMCA
facility in central Auckland city.

YMCA Auckland's chief executive Peter Fergusson said the facility
closed shortly after the asbestos discovery on June 5.

Rain damage to the the Pitt St location uncovered the presence of
asbestos in the stadium roof of the indoor sports facility, he
said.

Specialists immediately secured the site to ensure no public
health issues, he said.

The stadium remains completely closed.

Before the public announcement, the organisation was "involved in
a range of communications to staff, clients and neighbours, to
alert them," he said.

Engineering firm Beca inspected the roof and the damage to work
out the scale of removal and repairs.

Not all asbestos is dangerous and it is used in many different
ways in daily life, Fergusson said.

However, it is dangerous when it becomes airborne, so testing for
that was key, he said.

Air testing conducted throughout the complex had consistently
returned clear results. However, small pockets of undisturbed and
encapsulated asbestos were identified, primarily in non-public
areas.

"To my knowledge, we've done everything by the book," he said.

The cost for the entire project is likely to exceed $2 million.

Charitable donations will help cover a portion of that cost and
the YMCA will endeavour to raise funding for the remainder.

"The stadium roof will be replaced, and we anticipate the stadium
will be fully operational and reopened at the start of 2018," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uckfield Widow Seeks Asbestos Risk Register
------------------------------------------------------------
Sussex Express reported that an Uckfield widow whose husband died
from asbestos-related cancer has called for a national 'at risk'
register for schools where the substance is present.

Clair York's husband Brian, 63, was exposed to asbestos during his
29-year career as a PE teacher at Imberhorne School, East
Grinstead. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lining of the lungs, 13 years after leaving teaching.

Before he died on December 9, 2015, Brian instructed asbestos-
related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how he
was exposed to deadly fibres during his teaching years. In 2016
the firm secured an admission of liability from West Sussex County
Council.

Asbestos was used in the building and insulation of public
buildings such as schools and hospitals for decades due to fire
retardant properties. It was a component in many products
including cement, sealants, pipe and boiler insulation, corrugated
roofing, ceiling and wall tiles and wall insulation. When asbestos
dust or fibres are airborne and breathed in, it can cause serious
diseases including mesothelioma -- an aggressive and incurable
form of lung cancer, other lung cancers and asbestosis -- a
serious scarring of the lungs.

According to a 2015 Government health and safety report almost all
the 14,000 schools built between 1945 and 1975 contain the
material.

Now Clair joins Irwin Mitchell to call for a risk register of all
schools where asbestos is present in order to safely manage
building maintenance and asbestos removal. The plea to Government
comes on Action Mesothelioma Day (July 7).

She said: "This isn't about scaremongering and no one says all
teachers and children are in grave danger. But it is about taking
a pragmatic approach to what we now know is a dangerous substance.
Schools take a lot of battering over the years and buildings fall
in to disrepair, as Brian's had."

Brian, who worked at Imberhorne from 1973-2002, recalled PE
equipment stored in a cupboard containing asbestos-insulated
pipework. The heated swimming pool was also insulated with
asbestos. Witnesses also confirmed its use in storage heaters and
roof tiles.

Natalia Rushworth-White, Irwin Mitchell's expert asbestos-related
disease lawyer said: "We have repeatedly called upon Government to
introduce a full risk register to document the presence of
asbestos in public buildings including schools, and for that the
register to be maintained through a programme of regular and
robust inspections."

Irwin Mitchell is working towards a settlement for Clair who is
working to raise awareess of the dangers of asbestos. The firm
also claims GBP12,000 for Wt Wilfrid's Hospice, Eastbourne to
cover Brian's care costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Contaminates 3 Homes, Contractor Fined
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Mapstone, writing for Sunshine Coast Daily, reported that a
roof cleaner and painter who contaminated three Coast properties
with asbestos-containing material has faced court.

Jason Trevor Clode had been contracted to clean and paint the roof
of a Currimundi home, and told an apprentice to use a high-
pressure water blaster to clean the surface.

Barrister for Workplace Health and Safety, Peter Hurrey, said the
result of that was asbestos-contaminated material was sprayed onto
three properties.

"The asbestos-contaminated material was largely encapsulated in
the paint and therefore the risk of exposure was not great to the
public, or to other people unless it was then subsequently broken
down by people treading on it," he said.

Clode pleaded guilty to breaching the Workplace Health and Safety
regulation and told Maroochydore Magistrates Court the
contamination had been a mishap.

"Prior to starting the job it was not in our intentions at all for
this outcome," he said.

"In 32 years of roofing I haven't had anything like this.

"It's something that I got wrong on the day and I've learned from
it."

Magistrate Rod Madsen fined Clode $750 and placed him on a 12-
month good-behaviour bond.

Mr. Hurrey said the cost of the contamination report and clean-up,
which Workplace Health and Safety Queensland arranged for
Queensland Asbestos Management Services to carry out in the week
following the contamination, would have to be recovered from Clode
in civil action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dying of Cancer Says More Could Get Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Owen, writing for South Wales Argus, reported that carpenter
and joiner Keith Gardner's hopes of a long, happy retirement have
been brutally dashed by asbestos-related cancer.

The 67-year-old, from Shaftesbury, Newport, planned to lay down
his tools at 70, but had to retire last year.

Now he is almost bedbound with incurable mesothelioma, which often
develops decades after exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Gardner's health has worsened rapidly. He suffers extreme
breathlessness, needs oxygen, and finds movement very difficult.
He relies for his care on the love and dedication of his family
and a team of district nurses.

His time is short, but to mark Action Mesothelioma Day, he
confronts the disease that is robbing him of his future.

Around 2,500 people a year in the UK die of mesothelioma caused by
exposure to asbestos.

The annual toll may be peaking, but many thousands more such
deaths are expected over coming decades.

"There's nothing anyone can do, I'm not getting better," said Mr
Gardner, who fears many more are suffering, and will suffer, like
him.

"My illness got worse so quickly. If I walk even for a few seconds
I have to put on my oxygen mask.

"Things you take for granted, like walking or moving around the
house, get taken away."

Mr Gardner plied his trade for almost 50 years, working for
companies, or for himself. He did not work with asbestos all the
time, but when he did, he and colleagues would "cut it, or rip it
up with our hands."

"Safety is much better now than it was when I was working," he
said.

"These days, places shut down and asbestos is removed safely.

"There was none of that when I was working, but people still need
to take care. You can't say you won't ever get what I've got."

With specialist help from Cardiff-based Hugh James Solicitors, Mr
Gardner has settled a legal claim against a former employer, for
an undisclosed sum, a bittersweet but important achievement.

"My wife will have enough when I'm not there, and it will also
help with my daughter's wedding this month," he said.

"I can't use the money to enjoy my retirement, but it will make
sure everyone's all right."

Hugh James Solicitors is co-sponsoring an event at the Senedd in
Cardiff at 2pm today, run by support group Asbestos Awareness and
Support Cymru.

Richard Green, of the firm's industrial disease team, said more
cases come to light every year, but mesothelioma receives only a
fraction of research funding compared to other cancers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Wagga Hospital Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rowan Foster, writing for The Young Witness, reported that
asbestos has been discovered beneath the ruins of Wagga's old
hospital, putting an indefinite hold on the facility's
redevelopment.

Murrumbidgee Local Health District (MLHD) has been forced to delay
ongoing demolition while licensed contractors remove the deadly
contaminant from the site.

It is not yet known if construction workers will be required to
undergo testing for exposure.

However, MLHD Chief Executive Jill Ludford claimed the
carcinogenic substance was only identified beneath the ground.

"Asbestos was recently identified under the ground and this is
being removed by licenced contractors under the supervision of an
environmental hygienist and disposed of in accordance with NSW
Environment Protection Authority requirements," she said.

"Safework inspect the site regularly to validate that all aspects
of the safety management plans are being adhered to and offer
advice when requested.

"Proactive control measures are in place within the construction
zone, including air monitoring to ensure readings remain under
detectable limits at all times."

It comes after state opposition figures accused the government of
trying to cover up delays in Wagga Rural Referral Hospital's $170
million renovation.

Upper house MP Daniel Mookhey questioned how it took four years to
discover the substance.

"It's shocking when you find asbestos at any constriction site,
let alone after four years of work," he said.

"In 2013, we had the local member say the redevelopment would be
finished in 2016 -- now here we are with asbestos.

"It's unfair on taxpayers and the people of Wagga."

Wagga MP Daryl Maguire took exception to the accusations, urging
the contamination had been taken care of.

"The piping was wrapped in asbestos in the ground, so it wasn't a
threat to people and has been well managed," he said.

"Protocols are in place to get on with the job.

"We've already dealt with it and are on track to deliver the best
public health project this region has seen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Hampshire Worker Claims Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a New
Hampshire construction worker recently filed a complaint with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) claiming he
and other workers were exposed to asbestos and mercury at
Eversource's Schiller Station.

Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Labor Department's Office of
Public Affairs Joanna P. Hawkins confirmed OSHA received the
complaint concerning the power plant station work.

The worker is employed by Manafort Brothers, Inc. where he said,
"employees are not adequately protected while removing materials
containing asbestos and mercury." A letter from OSHA to Manafort
Brothers stated they "received a notice of a safety and/or health
hazard at your worksite at 400 Gosling Road, Portsmouth."

The letter continues, "We have not determined whether the hazards,
as alleged, exist at your workplace and we do not intend to
conduct an inspection at this time. However, since allegation of
violation and/or health hazards have been made, we request that
you immediately investigate the alleged conditions and make any
necessary corrections or modifications."

Asbestos exposure can lead to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer. The
EPA notes, "In general, the greater the exposure to asbestos, the
greater the chance of developing harmful health effects."

According to Manager of Media Relations for Eversource Martin
Murray, the company "engaged Manafort Brothers, Inc. to dismantle
retired equipment that had been in place at Schiller Station."

"This project is related to the process of selling its generating
facilities, and has been approved and authorized by the N.H.
Public Utilities Commission," reads Murray's statement.

The statement continues, "The work was taking place within a
sealed, contained zone. Eversource was made aware by Manafort that
OSHA received an anonymous complaint regarding the potential of
mercury and asbestos exposure, and that one of Manafort's
employees had also voiced concerns."

Immediately following the notification of the complaint, Manafort
supposedly halted work and hired more health and safety experts
and consultants to review working conditions and take action.

Work will not begin again at the station in Portsmouth "until all
data is received and analyzed by the experts and any and all
issues are fully addressed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Raises Awareness of Asbestos Dangers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Engelbrecht, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that
the heartbroken widow of a man who died of an asbestos-related
cancer has spoken out of her desire to raise awareness of the
disease after lawyers secured her a six-figure settlement.

David Givens, a joiner by trade, died in August 2015, aged just 63
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2012. The
disease affects the lining of the lungs and is caused by exposure
to asbestos -- often taking decades before symptoms begin to show.

Before his death, Mr Givens, of Sunderland, instructed solicitors
to investigate where he was exposed to asbestos and why more was
not done by his employers to protect him. However, this, and
another subsequent investigation by another law firm, failed to
resolve the case.

After his death, his widow Pamela, 60, instructed specialist
asbestos-related illness lawyers at Newcastle's Irwin Mitchell to
handle his case. Fourteen months later, the team successfully
achieved success, securing settlement for Pamela and her and
David's children, Kelly, Christopher, Mark and David. The payout
comes from the insurers of one of Mr Givens' former employers.

Mrs Givens' legal team believed her husband came into contact with
the asbestos dust during his time at John Cummings and Son of East
Hendon Road, Sunderland. His uncle Ronnie Armbruster, who was
foreman there, also died of asbestos-related cancer.

Emma Tordoff, a specialist asbestos disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's, said: "This case is sadly like a number we are
involved in, with a person going on to develop a very serious
condition and sadly pass away as a result of asbestos exposure
which is believed to have occurred several decades ago.

"We hope that the settlement we have secured will enable Pamela
and her children to try and move on with their lives following
David's tragic passing at only 63."

The positive end to the legal action was only possible thanks to a
number of Mr Givens' former colleagues answering an appeal for
information on the presence of asbestos at the firm.

Mrs Givens said: "Although I am happy that the legal action has
reached a positive conclusion, nothing is going to bring back my
husband and this is still something I find myself having to come
to terms with.

"I hope that David's story will help raise awareness of
mesothelioma and make people think twice before they open up
themselves to asbestos exposure.

"I want to say a sincere and heartfelt thank you to all of David's
former colleagues who came forward and provided vital information
that enabled this to reach a positive conclusion."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Help Sought After Death of Power Station Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hirst, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that the family
of a former Suffolk power station worker who died from an
asbestos-related disease hope former colleagues may help them find
answers over his death.

Derek Hockley died aged 79 last August, having suffered with
severe breathlessness for around two and later being diagnosed
with asbestosis.

His wife Christine instructed asbestos related lawyers Irwin
Mitchell to investigate his death and find out how he may have
been exposed to the toxic material. They are appealing for anyone
who worked with Mr Hockley during his time at Cliff Quay Power
Station, south of Ipswich, between 1960-64 to get in touch.

Mrs Hockley, 63, said her husband worked asbestos during his time
at the power station, when the dangers were not known.

"It has been very difficult coming to terms with losing Derek and
the whole family misses him so much," she added.

"It was awful seeing him struggle with the symptoms of his
illness, with his breathlessness meaning it was difficult for him
to even get up the stairs in our house.

"We just feel after everything he went through that we deserve
justice and answers regarding his ordeal, so any help with
information about Cliff Quay would be hugely appreciated."

The plea for information comes with Action Mesothelioma Day
approaching on July 7, a day to raise awareness of the disease and
to remember those affected by it.

Samantha Shaw, the family's lawyer, said: "This case is sadly like
a huge number we are involved in, with a person going on to
develop a very serious condition as a result of asbestos exposure
which is believed to have occurred several decades ago.

"We are determined to help our clients gain a greater
understanding of how Derek developed this condition and whether
more should have been done to help him. As part of this, we would
be hugely grateful if anyone who can shed light on the working
conditions at Cliff Quay in the 1960s would be able to help us."

Anyone with information is asked to contact Samantha Shaw at Irwin
Mitchell's Cambridge office by emailing
samantha.shaw@IrwinMitchell.com or calling 01223 791 815.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitui to Sue Nema, Firm for Dumping Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Musembi Nzengu, writing for The Star, reported that the Kitui
government plans to sue Nema for licensing the dumping of toxic
asbestos waste in the Kiongwe water catchment in Kyuluni ward.

Environment chief officer Muusya Mwinzi said the county legal
officer is preparing suit documents.

The county will also sue Sonata Kenya Ltd, which deposits the
harmful materials.

Kenya banned the use of asbestos in 2006. Asbestos is a
carcinogen. The US, The UK and 53 other countries around the world
have also banned it.

The catchment serves the River Thua, a tributary of the Athi
River.

In a letter dated May 29 to Nema director general, Environment
executive George Mulatya accused Nema of issuing an EIA licence to
Sonata to dispose of its waste in Kitui without due process.

"It has been noted that the public was not involved during the
environment impact assessment -- a key component of decision
making for any project -- a move which has led to constant
demonstration by members of the public in Kiongwe village," the
letter read.

Mulatya said no waste should be allowed in areas as important as
water catchments.

Mwinzi said Nema and the Nairobi-based firm violated the law and
acted with impunity. He said the waste will hurt residents.

Deadline ignored

Mwinzi addressed a press conference in his office.

Kiongwe residents blocked the Kitui-Zombe road, demanding the
removal of the asbestos buried in the area in February.

They chased away MP Marcus Muluvi and the assistant county
commissioner, who tried to address them.

They demanded to be addressed by either the Kitui county
commissioner or Governor Julius Malombe.

The residents said they will barricade the road until their
grievances are resolved.

In a rejoinder, deputy county commissioner Albert Kimathi said
nearly two weeks ago, Nema gave Sonata a seven-day ultimatum to
remove the asbestos from Kiongwe.

He said the firm should have acted by the deadline.

This was the fourth time residents were protesting since March 29.

The waste is dumped on land belonging to the family of woman
representative Nyiva Mwendwa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingsland Man Dies from Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Cain, writing for Hereford Times, reported that an
87-year-old man died after being exposed to asbestos during his
career.

Herefordshire Coroner's Court heard that Robert Fuller, from
Kingsland, died from epithelioid mesothelioma, which he had been
diagnosed with before his death on May 7.

The inquest heard the retired research electrical engineer was
exposed to asbestos when he worked at a power station and on ships
when he joined the navy between 1952 and 1956. He was also exposed
to asbestos when he worked for a Canadian shipping company.

Coroner Mark Bricknell recorded that he died of an industrial
disease.




                         *********


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  * * *