CAR_Public/170721.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, July 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 143



                            Headlines

AHERN RENTALS: McEathron Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Blamed for Slip Accident by "Christian"
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Cambridge Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Appeals Decision in "Caldera" Suit to 9th Cir.
AMERICAN MOTOR: Court Certified Class of Subscribers in "Mohamed"

ANTHEM INC: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Significant
AZUSA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
APPLE INC: Defends Security Policies, Urges Denial of Class Certs
BLISTEX INC: Judge Tosses Lip Balm Packaging Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Siskind Notifies of Opt-Out in TMV Class Suit

BT ITALIA: Faces Class Actions Over Book-Keeping Scandal
CABELA'S INC: Regulators Approve Merger Amid Class Action
CABLE NEWS: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Continues to Grow
CAMDEN COUNTY: Inmates' Class Action Concluded After 12 Years
CANTERBURY LAMP: Faces "Veloza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CASSELS BROCK: Court of Appeal Cuts Damages in Dealer Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Aug. 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CENTURYLINK INC: Class Action Lawsuit Adds Arizona Customers
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Goldman Sues over Double Gratuity Payment
CHICAGO: House Cleaning at Water Dept. Seek Police Protection

CMR DOUBLE: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COM DEV: Sept. 18 Hearing on "Tom" Class Certification Bid
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Quick" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over EpiPen Price Hike
CVS PHARMACY: Court Denied Amended Class Cert. Bid in "Romulus"

DES MOINES, IA: Court Affirms Class Action Status of Bed Bug Suit
ERIC C. CONN: Hearing Postoned Due to Attorney's Accident
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Transfer Act Violations
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Song" Suit over Wage & Hour Violation
FASHION NOVA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

FLORIDA: Hit With Class Action Suit Over Higher Ed Funds
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Deceitful Subscriptions
GC SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
GENERAL MOTORS: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Engine Defect Class Action

GLOBAL NATURALS: Beasley Sues over Eyelash Enhancer Misleading Ad
GOOGLE INC: AGs Ask Appeals Court to Reject Proposed Settlement
HANDY & HARMAN: Paskowitz Seeks to Enjoin Steel Partners Merger
HCSB FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Complaint
HIGHMARK INC: Sued in S.D. Ala. Over Denied Insurance Coverage

HONEYWELL INT'L: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Kelly" Suit
I LOVE SUSHI: "Page" Sues Over Tip Pool Practices, Invokes FLSA
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Employee Fingerprint Use
JFA AUTO: Faces "Suazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JIREH PREPARATORY: Files For Bankruptcy Amid Class Action Lawsuit

JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Hostetler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KOTOBUKI MANAGEMENT: "Pok" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime
KRAKEN: Faces Class Action Over May Flash Crash
LEWISBURG, PA: Inmates' Class Action Against BOP Moves Forward
MADISON, WI: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
MASON MANAGEMENT: Illegally Inflates Apartment Rent, Suit Claims
MASSAGE ENVY: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Haywood" Suit
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MEGGITT-USA: "Trout" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

MICHIGAN: Defends Imposed Penalties False Fraud Accusations
MICHIGAN: "Dearduff" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
MICROSOFT CORP: Proskauer Rose Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
MIDFLORIDA: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $2.375MM
MINNESOTA: Thrivent Seeks Win After DOL Drops Class Action Rule

MISSISSIPI: Settles Children's Mental Health Care Litigation
MONSANTO: Migrant Farmworkers Sue Over FLSA Violations
NATIONS RECOVERY: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
NESTLE WATERS: "Roz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
NIC GEORGIOU: Former Pickvest Exec Supports Class Action

NIDO CAFFE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NORTHERN TRUST: "Banks" Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
NORTHLAND GROUP: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
NOVANT HEALTH: Insurers File Countersuits in 401(k) Plan Dispute
PATRIOT LAND: "Conover" Sues Over Illegal Kickbacks

PAYPAL: California Gun Shop Owner Files Class Action
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Faces "McDaniels" Lawsuit Under FLSA
PERSHING SQUARE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Call Options
PETROBRAS: Pomerantz Achieves Significant Victory in Securities CA
PICHARDO 2230: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lopez" Class Suit

PINGTAN MARINE: Faces Class Action for Human Trafficking
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews Asks Court to Grant Class Cert. Bid
POSTMATES INC: Hit with TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Martin Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: "Pfefferkorn" Class Certification Bid Denied

QUADRANT 4: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
REAL TIME: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
REMINGTON ARMS: AG Urges Appeals Court to Overturn CA Settlement
ROYAL BANK: Instalment Warrants Buyers File AU$100MM Class Suit
SALOV NORTH: Frank Appeals Ruling in "Kumar" Suit to 9th Circuit

SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Beckett Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
SATELLITE UNLIMITED: Overtime Pay Sought in "Dorman" Labor Suit
SCRIPPS RANCH: Class Action Mulled Over Botched AP Tests
SEMACONNECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Withdrawn
SINOVAC BIOTECH: Faces "Wu" Suit in New York Supreme Court

SINOVAC BIOTECH: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
SKY CHEFS: Polsinelli Discusses FCRA Class Action Ruling
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Scott Cole & Associates Files Class Action
SUMMONS PIZZA: "Mizquiri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TAHOE RESOURCES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Suit

TAILORMADE EXECUTIVE: "Edwards" Alleges Verbal Abuse, Unpaid OT
TAMKO BUILDING: Stay Lifted in Class Action Lawsuit
TARRANT COUNTY: "Cobb" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Trial Begins in Fukushima Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Challenge Class Action Dismissal Bid

ULTA SALON: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
UNITED STATES: AGs Sue Over Delay of For-Profit College Rules
UNITED STATES: Hearing Set in Class Action Against UIA
UNITED STATES: Key Hearing Held in Iraqi Immigrants Case
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

UNITED POTATO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Potato Cartel
VIRGINIA: Dept. of Corrections Faces Federal Class Action Suit
WELLS FARGO: Tycko & Zavareei Files Overdraft Fee Class Action
WESTERN EDGE: Court Approval of Opt-In Notice Sought in "Hamman"
WESTERN-SHAMROCK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

XACTLY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Vista Equity Merger
ZENCO COLLECTIONS: Benson Asks Court to Certify Classes

* Amendments to FCRA Can Increase Class Action Litigation
* DOL Agrees to Drop Prohibition on Class Action Waivers
* Employers Can't Use Class Action Waivers Under NY Freelance Act
* Justice Department's Aversion to CA Will Have Wide Impact
* Pro-Trump Prophet Proposes Class Action Lawsuit

* Supreme Court Could Put Pressure on Finra Class-Action Policy


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband's Overalls Causes Wife's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit Filed by Former Texaco Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burden Placed on Company in Asbestos PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Builder Dies from Asbestos Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. High Ct. Agrees to Take Up Asbestos Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Funds Asbestos Cleanup Along South Carolina
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Facing Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Play in Rubbish Dump with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Schools Poses No Risk, Says Councils
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Asbestos Find Led to Kitchen Closure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Ockendon Electrician Dies from Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitui Residents Exposed to Asbestos at Dumpsite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Cobb & Co. Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Shefford Schools Shut Due to Asbestos Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Enlists EPA to Test for Asbestos from Fire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Confirms Asbestos Contamination at Church
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Lowers Limit of Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Makeup Brand Contains Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairbanks Wins Summary Judgment in "Charbonneau"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Roebuck Wins Summary Judgment in "Glaser"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dionne" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Opinion in "Paulus"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.D. Lee Can Practice Pro Hac Vice in "Moore"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Claims Against Trane in "Roper"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loss of Consortium Claim Barred by Res Judicata

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sets Filing Deadlines in "Carroll"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Disclosure Deadline Stipulations OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 53 PI Suits at April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at June 3




                            *********


AHERN RENTALS: McEathron Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MCEATHRON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general 12 11 public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AHERN RENTALS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; the Defendant, Case No. RG17867866 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class
members worked over 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week
during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State
of California, involving failing to pay them for all regular
and/or overtime wages earned, missed meal periods and rest breaks
in violation of California law.[BN]

Ahern Rentals provides industrial equipment rental services in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          11411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259



ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Blamed for Slip Accident by "Christian"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily J.B. Christian on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Albertsons, Albertsons Companies Inc.,
Albertsons Companies LLC, New Albertsons Inc., Albertsons
Specialty Care, LLC and Jewel Osco, Defendants, Case No. 2017-L-
006913 (Ill. Cir., July 11, 2017), seeks damages that are in
excess of $50,000.00 plus costs and attorney fees for Defendant's
failure to provide slip guards and or slip resistant surfaces in
sidewalks, curbs and common areas.

Defendants owns the premises located at 1202 State Street, Lemont,
IL 60439 where Plaintiff, under normal circumstances slipped and
fell on the sidewalk, curb and ground, sustaining severe and
permanent injuries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Margaret Crowell, Esq.
      DREYFUS LAW GROUP
      309 W. Washington, Street, Suite 700
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (773) 327-3474


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Cambridge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Employee Retirement Plan, Lead Plaintiff in the litigation
titled CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated v. ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, WILLIAM C. ERBEY, KENNETH D. NAJOUR, ASHISH PANDEY,
and ROBIN N. LOWE, Case No. 1:15-cv-00004, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix,
appeals from:

   (1) the Memorandum and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to
       Dismiss, filed and entered on April 6, 2017;

   (2) the Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed
       and entered on April 6, 2017; and

   (3) the Memorandum and Order Denying With Prejudice Motion of
       Lead Plaintiff Denver Employee Retirement Plan for Leave
       to File First Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed and
       entered on July 5, 2017.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders
concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with
respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with RESI,
Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest
Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen
Financial Corporation.

The appellate case is captioned as CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et
al. v. ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP; WILLIAM C ERBEY; KENNETH
NAJOUR; ASHISH PANDEY; ROBIN LOWE, Denver Employee Retirement
Plan, Case No. 17-2471, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

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

   -- The $5 District Court filing fee and $500 Court of Appeals
      docket fee must be paid within 14 days of the date of the
      letter;

   -- Counsel for Appellant must file Application for Admission
      (if applicable) and other forms within 14 days of the date
      of the letter;

   -- Counsel for Appellee must file Application for Admission
      (if applicable), Appearance Form and Disclosure Statement
      (except governmental entities) within 14 days of the date
      of the letter.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DERP and the Class are represented by:

          Vincent Colianni II, Esq.
          COLIANNI & COLIANNI
          1138 King Street Christiansted
          St. Croix, VI 00820
          Telephone: (340) 719-1766
          Facsimile: (340) 719-1770
          E-mail: vinny@colianni.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  karlb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          Nick. S. Singer, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  peterb@hbsslaw.com
                  nsinger@hbsslaw.com

On the 7th day of July, 2017, the NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing (NEF) to:

          A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq.
          A.J. WEISS & ASSOCIATES
          6934 Vessup Lane
          St. Thomas, VI 00802-1001
          E-mail: jeffweiss@weisslaw-vi.net

               - and -

          Pamela L. Colon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA L. COLON
          27 & 28 King Cross Street, First Floor
          Christiansted, VI 00820
          E-mail: pamelalcolon@msn.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Rames, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN A. RAMES, P.C.
          2111 Company Street, First floor
          Christiansted, VI 00820
          E-mail: kevin.rames@rameslaw.com

               - and -

          Chad C. Messier, Esq.
          DUDLEY TOPPER & FEUERZEIG
          1000 Frederiksberg Gade
          St. Thomas, VI 00804
          E-mail: cmessier@dtflaw.com

               - and -

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com

               - and -

          Darrell S. Cafasso, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: cafassod@sullcrom.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Appeals Decision in "Caldera" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Medical Collection Agency filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Armando Caldera v. American
Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 2:16-cv-00381-CBM-AJW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13,
2017, the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall granted the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  The Class is defined as:

     All persons within the United States who had or have a
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service who received
     at least one call using either the Genesys Desktop dialing
     system or the Aspect 6.5.1 dialing system, from Defendant or
     its agent between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 for
     debt collection purposes, who received such a call where
     Defendant's customer account records indicate that prior to
     any such calls that Defendant employed a skip trace to
     locate the phone number it contacted, as identified by
     Defendant's electronic customer account records by the
     language "WFBP" or "Created skiptrace."

The appellate case is captioned as Armando Caldera v. American
Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 17-80142, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ARMANDO CALDERA, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendant-Petitioner AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, also
known as Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., is represented
by:

          Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          2211 Michelson Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 255-6950
          Facsimile: (949) 474-2060
          E-mail: sflynn@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Jacob, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          111 W. Monroe Street, Suite # 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 794-2495
          E-mail: ajacob@grsm.com

               - and -

          Henry Frampton, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          170 Meeting Street, Suite 110
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 278-5900
          E-mail: hframpton@grsm.com


AMERICAN MOTOR: Court Certified Class of Subscribers in "Mohamed"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAY MOHAMED, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MOTOR
COMPANY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company doing business
as instantcaroffer.com doing business as ICO and OFF LEASE ONLY,
INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23352-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia G. Cooke entered an
order certifying a class of:

   "all subscribers within the United States (i) who received a
   text message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii) from
   InstantCarOffer.com, on behalf of Off Lease Only, Inc., (iv)
   through the use of the Twilio platform (v) after placing
   an advertisement on craigslist.org in connection with the sale
   of a vehicle (vi) for a period of four (4) years prior to the
   filing of the initial Complaint -- September 4, 2011 -- to the
   date of class certification".

The Court expanded the class somewhat to allow for Plaintiff's
allegations that the texts allegedly sent on behalf of Defendant
constitute telemarketing, which would require Defendant to have
had prior express written consent rather than prior express
consent in advance of sending any autodialed text messages,
rendering the content of a Craigslist ad relatively immaterial.
As both Plaintiff and Defendant admit, the issue of prior express
written consent can be decided easily on a classwide basis. Should
the finder of fact ultimately find that Defendant's text messages
did not constitute telemarketing, the issue of prior express
consent remains and can still be resolved without resorting to
mini-trials.

The Court noted that regarding Plaintiff's claim that including
"through the use of an automatic telephonic dialing system" makes
notice to the class "impossible" because Plaintiff could not
notify the class until a merits issue had been resolved (a rather
hyperbolic claim), the concern is easily resolved by substituting
"the Twilio platform" for "an automatic telephonic dialing
system." It has been demonstrated on the record that the only
dialing platform at issue in this case is Twilio, and the issue of
whether Twilio constitutes an automatic telephonic dialing system
as defined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is an issue
to be resolved on a classwide basis.

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


ANTHEM INC: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Significant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for HealthInfoSec, reports that
the recent proposed settlement in the consolidated class action
lawsuit against Anthem Inc. following a 2015 cyberattack on the
health plan that impacted about 79 million individuals is
significant for several reasons, says attorney Steven Teppler of
the Abbott Law Group.

"In pure dollars, it is a record-setting settlement figure -- $115
million is huge," Mr. Tappler, who was not involved in the case,
says in an interview with Information Security Media Group.  "But
if you read the latest amended complaint . . . people have
undergone terrific hardships as a result of the compromise of . .
. personally identifiable information, plus health information."

By comparison, retailer Target settled a consumer breach lawsuit
for just $10 million.

Settlement Details

The proposed preliminary settlement -- which is subject to federal
court approval in August -- provides for Anthem to establish a
settlement fund that would be used to:

   * Provide victims of the data breach with at least two years of
credit monitoring;

   * Cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred by consumers as a
result of the data breach; and
   * Provide cash compensation for those consumers who are already
enrolled in credit monitoring.

"What will be interesting to see will be the kinds of claims that
will be made against that [Anthem settlement] fund" Mr. Teppler
says.  "In the end you have [nearly] 80 million people at risk for
. . . identity theft," including medical identity theft, which can
long-lasting ramifications.

For example, he points out, if fraudsters make claims for health
insurance coverage using stolen identities, those could impair
individuals' ability to obtain life insurance because of false
medical information being added to their records, he says.

While most of the proposed provisions of the Anthem settlement are
common in other data breach class action settlements, "one of
things a bit novel [in the Anthem deal] is repayment of credit
monitoring for already expended funds for victims," Mr. Teppler
says.

In the interview, Mr. Teppler also discusses:

Why Anthem and the plaintiffs likely decided to settle the case;
Whether details about the cyberattack -- and Anthem's related
breach prevention and response programs -- will ever be disclosed
now that the case is on the track for settlement;
The top lessons other organizations should learn from the Anthem
case.

Mr. Teppler is a partner at the Abbott Law Group in Jacksonville,
Fla., where he leads the electronic discovery and technology-
related litigation practice.  He was also one of the attorneys who
represented plaintiffs in a data breach class action lawsuit
against health plan AvMed that ended in a $3 million settlement in
2013.  Mr. Teppler is an adjunct professor at Nova Southeastern
University Law School. [GN]


AZUSA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that two employees of the city of Azusa allege they were not
compensated at the appropriate rate for overtime pay.

Jason Poulos and Brandon Bailey filed a complaint on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals on June 19 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the city of
Azusa alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are police officers
employed by the defendant and have exercised their option to
receive the cash-out payment for the unused portion of their
medical benefits.  They allege that the city failed to apply the
cash-out portions to the plaintiffs' regular rate of pay when
calculating overtime.

The plaintiffs seek actual, consequential, liquidated and
incidental losses and damages, all legal fees and any other relief
as the court deems just.  They are represented by Dieter C.
Dammeier -- dietercdammeier@gmail.com -- of Dammeier Law Firm in
Rancho Cucamonga.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04520-DMG-AGR [GN]


APPLE INC: Defends Security Policies, Urges Denial of Class Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that urging
denial of class certification, an Apple attorney told a federal
judge on 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, Esq. --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- 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, Esq. --
mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- 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. [GN]


BLISTEX INC: Judge Tosses Lip Balm Packaging Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
action alleging Blistex Inc.'s distinctive applicator design is
"deceptive" because it prevents customers from using every last
drop of the lip balm inside was tossed on July 5, with an Illinois
federal court saying the suit was riddled with "a myriad of
flaws."

U.S. District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo said Alana Hillen's
allegations that the applicator's "deceptively wasteful packaging"
caused consumers to purchase more of the lip balm than they would
otherwise have to were sufficient to give her standing to sue --
barely.

"Where plaintiff's claims fall short, however, is in their
substance," Judge Bucklo wrote in her opinion dismissing the case.

Ms. Hillen's claims -- violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and common law fraud by
omission -- all rested on an alleged act of deception, but the
judge said that no matter how hard she squinted, she simply
couldn't see deception lurking behind Blistex's applicator design.

"Plaintiff does not contend that the tubes of medicated lip
ointment she purchased contained less of the product than the net
weight stated on the label," Judge Bucklo wrote.  "Nor does she
claim to have been surprised by the shape of the tube, which
indeed is pictured on the packaging."

Mark Eisen -- meisen@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch Friedlander
Coplan & Aronoff LLP, which represented Blistex, told Law360 he
was "pleased that the court followed common sense and dismissed
this action with prejudice."

"As the court held, it is simply inconceivable that the Blistex
packaging is deceptive or misleading," he said. "Plaintiff cannot
predicate a consumer class action on a theory that 'no reasonable
consumer' would ascribe to."

Ms. Hillen's claims boiled down to calling the applicator tip, a
hollow mold of solid plastic, deceptive, Judge Bucklo said,
because the fact that it is solid prevents customers from
squeezing out any lip balm trapped inside of it.

Ms. Hillen said other types of lip balm dispensers, like
Chapstick's lipstick-like twist-out design, allowed customers to
use nearly all of the product, meaning "continued use of the
dispenser despite its known flaw confirms Blistex's intent to
deceive consumers," according to the complaint.

"Even, however, if plaintiff's allegations about the solid tip are
construed as alleging a deceptively cavernous tip, they come no
closer to stating an [Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act] or a common law fraud claim," Judge Bucklo
wrote, adding that Ms. Hillen had tacitly conceded "that consumers
expect some amount of product to remain in the tube."

Blistex argued the same point in its motion to dismiss, saying
similar applicators are commonly used for household and cosmetic
products, and that the mere allegation that customers might "have
to work extra hard to obtain the last drops of the product does
not render the tube deceptive . . . lest toothpaste tubes
everywhere be deemed deceptive."

Ms. Hillen had sought to certify a class of all U.S. residents
"who purchased Blistex Medicated Lip Balm within three years of
the date of the filing of this complaint," the complaint said.

Representatives for Ms. Hillen did not respond on July 5 to
requests for comment.

Ms. Hillen is represented by Robert J. Pavich of the Pavich Law
Group PC and Charles S. Zimmerman, Michael J. Laird --
michael.laird@zimmreed.com -- and Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed LLP.

Blistex is represented by David S. Almeida --
dalmeida@beneschlaw.com -- and Mark S. Eisen --
meisen@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff
LLP.

The case is Alana Hillen v. Blistex Inc., case number 1:17-cv-
02074, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Siskind Notifies of Opt-Out in TMV Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation against Boston Scientific Ltd. and Boston
Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") will proceed as a
certified class action on behalf of women who were or are
implanted with a Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh ("TVM")
device for treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) or
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), and their families.

The claims against Boston Scientific have not been resolved. The
allegations made by the Plaintiffs have not been proven in Court,
and the Court has not made any conclusions. This information
should not be considered in any way to be medical advice. Boston
Scientific denies any fault or liability and continues to defend
the class action.

The class action relates to certain medical devices sometimes
referred to as "transvaginal mesh," "TVM," "slings" or "hammocks"
manufactured by Boston Scientific. Various of these devices are
used to treat SUI or POP. The class action seeks compensation for
personal injuries allegedly relating to the use of such devices as
well as for damages allegedly suffered by family members of women
who have been implanted with these devices.

All persons resident in Canada who have been implanted with a
Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh device to treat SUI or POP at
any time on or before February 17, 2017 and certain of their
family members are class members in the certified Boston
Scientific Class Action.

The Boston Scientific Class Action does not include claims against
various other manufacturers of TVM mesh devices, including AMS,
Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, and Cook Medical Inc.

If you have been implanted with a transvaginal mesh but do not
know the brand or type of mesh you were implanted with, you should
retrieve your medical records, including your product
identification tag, which typically will note what brand of mesh
was used. If you need help retrieving your records, or determining
which type of mesh you were implanted with, Class Counsel can
assist.

Class members who do not want to be a part of a class action
relevant to them must "opt out" of it. As a result of "opting
out," such individuals will not be entitled to any compensation
that may become available as part of the relevant class action,
but they will be able to commence their own lawsuit or continue
any lawsuit they have previously brought.

For more information, including on how to opt out of the class
actions, see the "long form notice" available online at
www.siskinds.com/transvaginal-mesh/ or by requesting it from
Siskinds. Information can also be obtained in English at: 1-800-
461-6166 x2367 or, in French, at: 1-418-694-2009. [GN]


BT ITALIA: Faces Class Actions Over Book-Keeping Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Parodi, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
accounting watchdog is investigating accounting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers's audits of British telecoms group BT's
Italian business, which has been hit by a book-keeping scandal, a
source close to the matter said.

The PwC audit of the Italian business is coming under increasing
scrutiny worldwide after a similar investigation launched in
Britain.  PwC said in an emailed statement it was not the
company's policy to comment on client issues.

BT lost a fifth of its market value in January after revealing a
530 million-pound ($685 million) black hole in BT Italia's
accounts as a result of "improper accounting practices and a
complex set of improper sales, purchase, factoring and leasing
transactions".

In April the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB) asked Italian market watchdog Consob to send it
documentation regarding the audits carried out by PwC on BT in the
period 2014-2017, the source said.  Consob provided the data after
getting the go-ahead from the Milan prosecutors office which is
carrying out a criminal probe into alleged false accounting and
embezzlement. BT filed a criminal complaint in Italy in April
accusing several former executives and other staff of unlawful
conduct.  Current and former staff told Reuters efforts to hide
the Italian unit's performance had gone on since at least 2013.

A spokeswoman for PCAOB, which has the powers to fine or bar
accounting firms or their individual associates, said the
regulator did not confirm or comment on inspections as required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Under the act the PCAOB is required to
supervise and inspect all accounting firms that regularly audit
companies whose securities trade in the United States. While BT's
main listing is in London, its shares are also quoted on the New
York Stock Exchange in the form of American Depositary Shares.
Consob declined to comment, but a source close to the watchdog
said the "regulator was giving its attention to the PwC issue".

Britain's accounting regulator, the Financial Reporting Council
(FRC), said it would investigate PwC audits of BT Group after the
BT Italia scandal emerged.  Reuters could not immediately confirm
whether the FRC and the PCAOB were collaborating on the PwC issue,
although a spokesman for the FRC said the British watchdog
maintained close contact with its counterparts in other countries
to improve audit quality.

BT said last month it would drop PwC, its auditors since 1984,
after an evaluation found "areas for improvement".  It said it
would move to KPMG, another one of the "Big Four" accounting
firms.

Since the scandal erupted, various BT shareholders in the United
States have launched class action cases, accusing the telecoms
group of not informing the market and shareholders soon enough of
the financial irregularities at its Italian unit.  In March a
Reuters investigation found allegations that a network of people
in BT Italia had exaggerated revenues, faked contract renewals and
invoices and invented bogus supplier transactions in order to meet
bonus targets and disguise the unit's true financial performance.

A source also told Reuters in March that he and two other
employees at BT Italia had warned their Madrid-based supervisor
about possible accounting problems at the business in November
2015, nearly a year before BT announced that it had found
accounting irregularities at the Italian company. [GN]


CABELA'S INC: Regulators Approve Merger Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Devin Henry, writing for The Hill, reports that in a securities
filing on July 5, Cabela's Inc. said it had received permission
from the Federal Trade Commission to move forward with the
company's $5 billion sale to Bass Pro Shops.

The merger is contingent upon approval from Cabela's shareholders,
as well as the sale of Cabela's bank unit to outside financial
services corporations.

Cabela's shareholders were due to vote on its sale to Bass Pro
Shops.  The company has previously reported that it faces a
handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of shareholders
stemming from the merger.

The two companies announced their intention to merge in October,
with Bass Pro Shops aiming to buy Cabela's for $5.5 billion,
creating an outdoors gear chain with nearly 200 locations across
the United States.

Since then, the terms of the deal changed, with the price falling
by $500 million and Cabela's agreeing to sell its financing unit
to Synovus Financial Corp. and Capital One Financial.

The deal is expected to close later this year. [GN]


CABLE NEWS: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Continues to Grow
-----------------------------------------------------------
H.A. Goodman, writing for Huffington Post, reports that according
to Breanna Edwards of The Root.com, CNN is facing a growing racial
discrimination lawsuit that according to The Hollywood Reporter
"may grow exponentially." CNN's ongoing lawsuit is explained in an
April 5, 2017 piece titled "CNN Facing Racial-Discrimination
Lawsuit Claiming African Americans Receive Lower Performance
Ratings in Evaluations":

Another major news network is facing allegations in a racial-
discrimination lawsuit, stemming from a proposed class action in
Georgia federal court. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claim that at
CNN and other Time Warner units, African Americans receive lower
performance ratings in evaluations, that there are huge
discrepancies in pay between employees doing similar jobs but who
are of different races, and that promotion for black employees is
blocked by a "glass ceiling."

Thus, while CNN felt the need to publicize an apology regarding
racist Reddit posts, it's currently facing a racial discrimination
lawsuit entailing numerous horrific allegations.

In addition to The Root, The Hollywood Reporter has also described
CNN's ongoing legal troubles in an April 4, 2017 piece by Eriq
Gardner titled "CNN Faces Growing Racial Discrimination Lawsuit":

Unlike the lawsuit against Fox News, the one against CNN and
sister companies is much broader, claiming among other things that
African-Americans receive lower performance ratings in
evaluations, that there are dramatic differences in pay between
similarly situated employees of different races and that the
promotion of African-American employees is blocked by a "glass
ceiling." The complaint (see here) cites hiring and advancement
statistics while alleging that African-American employees have
endured slurs from superiors, including "It's hard to manage black
people" and "Who would be worth more: black slaves from times
past, or new slaves?"

According to a plaintiffs' motion to amend that was filed March
23, "Since the filing of this action, counsels for the plaintiffs
have been contacted by more than 175 people, both former and
current employees of the Defendant, requesting to be members of
the putative class action, all having similar complaints of
intentional racial discrimination, discrimination impact and
discriminatory practices employed by the Defendants."

With so much attention placed on memes by CNN, and Reddit posts,
it's bizarre that more Americans aren't aware of the "more
definitive statement about specific allegations" regarding this
racial discrimination lawsuit.

Finally, HR Dive highlights the key elements of CNN's lawsuit in a
piece by Valerie Bolden-Barrett, "CNN employees say network is
'rife with racism' in class action discrimination lawsuit":

Allegations of racism and bigotry against news organizations,
sadly, aren't new. The recent spate of high-prole lawsuits
highlighted a longstanding issue for the industry. Last week, the
National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) issued a
statement on its website in reaction to allegations of racial
discrimination against CNN competitor Fox News.

For a network claiming to stand for journalistic integrity and for
a brand opposed to racism, it's ironic that these allegations
regarding severe racial discrimination have been made against CNN.
Instead of focusing on Reddit, or the posts of private citizens
online, CNN staff and journalists should address their ongoing
racial discrimination lawsuit. America, and journalism, need
powerful media entities to treat their employees with dignity and
respect. CNN, with it's ongoing lawsuit, proves that even those
who claim to be morally superior to others, can often engage in
the most vile behavior. [GN]


CAMDEN COUNTY: Inmates' Class Action Concluded After 12 Years
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh writing for Courier Post reports that a class-action
lawsuit, which began with an inmate's complaint more than 12 years
ago, has concluded with sweeping improvements to Camden County
Jail.

"A lot of cases don't have such happy endings, but this one does,"
U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle said at a recent hearing on a
consent decree intended to resolve the long-running dispute.

He called the lawsuit's resolution "a great achievement" for
inmates at the Camden lockup and for county officials.

"We accomplished what we set out to accomplish," said Lisa J.
Rodriguez,Esq. -- ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- of Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis LLP, a Cherry Hill attorney representing the
inmates.

The case began in December 2004 when inmate Corri Dittimus-Bey
mailed a complaint to federal court in Camden, asserting
prisoners' civil rights were violated by severe overcrowding and
other problems at the seven-story jail.

The suit sought court-ordered improvements for the Camden lock-up,
rather than monetary awards for all inmates.

The jail, built in 1988, holds inmates awaiting trial and people
sentenced to serve less than one-year terms.

In approving the final decree, Simandle noted the jail -- with an
official capacity of 1,267 -- had sometimes held more than 2,000
inmates.

"The overcrowding meant that on many occasions the cells that were
built for two were required to house four or at least three," he
observed. "When they did house four, it meant that two prisoners
had to sleep on the ground, on the floor."

"There were social problems, too, that arose from that degree of
overcrowding without enough room to move about," the judge added.

The jail's population had dropped to 979 inmates when Simandle
approved the decree in a May 23 oral opinion.

"The county has made vast, marked enhancements to the jail and
managing the overall population," said Camden County spokesman Dan
Keashen.

Simandle shared that view, saying the county had enacted
"intelligent reforms that do cost money but which make the
correction system so much better."

He said officials had avoided the "ultimate remedy, which would
have been constructing a whole new facility without dealing with
the underlying problems."

Among key improvements, Simandle noted the hiring of a jail
population manager and the creation of a first-in-the-state
pretrial services program that identifies people who do not need
to be in custody.

He also cited the work of a joint committee that includes
representatives of the courts, the jail, county prosecutors and
defense attorneys.

"It did take a long time but that's because there was a profound
institutional change that was brought about by this case,"
Simandle said at the May 23 hearing.

Other improvements included upgrades to the jail's infrastructure,
including its heating and cooling system, as well as the addition
of attorney/client meeting rooms.

The class-action case is unrelated to a wave of almost 2,000
lawsuits filed in recent months by individuals seeking damages
over their time in the county jail. Those filings were prompted by
rumors that former inmates could share in a cash payment,
according to some people who went to court.

Simandle has dismissed almost 1,500 of the 1,969 individual suits
filed by July 5, court records show. The judge has ruled cramped
conditions at the jail don't rise to the level of a constitutional
violation; he's also noted many plaintiffs missed a two-year
statute of limitations.

About 385 suits have been terminated administratively, which
allows plaintiffs the opportunity to address paperwork problems.

Simandle closed the class-action lawsuit on June 30, after
approving payments for the inmates' lawyers, as well as for
Dittimus-Bey and three other former prisoners.

He retains jurisdiction for two years.

The judge ordered the county to pay $150,000 in attorneys' fees
for Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, which has served since 2005
as the inmates' pro bono counsel.

Simandle noted that was believed to be about half of the firm's
actual expense. He previously approved a $100,000 payment for the
law firm in 2009.

Simandle also approved payments to four named plaintiffs -- $1,500
each to Dittimus-Bey and Mark Elliott, and $1,000 each to Donald
Rudd and Melvin Clark.

At the June 30 hearing, Rodriguez said she's been unable to locate
Dittimus-Bey and Rudd. Their money will be held in escrow over the
next two years.

Simandle praised Dittimus-Bey's role in initiating the suit while
acting as his own attorney. He said that shows how an inmate's pro
se action "can lead to a much bigger case and one that affords
relief to many other people." [GN]


CANTERBURY LAMP: Faces "Veloza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Veloza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. Canterbury Lamp Shade Studio, Inc. f/k/a Roseart
Lampshades, Inc.; Nicholas "Nick" Cavallo, Sr.; and Nicholas
Cavallo, Jr., Case No. 0:17-cv-61273-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 28,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a business that manufactures custom
lampshades in Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASSELS BROCK: Court of Appeal Cuts Damages in Dealer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Hendry, writing for Canadian Lawyer Mag, reports that a
recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision will lower the original
$45 million in damages Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP was ordered
to pay in a 2015 General Motors of Canada Ltd. dealer class
action, but the final amount has yet to be determined.

The appeal court's decision in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v.
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP was released July 4.  Cassels Brock
had appealed the original decision, with the appellate judge
stating in her decision that the firm "raises legal issues
relating to liability, the availability of an aggregate damages
award, and the trial judge's damages assessment."

As Canadian Lawyer reported in 2015, an Ontario Superior Court
judge awarded damages against Cassels Brock for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract and professional negligence.
Justice Thomas McEwen found Cassels Brock owed contractual and
fiduciary duties to some or all of GM Canada dealers in the class.

Cassels Brock submitted on appeal that the trial judge erred in
his findings concerning the scope of the dealer retainer; by
finding that Cassels Brock breached its duties to the class
members; in his treatment of the Saturn dealers' claims; by
inferring causation; by awarding aggregate damages; and in his
quantification of damages.

In a statement, Cassels Brock said that although the Court of
Appeal did not accept a number of the arguments made by the firm
on appeal, "we believe that we have acted appropriately and
professionally in our handling of this matter, respecting our
duties to our clients and acting in a manner consistent with our
retainers and our clients' instructions.  With this stage of
appeal now concluded, we look forward to building on our
reputation as a dedicated, trusted advisor to our many clients."

The facts of the case stem from May 2009, when Cassels Brock was
retained by the class members -- including Trillium, which became
the representative plaintiff -- to protect their interests in
restructuring of the dealer network and represent them in related
proceedings.  About 200 GM Canada dealers were eliminated during
the federal auto bailout, and the class action was seeking $750
million in damages on behalf of those dealers. Cassels Brock had
been retained to represent Canadian dealers in a GM Canada
restructuring bankruptcy.

In his 2015 decision, Justice McEwen wrote: "Cassels takes the
position that there was only ever the potential for a conflict to
arise on account of the two retainers.  In other words, Cassels
accepts that there was indeed a risk that immediate legal
interests of Industry Canada and the GMCL dealers would be
directly adverse."

Along with Cassels Brock's appeal of the trial decision, Trillium
filed a cross-appeal, arguing the class should have received more
damages.  It contended the value of the dealers' lost chance was
$77.3 million, not $45 million as found by the trial judge.
Trillium also argued that the trial judge's supplementary ruling
should not be considered.

In January 2016, after the release of the trial decision, the
parties met before the trial judge to settle the terms of the
judgment, and it emerged that the trial judge may have
misunderstood the composition of the class, the appeal decision
reads.

"He had assumed that all 181 class members were also Participation
Form Dealers, and thus Cassels' clients; in fact, some of the
class members may have been Call Dealers who listened in on the
May 24 conference call but did not sign a participation form or
send in money to the DSC," Cronk wrote.

"In the result, by supplementary reasons dated March 22, 2016, the
trial judge directed that the formal judgment provide that the
damages awarded ($45 million) may be reduced on further motion to
the Superior Court, if necessary, following the final disposition
of any appeal from the trial judgment, to settle the process for
determining the number and identity of the dealers entitled to
share in that award and the calculation of those damages."

Cronk dismissed Trillium's cross-appeal.

"My overall reaction is the appeal decision speaks at length to
the importance or the significance of a really large and strong
set of factual findings from the trial judge, and that those are
carefully reviewed and affirmed on this appeal decision," says
Michael Statham -- mavermette@weirfoulds.com -- managing partner
at WeirFoulds LLP and counsel for Trillium.

Sotos LLP also served as counsel for Trillium on the appeal.

Cronk upheld Cassels Brock's submission that the trial judge erred
in his quantification of the damages. She agreed the amount
contained calculation errors.

Cronk wrote that "the trial judge calculated the lost chance as
the difference between the amount approved and the amount paid:
$218 million - $126 million = $92 million."

General Motors Corp. had approved up to $218 million for its
subsidiary, GM Canada, to pay out the estimated 290 terminated
dealers, and $126 million was the amount actually paid out to the
202 dealers who accepted the wind-down agreement offers.

Cassels argued, and Cronk agreed, that the second number should
have been $143.5 million -- the amount GM Canada offered to the
terminated dealers under the WDAs, based on the actual final count
of 240 terminated dealers.

"Neither side in hypothetical negotiations could have known that
38 terminated dealers would reject the WDAs," reads the decision.
"The offers on the table totalled $143.5 million.  Unbeknownst to
the dealers, GMCL had $218 million to spend.  The trial judge
should have calculated the value of the lost chance to negotiate
successfully as the difference between the money approved for the
WDAs and the money offered: $218 - $143.5 = $74.5 million."

This reduces the overall starting point for the quantification of
the aggregate damages award to $74.5 million, as opposed to the
trial judge's finding of $92 million.

"We are pleased that the Court of Appeal agreed with the firm's
submissions that the trial judge's damages assessment was flawed
and thus substantially reduced the amount of damages payable,"
Cassels Brock said in a statement.

Marie-Andree Vermette, partner at WeirFoulds and also counsel for
Trillium, says even though they would have obviously preferred a
higher number, "generally speaking, even on the damages part
except for that one correction of one number, the court also
affirmed the trial judge's findings."

She adds that the Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge's
decision on liability and "we were happy about that."

The appeal decision reads that the trial judge "properly exercised
his jurisdiction to consider the issue, and sensibly left it open
to revisit the calculation of damages following the release of
this court's decision."

"As a result of the reasons of the trial judge that were issues
after his main reasons, we have to go back before him -- that was
the case even before the appeal -- to determine what the final
number would be, which will be influenced by the number of dealers
that actually retained Cassels Brock back in May of 2009," says
Ms. Vermette. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Aug. 18 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of CenturyLink, Inc.
(NYSE:CTL) who purchased shares between March 1, 2013 and June 16,
2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the
Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, CenturyLink made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) CenturyLink's
policies had engaged the Company in unlawful business practices by
allowing its employees to add services or lines to accounts
without customer permission, resulting in millions of dollars in
unauthorized charges to CenturyLink customers; (2) accordingly,
the Company's revenues contained ill-gotten gains that originated
from the Company's illicit conduct and were unsustainable; and (3)
the foregoing illicit conduct was likely to subject CenturyLink to
heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about CenturyLink's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders have until August 18, 2017 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be
an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/centurylink-inc

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also
practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Class Action Lawsuit Adds Arizona Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Gonzales, writing for Pheonix Business Journal, reports
that a class-action lawsuit against CenturyLink (NYSE: CTL) has
been extended to include Arizona customers, alleging fraudulent
billing practices, improper collections and the creation of fake
accounts using consumer identifications.

Ben Meiselas, Esq. -- ben@geragos.com -- an attorney with Geragos
& Geragos in Los Angeles, said he's hearing from many consumers in
Arizona who say they want to be part of class-action lawsuits that
have been filed in other states, including Nevada, Oregon, Idaho,
Washington, and Colorado.

"Some consumers report multiple accounts being set up," he said.

"I do a lot of consumer cases for all types of products and
services," Meiselas said. "This right here is really unprecedented
and something I don't think the legal community has ever seen
before."

These class-action lawsuits follow a wrongful termination suit
filed by a CenturyLink employee in Gilbert. Heidi Heiser argues
she was fired last year after she tried to bring to management's
attention problems she noticed within the company.

Heiser is seeking whistleblower protections and claims she was
wrongfully fired.

CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen said the company's leadership
team wasn't aware of any of the allegations until the lawsuit was
filed.

"Unfortunately, these types of opportunistic follow-on claims are
not unexpected," Molzen said. "The fact that a law firm is trying
to leverage a wrongful termination suit into a putative class
action lawsuit, does not change our original position."

Molzen said the allegations made by CenturyLink's former employee
are inconsistent with company policies, culture and unifying
principles, which include honesty and integrity.

"We take these allegations seriously and are diligently
investigating this matter," Molzen said.

The Phoenix attorney with Geragos & Geragos representing the
plaintiffs is Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. -- hart@geragos.com
[GN]


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Goldman Sues over Double Gratuity Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCEL GOLDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC668334 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks to recover damages, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California
Civil Code, on behalf of herself and all members of the Class who
paid one of the gratuity amounts suggested by Defendant on their
split bills sales drafts by credit
card.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and its
other customers who were essentially duped by Defendant into
paying double gratuity, and sometimes even more than double.

According to the complaint, beginning at least four years prior to
the filing of this Complaint, when a party of two or more
purchases food and/or drink at The Cheesecake Factory or other
restaurants owned by Defendant and uses two or more credit or
debit cards to pay for the charges, the combined bill is divided
between the credit/debit cards and Defendant presents each
diner/consumer with a separate sales draft for a portion of the
bill (a split bill). On each of the sales drafts, Defendant
includes suggested gratuity amounts to facilitate customers in
calculating and leaving a gratuity for service. Defendant
represents the suggested gratuity to be 15%, 18%, 20% or 22% of
the check amount reflected on the sales draft, but, in reality, it
calculates the suggested gratuity on the combined bill and the
suggested gratuity amounts are actually 30%, 36%, 40%, or 44% of
the amounts shown on the separate sales drafts.

The Cheesecake Factory is a restaurant company and distributor of
cheesecakes based in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601 6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
                  achemiak@hammondlaw.com


CHICAGO: House Cleaning at Water Dept. Seek Police Protection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Mitchell, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that two
African-American former employees of the city's Water Department
are so afraid of what could happen if they testify against a co-
worker, they are seeking police protection.

David Reed and Christopher Harris said they complained about the
racist and violent culture at the Water Department for more than a
decade, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

"We tried to get relief. We contacted management, talked to the
city's Inspector General's office, and the EEOC, and nothing
happened," Harris told me.

"Now the same individual that they allowed to intimidate us and
harass us, they have subpoenaed us to testify against," Reed said.

Anthony Nguyen was fired in May. The men are being asked to appear
on July 7 and again on Aug. 10 before an arbitrator in a hearing
in which Nguyen is trying to get his job back.

The forensic scientists claimed they were harassed, threatened and
intimidated by Nguyen and others and described a work environment
where they were taunted with insults and racist cartoons even
after they left the department.

A spokesman for Inspector General Joe Ferguson would not comment
on this case.

Reed and Harris are now reluctant to testify, citing safety and
health concerns.

"They apparently told him that we are responsible for him losing
his job. We are afraid of this guy," Reed said.

"We have expressed that concern to the corporation counsel. They
say there is nothing they can do. The police can give us special
attention for two weeks and that's it. After that, we are on our
own. The way the city operates, they get us to testify, and after
two weeks and something happens, they'll say: 'Go away,'" Harris
told me.

The men claim that even after they left the water department --
Reed retired and Harris is on leave of absence -- Nguyen sent them
racist texts and emails and made threatening phone calls in the
middle of the night.

Harris said he has an order of protection against Nguyen that is
still in effect.

I was unable to reach Nguyen on July 5.

But a spokesman for the city's law department said Nguyen's firing
is not related to the department's shake-up over racist emails.

"The City of Chicago does not tolerate harassment of any kind.
Department of Water Management officials enacted progressive
disciplinary actions against Anthony Nguyen, which eventually
resulted in his termination. He is appealing his firing, and we
will strongly defend his separation from the City of Chicago,"
said  Bill McCaffrey, a spokesman for the city's Law Department.

The "racist email scandal" has resulted in the firings of several
high-level managers, including the former Department of Water
Management Commissioner, Barrett Murphy, who has close ties to the
mayor.

The Inspector General's office stumbled on the offensive emails
while investigating allegations that the son of a former alderman
had used his email account to sell guns.

Last week, the department's African-American employees filed a
class-action lawsuit accusing the city of "unlawful policies,
patterns and employment practices to create and proliferate a
hostile and abusive work environment based on race that includes
violence, intimidation, and retaliation . . ."

The behavior Reed and Harris said they endured while working for
the water department appears to fit that pattern.

Harris said he got a call from the Inspector General's office
encouraging him to testify at the arbitration hearing.

"They basically said if we didn't testify, Anthony Nguyen could
get his job back and he should never have been hired and should
never be reinstated," Harris said.

Reed argues that the racist behavior is nothing new.

"We've been saying this ever since 2005. [Nguyen] was able to do
all this without being reprimanded. I don't trust any of them.
They are offering us nothing. We can't get our jobs back, any
health benefits or protection. The city really doesn't care," he
said.

It is unfortunate that these men had to wait so long for
entrenched racism in the city's water department to be addressed.

Hopefully, the city can give these men the assurances they need so
no other employee has to go through what they did. [GN]


CMR DOUBLE: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Wright and Vanessa Bryant, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CMR Double J West LLC d/b/a Double J
Smokehouse and Saloon, Jeff Stamm, Don Dawson, John Harris and
James King, Case No. 3:17-cv-00163-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 28, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in West
Memphis, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
      E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com

         - and -

      William A. Wooten, Esq.
      WOOTEN LAW OFFICE
      120 Court Square East
      Covington, TN 38019
      Telephone: (901) 475-1050
      Facsimile: (901) 475-0032
      E-mail: wawooten@gmail.com


COM DEV: Sept. 18 Hearing on "Tom" Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CURTIS TOM, the Plaintiff, v. COM DEV USA,
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01363 PSG(GJSx)
(C.D. Cal.), the parties will jointly move on September 18, 2017,
before the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, for class action
certification and preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
          4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240 6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240 2345
          E-mail:smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Peter K. Stris, Esq.
          Victor O'Connell, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 995 6800
          Facsimile: (213) 261 0299
          E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com
                  victor.oconnell@strismaher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          Matthew A. Russell, Esq.
          Joseph V. Marra III, Esq.
          Stephanie R. Reiss, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 5000
          Facsimile: (215) 963 5001
          E-mail: bortelere@morganlewis.com
                  matthew.russell@morganlewis.com
                  joseph.marra@morganlewis.com
                  stephanie.reiss@morganlewis.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Quick" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Quick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a
Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01129 (D.
Conn., July 7, 2017), alleges that Defendant knowingly and/or
willfully placed automated calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone to
collect consumer debts in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Credit Control Services, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, LLC
     43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203) 653-2250
     Fax: (203) 653-3424
     Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over EpiPen Price Hike
-----------------------------------------------------
Katie Wedell, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a new
class action lawsuit challenging the price of EpiPens is targeting
not the drug's manufacturer, but three pharmacy benefit managers
and the industry's rebate practices.

The lawsuit alleges CVS Health, Express Scripts and Prime
Therapeutics, cause price gouging -- including the more than 500
percent increase in EpiPen's price from 2007 to 2016 -- by
demanding increased rebates from manufacturers in exchange for
favorable placement on their formularies.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) serve as middlemen between
insurers, pharmacies and manufacturers.  They negotiate lower
prices for insurers, but have been criticized for keeping secret
how much of those negotiated rebates they are keeping.

Drug companies have incentives to raise prices, according to the
lawsuit, in order to give larger rebates to the PBMs who then
pocket significant revenues and don't pass the savings along to
patients.

PBMs dispute this claim, saying they do pass along the significant
savings they negotiate.

"PBMs such as CVS Caremark help to lower drug costs by employing
market competitive principles to drug manufacturer pricing that
result in real cost savings for clients in the form of rebates,"
said CVS Health spokesman Michael DeAngelis.  "In fact, CVS
Caremark passes along more than 90 percent of the price discounts
it receives directly to its clients."

The PBM's clients are insurers or employers, and the lawsuit
contends that those savings never make their way to individuals
who are paying more out-of-pocket for prescriptions at the same
time prices are on the rise.

"Rising drug benchmark prices are particularly harmful to those in
high-deductible plans, who often have trouble affording
prescription drugs, and are even forced to forego purchasing
needed prescription drugs, due to high annual out-of-pocket
costs," the lawsuit filed in Minnesota in June says.  The three
main plaintiffs are EpiPen users from Minnesota, Florida and New
Jersey.

EpiPen manufacturer Mylan and other drug companies have faced
numerous lawsuits over price increases with some mentioning the
role of PBMs, but few suits have named the middlemen as
defendants.

"Historically, when it comes to rising prescription drug costs,
both public ire and legal battles have been primarily focused on
drug manufacturers," said Antonio Ciaccia, director of government
and public affairs for the Ohio Pharmacists Association.  "Now,
just as patients and policymakers begin to better understand the
big hand that PBMs have in raising prescription drug costs, that
same evolution seems to have finally made its way to the courts as
well."

Express Scripts has long defended the rebate system, saying that
manufacturers alone set drug prices.

"Rebates don't raise drug prices, drug makers raise drug prices,"
said spokesman Brian Henry. "We will vigorously defend ourselves."

Prime Therapeutics also said in a statement it believes the
lawsuit is withouth merit and will vigorously defend against it.

"This lawsuit is built on a false premise about the role of PBMs,"
said Mr. DeAngelis with CVS Health.  "Nothing in our agreements
prevents a drug manufacturer from lowering the prices of their
products and we would welcome such an action."

The argument over who really controls drug prices has intensified
as patients become fed up and demanded answers via Congress.

"Federally, this has become a bit of chicken and egg fight between
manufacturers and PBMs," Mr. Ciaccia said.  "Manufacturers claim
that they have to raise prices in order to pay off the PBM. PBMs
claim that the manufacturers have total control, and that rebates
are their tool to combat rising drug prices.  Regardless of who is
more in the right, there is no question that this model is in
desperate need of an overhaul." [GN]


CVS PHARMACY: Court Denied Amended Class Cert. Bid in "Romulus"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID ROMULUS, CASSANDRA BEALE, NICHOLAS
HARRIS, ASHLEY HILARIO, ROBERT BOURASSA, and ERICA MELLO,
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:13-cv-10305-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Rya W. Zobel entered
an order denying Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification of:

   "(1) all CVS Shift Supervisors who worked for an hourly wage
   in Massachusetts between July 25, 2008 and May 14, 2013 and
   were not paid for meal breaks during which CVS required them
   to remain in the store, for recovery of wages for unpaid meal
   breaks during that period (the "First Class"); and

   "(2) all CVS Shift Supervisors who worked for an hourly wage
   in Massachusetts between May 15, 2013 and the date of final
   judgment and who were not paid for meal breaks during which
   CVS required them to remain in the store, for recovery of
   wages for unpaid meal breaks during that period (the "Second
   Class," or together with the First Class, the "Classes")."

The Court noted that the plaintiffs claim that "[c]ommon questions
predominate because all Class Members' claims turn on whether
Massachusetts law requires CVS to compensate Shift Supervisors for
meal breaks during which CVS required them to remain on store
premises."  Even assuming the answer to this question is yes,
several questions remain that require individualized inquiries.
Specifically, even if the law requires compensating Shift
Supervisors for remaining in the store during meal breaks, whether
Shift Supervisors were required to stay in the store during these
breaks and whether they were compensated for this time varies by
plaintiff. That is, the proposed classes are not "sufficiently
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation."

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


DES MOINES, IA: Court Affirms Class Action Status of Bed Bug Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washigton Times reports that the Iowa Court of Appeals says a
group of residents at a Des Moines public housing apartment
building may proceed with their bed bug lawsuit as a class-action
case.

The court on July 6 upheld the class certification sought by 55
tenants of Royal View Manor.

They're suing Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency for failing to
properly remedy a bed bug problem they say persisted between 2010
and 2015.

As many as 600 residents and former residents could be part of the
class.

The lawsuit filed in October 2014 returns to Polk County District
Court for trial.

A similar lawsuit filed in 2010 against two other apartment
buildings in Des Moines resulted in a settlement of nearly $2.5
million.

Royal View Manor residents have hired the attorney who won that
settlement. [GN]


ERIC C. CONN: Hearing Postoned Due to Attorney's Accident
---------------------------------------------------------
Lex18 reports that if you think the continuing saga of fugitive
former disability attorney Eric C. Conn is the type of story in
which anything can happen, you were right.

Floyd Circuit Judge Johnny Ray Harris was set to decide whether
Conn's malpractice insurer would be forced to pay out a settlement
former clients who brought a class-action lawsuit against Conn.

But that decision was put on hold, when a deer ran out in front of
a car carrying the attorney representing the insurance company, as
he was on his way to court in Prestonsburg. Those waiting in court
were told the car was likely totaled and the attorney would not be
able to attend the hearing.

Last month, Judge Harris decided the case against Conn, ordering
him to pay 1,500 of his former clients over $31 million. Conn's
malpractice policy was limited to $1.5 million, which is likely to
be all the clients will get if he is never found.

In March, Conn pleaded guilty to theft and bribery to settle a
federal criminal case. He had been under home incarceration, but
fled before he could be sentenced.

The insurer has argued that its policy does not cover criminal
activities. Class attorney Ned Pillersdorf, however, says the
clients are not seeking payment for Conn's crimes, but rather the
negligence he showed in losing their medical records.

Judge Harris has rescheduled the hearing for two weeks from today.

And if the clients ultimately prevail in the lawsuit, there is
still a matter of deciding how to divide the money. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Transfer Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Los Angeles County consumer has filed a class-action
lawsuit against a consumer credit report company over allegations
it debited her account on a recurring basis without written
authorization.

Mellissa Meyer filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Experian Information Solutions Inc.
alleging violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff contacted the defendant
to purchase its services in 2015 and provided her credit card
number. She alleges the defendant automatically withdrew funds on
a recurring basis from July to December 2016.

The plaintiff holds Experian Information Solutions Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly debited plaintiff's
bank account without a written authorization by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages
of $1,000, actual damages, all legal fees, interest, and any other
relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Todd M.
Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
-- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Meghan E. George, Esq. --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- and Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. --
twheeler@toddflaw.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04631-SJO-E [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Song" Suit over Wage & Hour Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SONG and MELANIE WYCKOFF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC,
ALLIED UNIVERSAL, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 17CIV03117 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks to recover
all wages owed at the time of termination/separation of employment
to Class Members who no longer work for Defendants under
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege Defendants have engaged in, among other
things a system of willful violations of the California Labor
Code, UCL and applicable IWC wage orders. The Defendants acted
intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to their and other Security Guards rights at Facebook's
campus by failing to provide Security Guards off duty meal
periods, duty-free rest breaks, intentionally falsifying the
records of Security Guard's meal and rest periods (to make it
appears as if Secu1ity Guards had taken their meal/rest breaks,
when the had not, or taken them on time, when they had not),
failing to keep and provide accurate and timely records of wages
earned and other legally mandated records, and failed to pay
Plaintiffs and Class Members whose employment has terminated
(voluntarily resigned or were terminated) a final payment of his
or her wages in a prompt and timely manner in conformity with
Labor Codes.[BN]

Facebook is an American for-profit corporation and an online
social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park,
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
          Matthew Fisher, Esq.
          Ted Mechtenberg, Esq.
          DA VEGA, FISHER & MECHTENBERG, LLP
          232 E. Anapamu St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 232 4471
          Facsimile: (877) 535 9358
          E-mail: Mdavega@mdmflaw.com


FASHION NOVA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVETTE PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FASHION NOVA, INC., a California
15 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC668341 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for the
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure
to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, interest, restitution, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs

Fashion Nova is the top online fashion store for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


FLORIDA: Hit With Class Action Suit Over Higher Ed Funds
--------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Larrabee, writing for WUFT, reports that two University of
Florida alumni have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
state, saying lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott funneled money that
should have gone to higher education into tax cuts and savings.

The legal challenge is based on the Legislature's decision not to
provide matching funds for private donations to colleges and
universities. State law creates four matching programs, and the
plaintiffs argue that lawmakers are required to match the
donations unless the state faces a budget shortfall.

The alumni, Ryan and Alexis Geffin -- who graduated in 2016 and
2017, respectively -- say they were harmed particularly because
matching funds weren't provided for construction projects at the
University of Florida.

In all, the lawsuit says the state's failure to fund the programs
has locked up more than $1 billion that should have been available
to colleges and universities, including at least $600 million in
state matching funds and $460 million in private donations waiting
for matches.

The filing also contrasts statements by Scott and legislative
leaders touting the importance of higher education with the
refusal to set aside funding for the matching programs.

"Rather than appropriate the over $600 million in state funds
owed, the governor and the Legislature have spent general revenue
surpluses on multibillion dollar tax cuts and to set aside
billions in reserves," it says.

The programs subject to the lawsuit include the Dr. Philip
Benjamin Matching Grant Program, which primarily provides
scholarships and financial aid; the University Major Gifts
Program, aimed at encouraging donations to university endowments;
and two construction-related funds, the Florida College System
Institution Capital Facilities Matching Program and the Alec P.
Courtelis University Facility Enhancement Challenge Grant Program.

According to the lawsuit, the problems began in 2008, when the
state first faced shortfalls from the recession. Payments to the
matching funds stopped, something that the legal challenge doesn't
contest.

But after the state again began running surpluses, lawyers for the
alumni argue, the state should have resumed making the payments to
the matching funds. Instead, the Legislature has continued to omit
the funding.

"The state of Florida made a promise -- a promise codified in
Florida law and further reinforced in promises made to donors --
and, there is no other way to put this, but the state reneged on
that promise," said Grace Mead, a lawyer with the firm Stearns
Weaver Miller, which is representing the alumni. "The purpose of
this suit is to force the state to fulfill that promise."

According to Stearns Weaver Miller, UF could be due more than $155
million, while Florida State University, Florida International
University and the University of South Florida could be owed more
than $40 million each. Miami Dade College could be due more than
$70 million.

Mead also said she expects a lawsuit on behalf of donors whose
contributions weren't matched.

A spokeswoman for Senate President Joe Negron, a Stuart Republican
who has made higher-education funding a priority, said on July 6
that his office was reviewing the challenge. A spokeswoman for the
Florida Department of Education said the agency had not received
the lawsuit, but would review it. [GN]


GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Deceitful Subscriptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Welker, writing for WBJournal.com, reports that
the owner of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, MetroWest Daily
News and other daily and weekly newspapers in Massachusetts is
being sued in a class-action case in which the chain is alleged to
have offered deceitful subscriptions.

Two subscribers who filed the lawsuit said GateHouse offered
subscriptions for lengths such as 26 weeks or 52 weeks, but
instead were given shorter terms because of premium publications
that weren't included in the subscription.  As often as once a
month, subscribers would be sent Lens, a publication the
plaintiffs said is "filled almost exclusively with advertisements
and other puff articles" and was not related to the publications
they signed up for.

A subscriber is allegedly automatically charged as much as $2 for
each issue of Lens, which is deducted from the time length of the
subscription.  Someone subscribing to a year of a GateHouse
publication actually would receive only about 30 weeks, according
to the complaint.

Customers are not allowed to opt out of receiving Lens, and
details explaining the special publication are buried in fine
print that contradicts the more explicit details portrayed in the
advertisement, the subscribers allege.

GateHouse, which is based in New York and has local headquarters
in Needham, has denied any wrongdoing but said it studied
litigation costs and decided to settle.  The company said it will
continue with premium editions -- though not Lens -- but will more
clearly disclose to subscribers about the publication of premium
editions.  Subscriptions will continue to be shortened, but
subscribers will be able to opt to be billed separately for such
editions.

Under the class-action case, any subscriber who started a
subscription from April 1, 2014 to March 21, 2017 is eligible the
join the case if they had their subscription terms shortened as
described in the lawsuit.

Such subscribers have until July 19 to postmark or file
electronically any claims.

The suit was filed last year in Essex Superior Court in Salem by
Steven Keenholtz, a Marblehead resident who subscribes to the
Marblehead Reporter, and Dorothy Guillicksen, a Hanover resident
who subscribes to the Hanover Mariner.  Mr. Keenholtz said his
two-year subscription to the weekly newspaper was shorted by nine
issues because of the deceitful practices.

The plaintiffs and GateHouse agreed in January to a settlement
that allowed the class-action case to move forward.

If the settlement becomes finalized, all who subscribers who join
in the case will be entitled to a refund. A hearing for such an
action is scheduled for Oct. 5.

GateHouse owns daily Massachusetts newspapers in Worcester,
Framingham, Milford, Brockton, Taunton, Fall River, Quincy, New
Bedford and Hyannis. [GN]


GC SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RACHEL HOLMES and SHARON MEYER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00960 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9GoBTpmQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against General Motor Company ("GM" or the "Company")
(NYSE:GM) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and
docketed under 17-cv-12185, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GM securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GM securities between
February 27, 2012 and May 24, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 26, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts.  The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing. General Motors provides its vehicles and
services worldwide.

Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company installed at
least three distinct defeat devices in over 700,000 trucks with
Duramax diesel engines from 2011 to 2016 in order to cheat
emissions tests in the U.S.; (ii) consequently, the GM trucks at
issue emit up to five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide
pollutants; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, GM's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 25, 2017, Bloomberg reported that a consumer lawsuit had
been filed against GM for installing multiple defeat devices in
two models of heavy-duty trucks with the Duramax diesel engine
from 2011-2016.  The lawsuit alleges that GM's unlawful, unfair,
deceptive, and otherwise defective emission controls affect model
year 2011-2016 GM Sierra 2500HD and 3500 HD trucks and GM
Silverado 2500 HD and 3500 HD trucks.  According to the lawsuit,
extensive testing of a 2013 Silverado 2500 diesel -- a vehicle
representative of the class of Duramax diesel engines present in
both the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra model years 2011 to
2016 -- indicated as follows: (1) the vehicle produces emissions
above the certification tests at temperatures above the
certification range (86ßF); (2) the vehicle produces higher
emissions when temperatures are below the certification test range
(68ßF); and (3) the vehicle produces higher emissions occur after
the vehicle has been run for 200-500 seconds of steady speed
operation on average by a factor of 4.5 in all temperature
windows. These test results confirmed the presence of three
distinct defeat devices, which enable the vehicle to meet
emissions standards in the test temperature range, while allowing
two to five times the legal amount of nitrogen-oxide pollutants to
be emitted at all other times.

On this news, GM's share price fell $0.60, or 1.81%, to close at
$32.60 on May 25, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  [GN]



GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Engine Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that General Motors
urged a California federal judge on July 5 to toss a proposed
class action contending the automaker knowingly sold defective
vehicles with engines that consume an abnormally high quantity of
oil, arguing that there's no allegation anyone has been harmed by
the purported defect.

GM attorney Joseph John Ybarra -- Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com -- of
Huang Ybarra Singer & May LLP told U.S. District Judge Edward M.
Chen that the car buyers fail to allege the vehicles pose an
unreasonable safety risk, which the automaker would be legally
required to disclose. Not one of the more than 30 named plaintiffs
claims an engine shut down or caught fire, and no one claims to
have been physically injured due to the alleged defect, Mr. Ybarra
argued.

"The Ninth Circuit said under California law a safety issue is
required, and not a hypothetical issue," Mr. Ybarra said.

Mr. Ybarra's comments came during a hearing in San Francisco on
GM's bid to dismiss a December proposed class action launched by
Monteville Sloan Jr. of Novato, California, and nearly three dozen
others who live across the country.

The suit seeks to certify a nationwide class of car buyers who
purchased one of the 11 GM 2010 to 2013 vehicle models that have a
Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine.  The suit claims those engines
are "engineered to fail," and that despite knowing about the
engine's oil consumption problems, GM failed to disclose them to
car buyers.

The engine consumes an abnormally high quantity of oil due to
defective low-tension oil control rings, the suit claims.  The
problem is exacerbated because GM also installed a defective oil
monitoring system in the vehicles, leaving drivers uninformed of
insufficient oil in their cars until the level is critically low,
according to the suit.

As a result, the vehicles face constant low oil levels,
insufficient lubricity levels and internal engine damage, posing
dangerous safety hazards to drivers, the suit says.

But on July 5, Mr. Ybarra pushed back, arguing that the complaint
doesn't say exactly how the allegedly low oil levels have harmed
drivers, and emphasizing that under Ninth Circuit precedent safety
risks can't be hypothetical.

Judge Chen pressed the attorneys for the car buyers on the real
impacts of the alleged defect, saying he was "not sure what the
safety issue is."

Buyers' attorney H. Clay Barnett III --
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin
Portis & Miles PC responded that the defect effectively sets the
low pressure indicator in the vehicles too low so that the
vehicles can't be safely operated.

John Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- of DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, who also represented the buyers, added that the engine could
seize at any time due to the low oil levels and that is enough to
get over the materiality pleading requirements.

Mr. Tangren also noted that the case is distinct from the Ninth
Circuit's decision earlier this year in Williams v. Yamaha Motor
Corp., which held that the failure of a product to last forever is
not a defect because that would mean that a manufacturer would no
longer be able to issue limited warranties, and product defect
litigation would become as widespread as manufacturing itself.

In the instant suit, the defect is in the engine from the day it
is sold, Mr. Tangren said.

"This isn't simply a case of an engine eroding more quickly than
it should," Mr. Tangren said.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Chen said he would take the
arguments under submission, but noted that he still has concerns
about the pleadings.

"It may be that another round of pleading is required here," he
said.

GM is represented by Joseph John Ybarra of Huang Ybarra Singer &
May LLP and Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- of
Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP.

The car buyers are represented by John Tangren of DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett III and W. Daniel Miles III of Beasley
Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC and Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- of Andrus Anderson LLP

The case is Monteville Sloan Jr. v. General Motors LLC, case
number 3:16-cv-07244, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Northern California. [GN]


GLOBAL NATURALS: Beasley Sues over Eyelash Enhancer Misleading Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAXINE BEASLEY, on behalf of herself and all Others Similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL NATURALS BREACH OF EXPRESS AND
IMPLIED WARRANTIES MANUFACTURING, INC., PACIFIC NATURALS, INC.,
GARY MCNELLEY, DAVID RIVERO, and DORIS RIVERO, the Defendants,
Case No.17CIV03120 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 12, 2017), seeks an order
compelling Defendants to cease marketing and selling Idol Lash
using false, misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable tactics,
conduct a corrective advertising campaign, destroy all misleading
and deceptive materials and products, award Plaintiff and the
Class members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages to
the extent permitted under the law, and pay costs, expenses, and a
reasonable attorney fee and incentive award.

Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell Idol Lash
Eyelash Enhancer (Idol Lash), an unapproved new drug that falsely
claims to make eye lashes grow longer and thicker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798 2006
          Facsimile: (313) 293 7071
          E-mail: greg@west0nfirm.com
                  andrew@westonfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: AGs Ask Appeals Court to Reject Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that on July 5, bipartisan Attorneys General from
11 states filed an astonishing brief in the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, asking that court to reject the proposed class action
settlement in In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement that would give
settlement monies to non-profits rather than class members.

The plaintiffs in Google Cookie allege that Google circumvented
the cookie-blocker settings in Microsoft's Internet Explorer and
Apple's Safari browsers and placed advertising tracking cookies
without user consent.  The putative class -- theoretically, every
user of those hugely popular browsers -- obviously is massive.
The "damages" suffered by class members, however, if any, is
vanishingly small.

In 2016, Google and the plaintiffs' counsel reached a proposed
$5.5 million class action settlement.  The plaintiffs' counsel
requested a $2.5 million fee, with the balance (after
administrative costs) to be distributed to privacy rights non-
profits such as the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at
Harvard University and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Individual class members would receive nothing.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness filed an objection to the settlement, arguing that if
money cannot be distributed to class members, then the settlement
class should not be certified at all.  The Delaware federal judge
hearing the case disagreed and approved the settlement.  The
objector took its arguments to the Third Circuit, and now 11 state
Attorneys General have joined it.

The AG coalition brief, written by the office of the Arizona
Attorney General, took no issue with the amount of the settlement
and acknowledged that the settlement class is huge.  They contend,
however, that "[d]irecting settlement funds to members of the
class wherever feasible is important," and that "there is a
feasible path to distribution here."  That "feasible path" is
where the brief took an unprecedented turn for an AG objection.

"Claims rates in small-dollar cases are reliably in the very low
single digits (if not below one percent)," the brief argued,
citing cases with low claims rates.  "Even assuming a class in the
tens of millions, such a claims rate would result in an
economically meaningful" payment of "a few dollars to $15 or $20,
if not more) to those lucky "one-percenters."  That, these
Attorneys General argued, "is preferable to making no distribution
to any class members."

In the years since the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 required
federal litigants to notify State AGs of proposed class action
settlements, State AGs have taken a leading pro-consumer role in
trying to limit the forms that settlements can take.  A multistate
AG objection to a coupon settlement a decade ago, for example, has
sharply curtailed the use of coupon settlements.  This is the
first time, however, that AGs have argued it is better to direct
small dollars to a tiny fraction of a large class than to pay
millions of dollars to non-profits that ostensibly could advocate
on behalf of the interests of the class as a whole.

It will be very interesting to see how the Third Circuit responds
to this argument.

Joining Arizona on the brief were the Attorneys General of Alaska,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. [GN]


HANDY & HARMAN: Paskowitz Seeks to Enjoin Steel Partners Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN PASKOWITZ, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HANDY & HARMAN LTD., WARREN G.
LICHTENSTEIN, JACK L. HOWARD, ATRICK A. DEMARCO, ROBERT FRANKFURT,
JOHN H. MCNAMARA, JR., GAREN W. SMITH, JEFFREY A.
SVOBODA, STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P., HANDY ACQUISITION CO., and
SPH GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 654747/2017 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks enjoinment of a proposed
transaction or, alternatively, rescission of the proposed
transaction between Handy & Harman and Steel Partners in the event
defendants are able to consummate it.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Handy & Harman Ltd. in connection with a proposed
transaction announced on June 26, 2017, pursuant to which Steel
Partners Holdings L.P. (Parent) and its affiliates, which already
own approximately 70% of Handy & Harman's outstanding shares, will
acquire the remaining Company shares it does not currently own.

On June 26, 2017, Handy's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into agreement and plan of merger with Parent and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Handy Acquisition Co. and together with
Parent and SPH Group Holdings LLC. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Steel Partners will commence an exchange offer
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock for 1.484 Series A preferred units of Steel Partners for
each Handy share tendered. The proposed merger consideration is
unfair and inadequate, and defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to Handy's public stockholders in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

Handy & Harman is a diversified global industrial company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. McFall, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, PA.
          Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (516) 683 3516


HCSB FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina on behalf of holders of HCSB Financial Corporation
("HCSB") (OTC:HCFB) common stock in connection with the proposed
transaction pursuant to which HCSB will be acquired by United
Community Banks, Inc. ("United"), announced on April 20, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against HCSB, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and United, is captioned Parshall v. HCSB
Financial Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-01589 (D.S.C.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at -- info@rl-
legal.com -- or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On April 19, 2017, HCSB entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with United.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of HCSB will receive 0.0050 shares
of United common stock for each share of HCSB (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that HCSB stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to HCSB's financial projections, United's financial
projections, the analyses performed by HCSB's financial advisor,
and potential conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of HCSB common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 4, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States. [GN]


HIGHMARK INC: Sued in S.D. Ala. Over Denied Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Wayne Roebuck, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Highmark, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00296 (S.D.
Ala., June 28, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons who are
covered under any contract or plan of health insurance that is
administered, underwritten or insured by Highmark who  have been
diagnosed with Hepatitis C but have been denied  coverage for
Harvoni and similar treatments based on application  of Highmark's
internal criteria.

The complaint states that Highmark's restrictive internal coverage
requires that infected individuals wait for treatment -- possibly
for years -- until they demonstrate serious scarring or cirrhosis
of the liver from the Hepatitis infection.

Highmark, Inc. is a nonprofit health insurer, though it operates
several for-profit subsidiaries, with its principal headquarters
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Potts, Esq.
      BRISKMAN & BINION, P.C.
      Post Office Box 43
      Mobile, AL  36601
      Telephone: (251) 433-7600
      Facsimile: (251) 433-4485
      E-mail: cpotts@briskman-binion.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Kelly" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal from a
District Court order dated June 27, 2017, relating to the lawsuit
styled Kelly, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 16-
cv-543, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
and the Plaintiffs have filed separate appeals from rulings and
judgment entered in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 17-2075, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Peter Dellolio, David Kelly, Richard Norko,
and Annette Dobbs, for themselves and others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM WERTHEIMER
          30515 Timberbrook Lane
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: (248) 644-9200
          E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant Honeywell International Inc. is represented
by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5150
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com


I LOVE SUSHI: "Page" Sues Over Tip Pool Practices, Invokes FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEN PAGE, JOSHUA NUNN, JASON DEERMAN, SHANNON PEASE, AND CHRIS
CONYERS, Plaintiffs, v. I LOVE SUSHI, INC., XUE'S BROTHER, INC.,
DEZHENG ("JIM") XUE DELIANG ("DONNIE") XUE, and DEQI ("JOHNNY")
XUE, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01146-HNJ (N.D. Ala., July 7,
2017), alleges that Defendants have had a practice of paying Page
and Pease, and others similarly situated, $2.13 per hour for
straight time work and $5.76 for overtime work. Defendants
required Page and Pease, and other servers similarly situated, to
participate in a tip pool. Defendants required Page and other
servers to contribute 2% of their gross sales to a "tip out." When
the tip out was distributed, part of the money was given to cooks
and dishwashers in the back portion of the restaurants.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The corporate Defendants own and operate two restaurants doing
business as "I Love Sushi, Inc." in Huntsville, Alabama and in
Madison, Alabama.  Plaintiffs Page and Pease, and others similarly
situated, were servers at the corporations' restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     WILMER AND LEE, P.A.
     100 Washington Street, Suite 200
     Huntsville, AL 35801
     Phone: 256-533-0202
     Fax: 256-533-0302
     E-mail: jwilmer@wilmerlee.com
             wkelley@wilmerlee.com


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Employee Fingerprint Use
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
owners of the Intercontinental Hotel Group, which includes the
Intercontinental, Holiday Inn, Crowne Plaza and Kimpton Hotels
brands, among others, have become the latest major Illinois
employer to come under the sights of plaintiff employees who claim
the business has wrongly collected and used employees'
fingerprints and other "biometric" data, in violation of a state
privacy law.

On June 27, plaintiff Eric Zepeda filed a putative class action
lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against IHG and its
subsidiary, the Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, claiming the
company, which employs hundreds of workers at numerous hotels and
resort properties in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, should be
made to pay for allegedly violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA.)

IHG is based in the United Kingdom, but operates its Americas
regional office in Atlanta, Ga.  Kimpton is based in California,
and operates four boutique hotels in Chicago, according to the
Kimpton website.

According to the lawsuit, Zepeda is an Illinois resident who "has
worked at one of (IHG's) hotels in the Chicago area."

Mr. Zepeda is represented in the action by attorneys Evan M.
Meyers, David L. Gerbie and William P. Kingston, of the McGuire
Law P.C., of Chicago.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Zepeda and his counsel assert IHG and Kimpton
have violated for the last three years the Illinois BIPA law,
which governs how people and organizations can obtain and use
certain biometric identifiers, including fingerprints, facial
scans and more.

In this case, Mr. Zepeda alleges IHG and Kimpton ran afoul of the
law in 2014 when the company shifted from a worker time keeping
system which had involved worker identification cards and punch
codes  to a system which required employees to scan their
fingerprints to punch in at the beginning of their shifts, and out
for required breaks and at the end of their shifts.

"Defendants' new system ensures that workers can only verify their
attendance and timeliness through scanning their fingerprints,"
the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Zepeda alleges the company never
properly obtained employees' consent to obtain and use their
fingerprints, as required by BIPA, nor did they disclose to
employees how their fingerprints would be stored or used, whether
and how the information would be shared with third party vendors
and others, or how the company planned to ultimately dispose of
the biometric information.

"To this day, Plaintiff (Zepeda) is unaware of the status of his
biometric data and biometric information that was obtained by
Defendants," the lawsuit said.  "Defendants have not informed
Plaintiff whether they still retain his information, and if they
do, for how long they intend to retain it without his consent."

The lawsuit asks the court to expand the lawsuit to include
potentially "hundreds, if not thousands" of other plaintiff class
members, including any IHG and Kimpton employees "whose biometrics
were captured, obtained, stored or used by (IHG and Kimpton)
within the state of Illinois any time within the applicable
limitations period."

The lawsuit requests damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation,
plus attorney fees and interest, potentially making a judgment
worth millions of dollars.

To this point, the BIPA law has largely been used by plaintiffs
and their lawyers to bring class actions against companies
misusing consumer information. For instance, plaintiffs have sued
social media giant Facebook and photosharing sites, like
Shutterfly, for using face scans to identify people in photos
posted online without the consent of those tagged in the photos.
Others sued under BIPA have included LA Tan, which was accused of
improperly obtaining and using customers' fingerprints.

However, the lawsuit against IHG is the latest such employment-
related action introduced in Cook County court by plaintiffs suing
under BIPA for allegedly improper collection and use of employee
fingerprints.

Earlier this year, employees of the Mariano's supermarket chain
sued Mariano's corporate parents, Roundy's Supermarkets and
Kroger, alleging similar BIPA violations. Roundy's, through their
counsel with the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, moved in May to
take that case to federal court. In its motion for removal,
Roundy's estimated the class action could be worth more than $5
million.

Plaintiffs in the Mariano's case were represented by attorneys
Ilan Chorowsky and Mark Bulgarelli, of Progressive Law Group LLC,
of Evanston. [GN]


JFA AUTO: Faces "Suazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imer Exides Nunez Suazo and Oscar A. Reyes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JFA Auto, Inc. and John
Filiberto, Case No. 519/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a full service auto repair facility
located at 1830 Feuereisen Avenue, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591


JIREH PREPARATORY: Files For Bankruptcy Amid Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Price and Maria David, writing for The Charlotte Observer,
report that Jireh Preparatory Academy in Matthews and its athletic
program, Jireh Prep Athletics, Inc,. have filed for bankruptcy
protection, just months after a class-action suit alleged it did
not follow through on promises made to help students win
recruitment by NCAA schools.

Documents for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy were filed on July 5 in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court Western District of North Carolina.

The filing says the school, a nonprofit, owes about 50 creditors
nearly $88,000, but has assets of less than $65,000. The academy
has no money in any of its bank accounts, according to the
documents.

Academy owners Jeffrey and Kindra Rabon could not be reached for
comment.

There was no indication given on the school's website or Facebook
page that it was in financial trouble.

The Charlotte Observer profiled the school's football coach in
2007, and reported that Jireh Prep's mission was to provide an
education and discipline primarily for students who struggled at
other schools. A Facebook page for the school says it helps young
men "reach the next level in athletics and academics." Students
take NCAA approved core classes, the site says.

"If you've had trouble learning and taking tests in the classroom,
don't lose hope," says the school's website. "At Jireh Preparatory
Academy, our teachers will work with you to identify your
weaknesses and help you improve them. We can help you do your best
in both fields."

Court documents suggest the school saw a steep drop in students
this year, following the filing of a class-action lawsuit in
November by a student from Cumberland County. In 2015 and 2016,
the school claims to have received about $750,000 annually in
tuition payments. So far this year, payments fell to $6,390, court
documents state.

Former student Evan Rhodes of Cumberland County filed the class-
action complaint in Mecklenburg County Superior Court , alleging
the school failed to deliver on its promises to students, who had
to pay between $13,000 and $14,000 a semester.

The suit alleges the Rabons solicit students from across the
country, promising to provide assistance in obtaining admission to
NCAA-accredited colleges.

"Jireh Prep fails to deliver on these promises, typically leaving
over 60 disappointed teenage students each academic semester," the
lawsuit claimed. "Jireh Prep makes these false promises to prey
upon teenagers and their parents, who often know little about
NCAA's complex academic standards, and little about the
requirements to received NCAA Division 1 or Division II
scholarships."

The school filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, but it
continues to move forward, said Matthew Villmer, Esq. --
info@wbbatty.com -- of Weaver, Bennett & Bland, P.A., an attorney
for Evan Rhodes. [GN]


JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Hostetler" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AMOS and DEBBIE HOSTETLER, RITA CHAIREZ,
BECKY NULL, and MARIA TOVAR on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS,
INC. and TOCON HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00226-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a class of:

   "all persons who have owned, rented, or occupied property
   within the Class Area at any time between 1992 and May 30,
   2014".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs as
Class Representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Barnard, Esq.
          Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin A. Wolowski, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713 3500
          Facsimile: (317) 713 3699

               - and -

          John D. Ulmer, Esq.
          YODER AINLAY ULMER & BUCKINGHAM LLP
          130 North Main Street
          Goshen, IN 46527
          Telephone: (574) 533 1171


KOTOBUKI MANAGEMENT: "Pok" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Pok Kong Chun, En Lin, Sui Sing Lee, Tuck Kam Lai, individually
and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Kotobuki Management Inc., Kotobuki Babylon, Inc.,
Kotobuki Restaurant, Inc., Kotobuki Roslyn, Inc. and Yoshiro
Narita, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03802 (E.D. N.Y., June 23,
2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty
each workweek, unpaid minimum wages, tips, liquidated damages,
unpaid "spread of hours" premium, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs, compensation for failure
to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to
provide paystubs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
York Labor Laws and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Defendant, Kotobuki Management, Inc. owns and operates Kotobuki
Restaurant, Japanese restaurant in Nassau County located at 3
Russel Rd., Garden City, New York 11530. Pok Kong Chun, En Lin and
Tuck Kam Lai worked as sushi chefs while Sui Sing Lee worked as
food preparer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAKEN: Faces Class Action Over May Flash Crash
-----------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for Coindesk, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against cryptocurrency exchange startup
Kraken over issues stemming from its management of a May flash
crash.

Less than two months later, five customers of the exchange are
alleging negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
arguing that Kraken should have suspended trading amidst a denial-
of-service (DDoS) attack that impacted its operations.

Newly filed court documents name five plaintiffs, including one in
the US, two in Israel and two others based in the UK, while
Payward Inc, which does business as Kraken, is named as the sole
defendant.  Between the five customers, a total of 3,414.078 ETH -
- an amount worth roughly $329,000 at a price of $96.32 -- was
liquidated.

That amount is equal to about $911,000 at press time.

Social media reports at the time attest to a plunge in the price
of ether, the cryptocurrency of the ethereum network, on the
exchange's order books, with market data from
CryptoCoinCharts.info showcasing how prices touched a low of $26,
resulting in a wave of liquidations.

In the aftermath, some customers complained that their positions
had been unfairly sold, with others going as far as to allege
manipulation.  The following day, Kraken released a statement on
the incident, remarking that an internal investigation "did not
find any evidence of a coordinated attack or market manipulation"
and that its internal systems had operated normally.

At the time, Kraken said that it would not move to pay back users,
apologizing for the losses but stating it "cannot compensate
traders for the outcome of naturally occurring events in the
market, nor losses due to unavoidable DDoS attacks."

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and compensation
for legal fees, as well as certification for class-action status.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Florida-
based Silver Law Group, which has been involved in lawsuits filed
against the now-defunct exchange Cryptsy and digital currency
startup Coinbase.  Wites & Kapetan, another law firm based in
Florida, is also involved in the suit.

Representatives for Kraken declined further comment when reached.

Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group,
which has an ownership stake in Coinbase and Kraken. [GN]


LEWISBURG, PA: Inmates' Class Action Against BOP Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Allen, writing for WITF, reports that a lawsuit over treatment
at a federal penitentiary in the midstate is moving forward.

The lawsuit from former inmate Sebastian Richardson alleges that
in 2011, he was placed in four-point restraints as punishment.
Policy at the federal Bureau of Prisons allows for the restraints
to be used when inmates are being threatening or a danger to
themselves or others.

The Bureau has denied Mr. Richardson's claim, but a federal judge
recently recommended that the lawsuit be certified as class
action.
Dave Sprout with the Lewisburg Prison Project, which advocates for
inmates' rights, says he believes there are more cases like
Richardson's out there.

"They're not a threat to anyone, they're not a danger to anyone.
They're just being punished for not having a cell mate.  And we
believe that is against BOP policy and against the law," says
Mr. Sprout.

Mr. Sprout says the Bureau of Prisons has cut back on its use of
restraints, but he says the lawsuit aims to do away with them as
punishment.

"There's no penalogical reason for this because they're not a
threat to anyone here," he adds.

Another recent lawsuit alleges that prisoners with serious mental
issues at Lewisburg have been counseled with crossword puzzles.
[GN]


MADISON, WI: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EFRAIN CAMPOS, ROBERT WIRTH, JUAN NIETO,
STANLEY NEWAGO 2925 COLUMBIA DRIVE POST OFFICE, BOX 900
PORTAGE, WISCONSIN 53901, the Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL DITTMAN,
LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVE KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W.
P/TZEN 2925 COLUMBIA DRIVE POST OFFICE, BOX 950 PORTAGE, WISCONSIN
53901-0950 BRAD HOMRE, CINDY O'DONNELL POST OFFICE, BOX 7925
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707-7925, Defendants, Case No 3:17-cv-00545-
jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class.

According to the complaint, all the Plaintiffs' rights were
violated in the same manner as Badger State Industries employees
at Columbia Correctional Institution. The plaintiffs exercised
their First Amendment Rights and by exercising that right the
defendants retaliated against the plaintiffs and further
terminated the Plaintiff.

The class is for four BSI ex-employees who have all exhausted
administrative remedies to satisfy the exhaustion requirement and
to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1), the four ex BSI employees (the
plaintiffs) all have the same facts and case law that is common to
the class, to satisfy Rule 23 (a) (2), the claims by the class are
the representative' party will fairly and adequately protect the
interest of the class, to satisfy Rule 23 (a) (4).

The plaintiffs were all BSI employees, the plaintiffs were all
retaliated against for exercising their first amendment right, the
plaintiffs were all terminated without due process, and the
plaintiffs were all singled out in violation of their equal
protection rights. The incident complained of happened to the
plaintiffs on the same day and time, the defendants are the same
by each plaintiff, the facts are the same allegations by each
plaintiff, it's the only BSI shop at Columbia Correctional.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9007qanJ

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Marilu Canales and Blanca Bonilla, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated v. Manhasset Restaurant LLC d/b/a
Toku Modern Asian, Roslyn Hospitality LLC d/b/a Hendrick's Tavern,
Miracle Mile Restaurant LLC d/b/a Cipollini, Wheatley Restaurant
LLC d/b/a Bar Frites, Gold Coast Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Cooper &
Bryant Steak House, Woodbury Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Majors Steak
House, Gillis Poll and George Poll, Case No. 603053/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime, and spread-of-hours pay for work more
than ten hours in a single workday.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business and operate
six family-owned restaurants in Nassau County, including, Toku
Modern Asian, Hendrick's Tavern, Cipollini, Bar Frites, Bryant &
Cooper Steak House and Majors Steak House. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Romero, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
      103 Cooper Street
      Babylon, NY 11702
      Telephone: (631) 257-5588
      E-mail: PRomero@RomeroLawNY.com


MASON MANAGEMENT: Illegally Inflates Apartment Rent, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Mahmood, Anthony Cimino, Ralph Porr, C. E. Monden,
Mark Tadros, Margot Ross, Kimberley Garrett, P.G. Lyne, J.M.
Lumpkin, Larry Bennett, Wendy Bennett, Luna Alarcon, Alexis
Barber-Davis, Alex Dryden, Stephenie Futch, Filomena Reyes,
Melissa Abler, Rama Ndiaye, Eric Rochman, Shelley Ohmes, Eric
Franklin, Frankshell Machua,Giovanni Andollo, Nicole Augstein,
Cali Hersh, Len Gutman, Karen Schroeder, Dan Davenport, Ruyi Jiao,
Emily Hochberg, Michelle Coursey, Matthew Karl Gale, William
Preston Grubbs, Yuriy Vaskevich, Benjamin Brown, Kristina
Cappuccilli, Syed Raza Rizvi, Eoghan McNulty, Roisin McNulty,
Catherine Hatten, Denise Aquino, Alessandra Simeone, Jillian
Chase, Cassondra Puls, Neha Savant, Samuel Goodspeed, Jon
Williams, Robert Carr, Giovanni Cassinelli, Ousman Laast, Andrew
Martin, Nari Bowie, Fadia Abdel Qader, Jose Valdez, Amanda
Watermeyer, Rachael Willoughby, Jordan Shipley, Yana Anjudinova,
and Igor Borodyansky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mason Management Services Corp., d/b/a
Stellar Management; Laurence Gluck; and XYZ Corporations 1-99,
Case No. 153574/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), seeks to end
the illegal and fraudulent practices employed by the Defendants
over the course of their ownership and operation of over 80
apartment buildings in the City and State of New York,
specifically by pursuing a scheme designed to inflate rents over
and above the amounts which they are legally permitted to charge.

The Defendants operate a real estate services company in New York,
NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
      Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 619-5400
      E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com
              ikassenoff@nfllp.com
              rsachar@nfllp.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Haywood" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kathy Haywood and Lia Holt filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Kathy Haywood, et al. v. Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01087-DRH-SCW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 17,
2017, District Judge David R. Herndon dismissed the class action
lawsuit brought by Kathy Haywood of East St. Louis and Lia Holt of
Missouri.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they and other customers of
Massage Envy Franchising, a franchisor based in Scottsdale,
Arizona, had been injured and deceived by the Company because they
received only 50 minutes of actual massage time during sessions
advertised as one-hour.

The plaintiffs allege that MEF franchises in O'Fallon, Ill., and
Oakville, Mo., failed to properly notify customers that roughly 10
minutes of each one-hour session would be used for consultation
and dressing.

The appellate case is captioned as Kathy Haywood, et al. v.
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 17-2402, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by July 25, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 21, 2017, for
      Kathy Haywood and Lia Holt.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHY HAYWOOD and LIA HOLT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard Steven Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
          1010 Market Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, is represented
by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549-0580
          E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXIM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, EVERIFILE. COM,
INC., a Georgia Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CV 14-3471
FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
Order:

   1. approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement as within
      the range of fair, adequate, and reasonable;

   2. provisionally certifying a Settlement Class pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and for settlement purposes
       only;

   3. approving the Notice Program and approving the form and
      content of the Notices of the Settlement;

   4. approving procedures for Class Members to exclude
      themselves from the Settlement Class or to object to the
      Settlement; and

   5. staying the action pending final approval of the
      Settlement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Alina B. Mazeika, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  amazeika@mahoney-law.net


MEGGITT-USA: "Trout" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BROOK TROUT, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MEGGITT-USA SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07520-
ODW-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August
14, 2017, for an order certifying a class and collective action.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2ESzpS4b

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260 9171
          Facsimile: (866) 365 3051
          E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM


MICHIGAN: Defends Imposed Penalties False Fraud Accusations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Oosting, writing for Detriot News, reports that a
Michigan Court of Appeals panel is set to hear arguments on July
15 in a slow-moving lawsuit alleging the state Unemployment
Insurance Agency violated due process rights of claimants by
imposing steep penalties for false fraud accusations.

The state is seeking to dismiss the 2015 suit on governmental
immunity grounds and reverse a May 2016 ruling by a Court of
Claims judge that allowed the case to move forward.

The potential class-action suit stems from erroneous fraud
determinations made by an automated computer system with little to
no human review, largely between October 2013 and August 2015. As
of May, the state had reversed more than 27,800 determinations
from that period and paid out roughly $5.5 million in refunds.

The class-action lawsuit contends residents who were wrongly
accused of fraud, like lead plaintiff Grant Bauserman of Chelsea,
deserve compensation for economic damages and additional
"equitable" relief, as determined by the court.

As many as 46,000 claimants may have been affected, said attorney
Jennifer Lord,Esq. of Pitt McGehee Palmers & Rivers. Plaintiffs
who have received refunds got only partial payback, and some have
been forced to file for bankruptcy or suffer hits to their credit
ratings, she said.

The state agency made "boatloads of money off these seizures,"
Lord said, noting legislators have shifted excess unemployment
penalty and interest funds to other areas of the state budget in
recent years.

As The Detroit News has reported, Michigan's 400 percent financial
penalty for unemployment fraud is the harshest in the nation,
adding insult to injury for out-of-work residents who were falsely
flagged by the computer system. Bauserman was fined $15,928 in
2015, according to court records. His state and federal income tax
refunds were later seized.

The suit alleges Gov. Rick Snyder's administration denied UIA
claimants due process and just treatment guaranteed by the
Michigan Constitution by using the automated fraud detection
system to determine guilt without proper proof, notice or an
appropriate opportunity for the accused to be heard before
penalties were imposed.

Attorney General Bill Schuette's office, representing the UIA in
the case, is seeking to dismiss the suit on the grounds that
Bauserman and other plaintiffs did not file, as required, a notice
of intent to sue within six months of when they were allegedly
deprived of due process rights. Instead, they filed notice within
six months of having their tax refunds intercepted.

The state contends plaintiffs have not provided sufficient
evidence to "avoid application of government immunity," which
typically applies except in cases involving the pursuit of damages
for violations of constitutional rights, as alleged.

The case is built on "vague allegations," according to state
attorneys. They are disputing claims that appropriate notices were
not provided to claimants, arguing "due process is judged from the
perspective of the sender, not the recipient."

The Unemployment Insurance Agency declined to comment on the case
on July 6, with a spokesman saying it would be inappropriate to
discuss pending litigation.

Wanda Stokes, director of the state Talent Investment Agency that
oversees the unemployment agency, said in a statement that staff
is continuing to review automated cases from 2013 to 2015 and is
on track to complete the work by the end of this month.

"The focus remains on the state's residents and making sure they
are treated fairly," she said in a statement. "These reviews are
an important step in restoring trust."

The state settled a separate federal lawsuit in February, agreeing
to a series of broad policy reforms and changes to the way the
unemployment agency handles fraud cases. [GN]


MICHIGAN: "Dearduff" Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOEY DEARDUFF, BRIAN DENEKA, MOSSES
KIRSCHKE, KIHAIL KIZ, JESSE KNOLTON, JAMES McRAE, REGINALD PEA,
ANTHONY RICHARDSON, BRYANT SLONE, DARRYL J. SMITH, TINA STOLL,
JAMES TAYLOR, STANLEY WILLIAMS; suing individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated prisoners, the Plaintiffs, v. HEDI
WASHINGTON, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC); sued in her official capacity, the Defendant, Case No.
2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to grant their motion for class certification of:

   "all those prisoners who are initially confined with the
   Michigan Department of Corrections (MDCO) for their first two-
   years and are not authorized by MDOC's policy to receive
   routine dental Care".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that Plaintiffs' counsel be
appointed as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q71kIWFD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Manville, Esq.
          MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
          610 Abbot Road
          East Lansing, MI. 48823
          Telephone: (517) 336 8088
          Facsimile: (517) 336 8089
          E-mail: daniel.manville@law.msu.edu


MICROSOFT CORP: Proskauer Rose Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., Jeffrey H Warshafsky, Esq., and
Russell Kostelak, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that recently, the Supreme Court in Microsoft
Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017), held that the plaintiff in
a putative class action involving Xbox 360 game consoles could not
appeal from the District Court's denial of class certification
after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice.
While 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 allows appeals from final decisions as a
matter of right, the Supreme Court held that plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal did not qualify as an appealable final decision. The
Court determined that allowing such an appeal would undermine Sec.
1291's finality principle and subvert the discretionary nature of
interlocutory class certification appeals under Rule 23(f).
Gamers, in other words, could not be allowed to hack Sec. 1291 in
this way.

The underlying lawsuit began in 2011 when plaintiff Seth Baker
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Western District of
Washington, alleging that Microsoft's Xbox 360 gaming console
scratched and destroyed his game discs during game play. The
District Court denied the class certification and struck
plaintiff's class allegations. Generally, the denial of class
certification is not a final decision that triggers the right to
appeal under Sec. 1291. Plaintiff therefore filed an interlocutory
appeal from the denial of class certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(f), which allows for discretionary interlocutory appeals.
The Ninth Circuit, however, denied plaintiff's petition. At this
point, instead of proceeding with the litigation or settling his
individual claims, the plaintiff chose to voluntarily dismiss his
case with prejudice in an attempt to finagle a "final decision"
and the right to immediately appeal to the Ninth Circuit under
Sec. 1291. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the
voluntary dismissal constituted a final decision under Sec. 1291,
and held that the district court abused its discretion in striking
the plaintiff's class allegations.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed the following
question: Do federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction under
Sec. 1291 to review a district court order striking or denying
class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims with prejudice? The Court, in an 8-0
opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, answered in the negative:
the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal did not constitute a final
decision that gave him the right to appeal under Sec. 1291.

First, the Court noted that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal
tactic would invite protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals.
The Court envisioned a scenario in which the District Court denies
class certification on certain grounds, the plaintiff appeals this
issue and the Court of Appeals reverses and remands to the
District Court. On remand, if the District Court denies class
certification on different grounds, the plaintiff could again seek
to voluntarily dismiss the case and receive another appeal as of
right. Because the plaintiff could exercise this voluntary
dismissal tactic for each class certification denial, the tactic
would lend itself to multiple interlocutory appeals, in
contravention of Sec. 1291's attempt to minimize such appeals by
permitting them as of right only for final judgments.

Second, the Court explained that the plaintiff's tactic would
allow for indiscriminate appellate review of interlocutory orders,
thereby undercutting the discretionary scheme of Rule 23(f). Rule
23(f) authorizes permissive interlocutory appeals from adverse
class certification orders at the discretion of the Court of
Appeals. By allowing plaintiff an appeal as of right under Sec.
1291 through his voluntary dismissal, the Ninth Circuit would have
no discretion to deny the appeal once jurisdiction was
established. This would undercut the circuit court's discretion
over class certification appeals under Rule 23(f), the Supreme
Court noted.

Third, the Court took issue with the one-sided nature of the
plaintiff's right to appeal if a voluntary dismissal were
considered a final decision under Sec. 1291. Because only a
plaintiff can initiate a voluntary dismissal, it follows that only
a plaintiff could force an immediate appeal. The inability of
defendants to initiate a voluntary dismissal and force a right to
appeal in this way provided further justification for denying
appellate jurisdiction after the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal.

In short, the Court found that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal
maneuver contravened the "final decision" requirement of Sec.
1291. If the Court allowed plaintiff to game the system by
appealing after voluntary dismissal, it would turn Congress' final
decision rule into a "pretty puny one." With this ruling, the
Court shut down a potential plaintiff-only appellate 'cheat code'
to 'skip a level' and get automatic appellate review of adverse
class certification rulings. [GN]


MIDFLORIDA: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $2.375MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that Lakeland,
Fla.-based MidFlorida Credit Union has agreed to pay $2.375
million to settle a class-action lawsuit regarding its overdraft
fee practices.

The settlement requires MidFlorida CU, which has $2.9 billion in
assets and 271,000 members, to pay members for overdraft fees
assessed between November 24, 2010, and January 15, 2016, if those
fees occurred when the member had sufficient ledger balances but
insufficient available balances.  According to a database analyst
hired by the plaintiffs, about 27,500 accounts were affected.

The class-action suit was originally filed by plaintiff Tracy Fry
in November 2015.  Ms. Fry claimed the practice breached
MidFlorida's opt-in agreement and was inconsistent with its
disclosure materials.  The case went to mediation in March 2017,
and a U.S. District Court judge approved the settlement.

"MidFlorida does not deny it charged overdraft fees but contends
it did so properly and in accordance with the terms of its
agreements and applicable law because MidFlorida assesses
overdrafts based on the available balance in a member's account,"
the credit union said in court documents.

"MidFlorida maintains that this practice is proper and was
disclosed to its members, and therefore denies that its practices
give rise to claims for damages by Ms. Fry or any class member,"
it added.  "Nevertheless, because MidFlorida states it has always
strived to conduct its business in a manner that is most
beneficial to all of its members, and using ledger balance may
result in fewer member overdrafts as a result of this lawsuit,
MidFlorida changed its payment processing systems as of January
15, 2016, so that it now assesses overdrafts based only on the
ledger balance in member accounts."

The database analyst estimated in a statement filed with the court
that the credit union has forgone approximately $1.15 million in
overdraft fees in the year after it changed its overdraft method
in January 2016.

As much as $1.125 million of the settlement, plus up to $65,000 in
litigation costs, could go to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Another
$10,000 will go to Ms. Fry, according to court documents. Members
will be paid a pro rata share of the net settlement based on the
total amount of improper overdraft fees they paid. MidFlorida has
the option to terminate the settlement agreement if at least 5% of
the class members opt out of the settlement before November 9.

Taras Kick, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiff, told the
court he believed the total recovery would have been just over $5
million had the case gone to trial.

MidFlorida Credit Union is one of over a dozen credit unions
around the country have been hit with class-action suits over
their overdraft practices.  In at least two cases, the credit
unions countersued, arguing that the plaintiffs still owed them
money.  In early 2016, a judicial panel denied a request to
consolidate several of the lawsuits, leaving courts to weigh the
merits of each case individually.  Several of the credit unions
have settled their cases or notified the court that settlement
discussions are happening. [GN]


MINNESOTA: Thrivent Seeks Win After DOL Drops Class Action Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that a financial
services group that has sued to block part of the U.S. Department
of Labor's fiduciary rule asked a Minnesota federal judge on July
5 to give it a quick win after the regulator said in a related
case that it would no longer defend the rule's ban on class action
waivers.

Thrivent Financial sued last year over a part of the rule that
stops financial advisers from making their customers submit
disputes to individual, private arbitration instead of getting
relief through a class action. The arbitration ban is part of the
rule's best interest contract exemption, which allows advisers to
receive commissions on financial products if they sign a contract
with customers pledging to act in their best interest and disclose
any conflicts of interest.

on July 3, however, the DOL said in a Fifth Circuit brief that the
government no longer believes the class action waiver is allowed
by the Federal Arbitration Act. Citing that brief, Thrivent pushed
in a letter for the court to grant its request for summary
judgment. The DOL had asked the Minnesota court for a two-week
pause so it can figure out what to do, but Thrivent said that
wouldn't cut it.

"Staying this litigation would only prolong Thrivent's business
uncertainty about its compliance obligations, in a manner that
would be highly prejudicial to Thrivent," the company said. "The
fact that DOL has abandoned its legal defense of the ... anti-
arbitration condition does not, in and of itself, mean that the
condition will not otherwise go into effect as scheduled" on Jan.
1.

The new position comes in light of the U.S. solicitor general's
reversal of an Obama-era stance on class action waivers in an
amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in National Labor
Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. defending the legality of
arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing work-
related claims as a class.

The Labor Department's fiduciary rule requires financial
professionals to act in their clients' best interests when
recommending investment products.

Advisers and broker-dealers that fall under the expanded
definition of a fiduciary will largely be prohibited from
collecting commissions unless the professionals take advantage of
the best interest contract exemption.

Several financial industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association sued over the rule in June 2016, but Judge Lynn
granted the Labor Department's motion for summary judgment in
February, finding the agency acted within its authority under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and had adequately weighed
the costs and benefits of the rule during the rule-making process.

On appeal, the DOL has largely stood behind the rule. The agency
ceded ground only on the challenge to the prohibition on class
action waivers, acknowledging the government is no longer
defending that provision. Apart from the anti-arbitration
condition, the department said, it wants the BIC exemption to
remain intact.

The DOL is still considering changes to the fiduciary rule. The
agency issued a request for information, asking for data and
information that could be used to revise the rule, at the end of
June.

An attorney for Thrivent and a spokesman for the Labor Department
declined to comment on July 6.

Thrivent is represented by Andrew Kay, Esq. -- akay@cozen.com --
of Cozen O'Connor and Mark L. Johnson, Esq. --
mjohnson@greeneespel.com -- of Greene Espel PLLP.

The government is represented by Galen N. Throp, Esq. --
galen.thorp@usdoj.gov -- Emily Newton, Esq. --
emily.s.newton@usdoj.gov -- Judry L. Subar, Esq. --
judry.subar@usdoj.gov --  Gregory G. Brooker, Esq. --
Gregory.brooker@usdoj.gov -- Brett A. Shumate, Esq. --
brett.shumate@usdoj.gov -- Megan Hansene, Esq. --
megan.hansene@usdoj.gov -- Thomas Tso, Esq. --
Thomas.tso@usdoj.gov -- Edward D. Sieger, Esq. --
Edward.sieger@usdoj.gov -- G. William Scott, Esq. --
g.william.scott@usdoj.com -- and Nicholas C. Geale, Esq. --
Nicholas.gaele@usdoj.gov.

The case is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Acosta et al.,
case number  0:16-cv-03289 in U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota. [GN]


MISSISSIPI: Settles Children's Mental Health Care Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Dreher, writing for Jackson Free Press, reports that after
seven years of litigation, one Mississippi teenager will finally
get to move from the East Mississippi State Hospital to a regional
center that provides services for those with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.  His move -- out of an institution and
into more integrated care -- marks the end of a prolonged legal
struggle for children's mental-health care in the state that
started when he was 13.

L.S., the teen who will receive services at a regional center, was
the last plaintiff standing in the lawsuit.  It was originally a
class-action case on behalf of all children in Mississippi seeking
services for mental health care and developmental disorders.

Mental health, Medicaid and State of Mississippi representatives
signed the settlement agreement, ending the Troupe v. Barbour case
after seven years.

As a part of the agreement, the attorney general's office released
the long-hidden TAC report, which documents how the Department of
Mental Health and the Division of Medicaid spent more and provided
more services for children in institutions than in home- and
community-based services.  The latter is now a common best
practice.

DMH issued a response to the TAC report that documents changes
they have made since the TAC report was completed at the end of
2015.  The response says the department will close 50
institutional beds for children this month "as a result of
expansion of community services and decreased in need for
institutional beds."

Adam Moore, the director of communications at the department, said
closing those beds is a result of consolidating inpatient units at
East Mississippi State Hospital and the Mississippi State Hospital
in Rankin County.  Now judges committing children for inpatient
acute mental-health care can only send them to Mississippi State
Hospital.

The department's response lists several initiatives and the
progress made on children's mental-health care since the TAC
report was finished in 2015, including expanding the services of
the Wraparound Institute.

"Even as the agency receives budget cuts, DMH's focus will remain
on building up direct services in the community to ensure capacity
is available to reduce the reliance on inpatient institutional
services," the DMH release says.

The State still faces a federal lawsuit for relying on
institutions to serve adults who need mental-health care in the
state.  Legislation to move DMH under the governor's purview faced
significant resistance from lawmakers in the 2017 legislative
session -- and ultimately died.

Jockeying for Control

Gov. Phil Bryant still wants to run the Mississippi Department of
Mental Health.  After the release of a sealed report, which
examined mental-health care for children, Mississippians now have
access to a possible roadmap to offering more home- and community-
based services instead of relying on the state's institutions to
provide mental care.  The report's underlying point echoes what
the U.S. Department of Justice alleged back in 2011: Mississippi
over-relies on institutions to care for those with mental-health
illnesses.

"I think if you would raise . . . the Department of Mental Health
to a cabinet-level position as we did with Child Protection
Services, we might be able to draw more attention, more support,
(and) more of a direct effort by not only this governor but
governors of the future to make sure that those services are
delivered," Gov. Bryant told reporters after an awards event for
the Division of Child Protection Services.

That is, Bryant would like the director of DMH to report directly
to him rather than to a board he appoints.  The Department of
Mental Health, the State's largest agency, reports to the Board of
Mental Health, which is made up of members that the governor
appoints, pending confirmation by the Mississippi Senate.  When
asked if he plans to make changes to the board, Bryant said, "I
have, and I will," implying a shake-up is in order.

Closing Hospitals?

Gov. Bryant dodged a question about the potential to close some of
the state's mental-health hospitals in June.

"I think that would be, honestly, a decision for the Board of
Mental Health; that's their responsibility," he told reporters
June 23.

"I don't manage the DMH; if I did, I might have sufficient
information to make that decision."

When the Legislature cut DMH's budget this year, the agency
announced it would have to reduce its workforce by 650 employees
by June 2018.

The TAC report addresses the potential shift in personnel from
institutions to home- and community-based services.  Mississippi
will need to keep some institutions, the TAC report says, but
hospitals "should not be a solution or default system for an
underfunded or fragmented community system."  Researchers
recommend that DMH should expand the current functions of the
state hospital staff to include home- and community-based
services.

"The services provided by redeployed state hospital staff would
complement the role of (community mental health centers) and other
providers without duplication," the TAC report says.

"DMH can manage the provision of lower-cost alternatives to
institutional treatment . . .(T)he state could redeploy hospital
staff to increase mobile crisis response capacity, to provide
emergency services and crisis triage functions, to provide crisis
stabilization services," the report says.

It also says that hospital staff would be ideal for providing in-
home therapy and care coordination, and psychiatrists could serve
in community environments. Of course, this is just a suggestion.
Earlier this year, after the Legislature cut the DMH budget, it
announced layoffs and retention leading to a loss of 650 employees
by this time next year. [GN]


MONSANTO: Migrant Farmworkers Sue Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Mother Jones reported that two migrant farmworkers have filed a
federal class action lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the
company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Agricultural
Workers Protection Act while the workers were employed in fields
where Monsanto grows corn to produce its hybrid seeds.

"The lawsuit, which is believed to be the first of its kind,
alleges that Monsanto violated the acts by failing to pay its
workers the minimum wage and failing to pay its workers when
compensation was due. It also alleges that Monsanto misrepresented
the way the employees would be paid and failed to keep adequate
payroll records," says Investigate Midwest's story on the lawsuit.

"I'm not aware of any other multi-state class action against
Monsanto over its labor practices in production of seed corn,"
said Teresa Hendricks, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and director
of the Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project. She estimated
potential damages at $2 million. "Potentially, it could be the
highest amount of damages of this type of suit."

The plaintiffs claim that Monsanto hired contractors to keep hire
and pay workers, but that those contractors knowingly shorted
employees.

Hendricks said the contractors were not named in the lawsuit
because they "are not the ones with any real control. They are
typically undercapitalized and struggle themselves with Monsanto,
some have sued Monsanto even for pay. They will be deposed as
witnesses in our case."

Along with Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer has also been accused of
hiring contractors who mistreat and underpay workers in its seed-
corn fields. For more on those allegations, click here for the
full report by Investigate Midwest. [GN]


NATIONS RECOVERY: Meyer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BONNIE MEYER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONS RECOVERY
CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00959-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a proposed class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JMn3hRrR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NESTLE WATERS: "Roz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD ROZ; SHNEUR GOTTLIEB; AND
YEHOSHUA BLUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION DBA READYREFRESH BY NESTLE, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04418-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court to certify classes consisting of the following:

The Class is defined as:

   "all persons in California whose credit cards, debit cards, or
   bank accounts were charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as
   part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer,
   without Nestle obtaining preauthorization of the electronic
   fund transfer between September 22, 2012 and September 22,
   2016";

Sub-Class 1 is defined as:

   "all persons in California who initiated services with Nestle
   online whose credit cards, debit cards, or bank accounts were
   charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as part of an
   automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer, without
   Nestle obtaining preauthorization of the electronic fund
   transfer between September 22, 2012 and September 22, 2016";

Sub-Class 2 is defined as:

   "all persons in California who initiated services with Nestle
   on the telephone whose credit cards, debit cards, or bank
   accounts were charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as part
   of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer,
   without Nestle obtaining preauthorization of the electronic
   fund transfer between September 22, 2012 and September 22,
   2016";

Sub-Class 3 is defined as:

   "all persons in California whose credit cards, debit cards, or
   bank accounts were charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as
   part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer,
   where Nestle made a material change to the terms of the
   agreement without providing advanced clear and conspicuous
   notice of the change prior to the electronic fund transfer
   between September 22, 2012 and September 22, 2016;

Sub-Class 4 is defined as:

   "all persons in California who initiated services with Nestle
   telephonically whose credit cards, debit cards, or bank
   accounts were charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as part
   of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer,
   where Nestle failed to provide information regarding how to
   cancel the automatic renewal plan in a clear and conspicuous
   manner during the initial telephonic communication between
   September 22, 2012 and September 22, 2016"; and

Sub-Class 5 is defined as:

   "all persons in California who initiated services with Nestle
   online whose credit cards, debit cards, or bank accounts were
   charged on a recurring basis by Nestle, as part of an
   automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer, where
   Nestle failed to provide information regarding how to cancel
   the automatic renewal plan in a clear and conspicuous manner
   during the initial online sign up between September 22, 2012
   and September 22, 2016".

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tPz1BUHy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Veronica E. McKnight, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  bonnie@westcoastlitigation.com


NIC GEORGIOU: Former Pickvest Exec Supports Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that a long-
standing financial dispute between property magnate Nic Georgiou
and Morkel Steyn, a former executive within the Pickvest and
Highveld Syndication companies, may have influenced  Mr. Steyn's
defection to the class action application against Mr. Georgiou.

Mr. Steyn recently publicly disassociated himself from Mr.
Georgiou and announced his support of the class action.  He stated
that he was doing this in the interest of investors and to provide
momentum to the class action application.

During an open interview with Moneyweb at the time, he did not
disclose the dispute.

In several legal letters sent between the legal representatives of
Messrs. Steyn and Georgiou, it has now emerged that the parties
were embroiled in a legal dispute regarding an unspecified amount
of money.

Mr. Georgiou even accuses Mr. Steyn of attempted extortion, but
this is denied by Andre Vlok, Mr. Steyn's attorney.

In response to Moneyweb questions, Mr. Vlok also strongly denies
that the financial dispute had anything to do with Mr. Steyn's
decision to go public and to join the class action.  Mr. Steyn
could not respond personally due to illness.

Legal correspondence

The extent of the dispute becomes apparent in a series of legal
letters sent between the parties from January to July.

Mr. Vlok sent the first letter in January and asked for an urgent
audience with Georgiou. Georgiou did not respond to this letter.

In three subsequent letters, Mr. Vlok stated Mr. Steyn's
unhappiness of being treated in such a way.  In one of these
letters he states: "He (Steyn) will not be discarded in this
manner and while there are certainly means to address his own
requirements and the payment of monies due to him."

In another paragraph, Mr. Vlok states: "We believe that he should
clear his name of several of the allegations made against him, and
the best way to do so would be by way of a media release.  We have
advised him to rather participate in the class action as a
witness, and to remove his exposure, liabilities and costs in this
manner.  We have advised him to immediately cease all
participation in his duties if he is not paid in terms of the
applicable agreements."

Georgiou's response

Mr. Georgiou's lawyer, Mario Kyriacou, responded to Mr. Steyn on
June 23 after the publication of the Moneyweb article and denied
that Mr. Georgiou owed Mr. Steyn any money.  He also accused Mr.
Steyn of extortion.

"What is apparent is the more blatant the wrongful threats have
become in each of the letters sent -- beginning with a threat to
institute legal proceeding and culminating in the threat to
"contact the applicants' attorneys in the class and related
actions, and to negotiate a settlement that serves (your client's)
interests".

"These threats amount to nothing less than an attempt to extort
payment of monies which, as we are instructed, are neither due or
owing to your client and our client reserved their rights in all
respects -- including their rights to criminally prosecute your
client."

The letter then stated further: "On this score, our instructions
are that our client has loaned to your client monies in excess of
R14 000 000 and when our client refused to loan your client
further funds and insisted upon repayment of these monies that
your client had his sudden purported attack of conscience and
commenced with his extortive conduct."

Dispute not related to Steyn's decision

In response to Moneyweb questions, Mr. Vlok stated that the
financial dispute has been ongoing for years.  "The reason for his
decision was never an issue and his motivation to do the right
thing was in any case of secondary importance."

He added that his decision will benefit investors.  "It has
nothing to do with the question of whether he was owed money or
not."

Mr. Vlok also denied that Mr. Steyn threatened or tried to extort
Georgiou.  "The letters were normal letters of demand.  They are
clear attempts to resolve the situation and merely highlight the
consequences of the continued conflict.  If this is seen as
threats, then the Georgiou group created the situation by not
providing information and refusing payment to Mr Steyn."

Jacques Theron, legal representative of the HSAG, confirmed that
Mr. Steyn has not met with the HSAG. [GN]


NIDO CAFFE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Martinez, and others similarly-situated v. Nido Caffe 110
LLC, d/b/a Nido Caffe', Nido Caffe 2015 LLC, d/b/a  Ni.Do Caffe',
d/b/a Ni.Do Caffe & Mozarella Bar, Panarea Miami, LLC, Lisandro
Garcia, and Daian Escalante, Case No. 1:17-cv-22411-RNS (S.D.
Fla., June 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Nido Caffe restaurants in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


NORTHERN TRUST: "Banks" Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lindie L. Banks, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Northern Trust Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
09141-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an
order:

   1. granting Defendants' motion to dismiss;

   2. dismissing Plaintiffs' first amended complaint without
      leave to amend and dismissing the action with prejudice;
      and

   3. denying Plaintiffs motion for class certification as moot.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W9Y29LhJ

The Court said, "Because Plaintiffs have alleged a variety of
express and implied misrepresentations and omissions in connection
with investment of trust assets in Northern-affiliated funds in
their First Amended Complaint, and, because Plaintiffs' claims
also meet the "in connection with" requirement, their claims are
precluded by SLUSA".


NORTHLAND GROUP: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HYUN SOON CHUNG, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-06246-SCM
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July 20, 2017, at
2:00 p.m., at the United States Court for the District of New
Jersey for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class
action and granting final approval of the parties' class
settlement agreement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hacksensack Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


NOVANT HEALTH: Insurers File Countersuits in 401(k) Plan Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
Novant Health Inc. is being counter-sued by two insurers in a
dispute over the insurers' financial responsibility in the
system's settlement of an employee class-action lawsuit.

Novant agreed in September to pay $32 million, including $10.7
million in attorney fees, to settle a March 2014 lawsuit filed by
six current and former employees.

The employees include Karolyn Kruger, a retired doctor who served
as chief of staff at Thomasville Medical Center. Each named
plaintiff received $25,000.

According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, there were about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had
been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009.
The lawsuit covered the period Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015,
and had 70,683 potential beneficiaries.

The complaint accuses Novant of breaching its fiduciary duties by
causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for
excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third-
party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co.
and Winston-Salem brokerage firm D.L. Davis & Co.

In the settlement, Novant agreed to conduct a comprehensive
request for proposal competitive bidding process led by an outside
consultant; hire an independent consultant to assess its 401(k)
plans on an annual basis for four years; revise investment options
as needed; remove Davis from any involvement in the plans; not
offer any Mass Mutual investments in the plans; not offer any
brokerage services; and provide accurate communications to
beneficiaries.

Although Novant did not admit or deny liability, it said the
settlement "is in the best long-term interests of our health
system and our retirement plan participants."

The current litigation began April 25 when Novant sued Federal
Insurance Co. Inc., known by the Chubb brand, and Travelers
Casualty and Surety Co. of America in Forsyth Superior Court. The
lawsuit was moved to federal court June 8.

Novant said its legal representation in the employee class-action
lawsuit -- Morgan Lewis, appointed by Chubb -- estimated the total
legal exposure could have ranged from $46 million to $86 million,
and that a settlement of up to $35 million "would be reasonable."

Novant claims its financial exposure was $7 million after
insurance coverage.

Novant said it has paid $23.95 million toward the settlement and
now seeks additional reimbursement beyond $4 million from each
insurer.  Novant said the requested amount includes damages
related to the insurers' "breach of their obligations."

Federal said in its countersuit, filed June 23, it believes it
fulfilled its financial obligation, and that it should be
reimbursed the $4 million.

Travelers listed in a separate countersuit, also filed June 23, it
is owed $4.05 million in reimbursement.  Much of its filing was a
response to the Novant accusations.

Federal accused Novant and certain unnamed system executives of
benefiting from the Davis arrangement. Federal claimed Davis was
paid fees in an amount "far in excess of the value of its
services."

Novant Health said in a statement on July 5 that it "initiated
this legal action because the insurers did not honor their
obligations to pay under liability insurance purchased by Novant
Health.  The insurers' claims are simply untrue."

The employees' lawsuit claims Davis provided the plan with limited
marketing and enrollment services, but was paid excessive fees up
to $9.6 million from 2009 to 2012 in the form of "commissions."

Federal said the Davis arrangement benefited both parties "insofar
as it incentivized Davis to engage in separate business dealings
with, and contributions to them, to their financial advantage."

The employees' complaint stated Davis received a second source of
revenue in the form of "kickbacks" from the managers of the plan
investment options.  Novant denied the allegation of kickbacks.

Novant said Davis "provided extensive services that go well beyond
mere limited and enrollment services." Among the services that
Novant cited are plan-design implementation, mutual-fund selection
and fees, selection of the record keeper, and communication and
educational efforts with employees.

Federal accused Novant of "not merely extract(ing) from the plan
an amount of money representative of services provided on behalf
of Novant to plan participants; rather, Novant took excessive
amount to which it had no legal entitlement."

Novant is accused of not informing Federal that Novant's "practice
of paying itself from plan assets" was the subject of a 2013 U.S.
Labor Department investigation into Novant's employee savings
plan.

Federal said Novant's agreeing to the employee settlement "was
motivated" by the financial dealings involving Davis.  "Federal
objected to being forced to pay the cost of remedying such
concerns."

The plan's assets more than doubled from $612 million in 2008 to
$1.42 billion as of March 2014.  Novant said the plan offered 23
investment options.

The employees' complaint said Great West received excessive
compensation of $8.6 million between 2009 and 2012. [GN]


PATRIOT LAND: "Conover" Sues Over Illegal Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------
Anna Conover, Parrish and Jacqueline Sheridan, Bryan and
Jacqueline Van Velson, Plaintiffs, v. Patriot Land Transfer, LLC,
Patriot Land Processing, LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04625 (D. N.J., June 23, 2017), seeks damages for
settlement services charged by the Defendants, including, but not
limited to, title insurance premiums, in an amount equal to three
times the amount of any charge paid for such settlement services,
reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs pursuant to Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Patriot is a title services company licensed under the laws of
various states, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Wells Fargo
employed licensed home mortgage consultants, mortgage brokers
and/or authorized loan officers brokered and secured loans for
residential mortgages working with title companies to close these
loans. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo accepted kickbacks and
fee splits from Patriot. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
     Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
     Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
     JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Telephone: (301) 220-2200
     Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
     Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            vnannis@jgllaw.com
            mbenevento@jgllaw.com

            - and -

     Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
     Melissa L. English, Esq.
     Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
     SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
     600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21202
     Telephone: (410) 821-0070
     Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
     Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
            menglish@sgs-law.com
            szadrozny@sgs-law.com


PAYPAL: California Gun Shop Owner Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Outdoor Life reports that a California gun shop owner has filed
class-action lawsuits against PayPal, Stripe, and Square for
denying online money transfer services to his business in
violation of a state law that protects federally-licensed gun
stores from discrimination.

Blair Gladwin, owner of Gladwin Guns and Ammo in Merced, filed his
suits in Merced County Superior Court against the three money
transfer services after they required him to disclose what his
business sells and then terminated his account.

The companies claim they have policies against transferring money
for the sale of guns, ammunition or other gun-related products.
Gladwin and his attorneys claim their policies violate state law
by discriminating against him and his business.

According to Thaddeus Miller of The Merced Sun-Star, Gladwin has
operated his gun shop outside Merced since 2000. He sells
handguns, rifles, and accessories that are all legal in the state.
The shop is his only source of income.

Like many retailers, Gladwin has expanded his sales to online
retailers. Without an online money transfer service, he said, his
sales take a hit because buyers don't want to have to get a
cashier's check.

"They basically flat out shut me down," he told Mr. Miller.  "My
livelihood is on the line, because my revenue is going to drop."
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act protects federally-licensed
gun stores, according to William McGrane, Gladwin's attorney.
"It's against the law in California to discriminate against people
based on occupation," he told Miller.  "Refusing somebody you
don't want to serve is itself illegal."  "Essentially, it's
political correctness," Mr. McGrane continued.  "Indeed, they do
have a desire to regulate something that the government is not
allowed to regulate."

Gladwin's lawsuits were filed in Merced County Superior Court,
asking the court to mandate services to gun dealers and award no
less than $5 million per company, as well as attorney fees.
In a letter to Outdoor Life, Gladwin's representatives elaborated
on their case, noting he believes this is a violation of
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act Sections 51, 52(a) and 52(c),
which protects federally-licensed gun stores from discrimination.
Gladwin's three class-action suits were on behalf of himself and
all federal firearms dealers during the class period who: 1.)
learned of the requirement to disclose the nature of their
business and were then deterred from opening a payment account, or
2.) had an account terminated by a payment processor because of
the nature of their business.

The letter states that Gladwin is asking the court for a public
injunction mandating that the payment companies cease violating
the Unruh Act (thus allowing the firearms dealers to use the
payment processors to facilitate buying and selling firearms), a
total award to class members of no less than $5 million (per
company/class-action lawsuit), and attorney fees.

According to the letter, "This case raises an important issue
about whether payment processing companies can refuse service to
legal (but sometimes controversial) businesses.

Mr. McGrane's statement in the letter reads: "The very large non-
bank defendants in these cases are allowing their private sense of
political correctness to extend so far as to ban even persons who
hold valid federal firearms licenses from accepting Electronic
Funds Transfers, all in defiance of the Second Amendment to the
federal Constitution and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act of
1978.  The net effect of what they are doing is making the
legitimate business of selling firearms operate as a cash business
only, all in a misguided effort to effectively ban the sale of
firearms and related products from the marketplace." [GN]


PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Faces "McDaniels" Lawsuit Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MCDANIELS, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00093-TCB
(N.D. Ga., July 7, 2017), alleges Defendant's failure to properly
compensate employees for hours worked in excess of forty (40)
hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Performance Contracting Group -- http://www.pcg.com/-- is a
specialty contractor. During Plaintiff's employment with
Defendant, he served as an insulator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 965-8812
     E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


PERSHING SQUARE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Call Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Hill LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS
Management GP, LLC, William Ackman, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing
Square, L.P., Pershing Square II, L.P., Pershing Square GP, LLC,
Pershing Square International, Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd.,
Michael Pearson, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04776
(C.D. Cal., June 28, 2017), is an action for damages for
artificially deflating the prices of Allergan call options and
Allergan equity forwards sold by the Plaintiff and other members
of the proposed Class, while the prices of Allergan put options
purchased by the Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class
were artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC,
William Ackman, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing
Square II, L.P., Pershing Square GP, LLC, Pershing Square
International, Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., and Michael Pearson
operate a fund management company located at 888 7th Avenue in New
York.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a publicly traded
company that manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, over-the-
counter products and medical devices in the eye care, dermatology
and neurology therapeutic classes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA  90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
      Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
      Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
      ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
      299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10171
      Telephone: (212) 894-7200
      Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
      E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
              vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
              rcappucci@entwistle-law.com


PETROBRAS: Pomerantz Achieves Significant Victory in Securities CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz scored a significant victory for investors in In re
Petrobras Sec. Litig. (2d Cir. July 7, 2017), one of the largest
securities class actions pending in the United States.  The case
involves the biggest corruption scandal in the history of Brazil,
which according to Plaintiffs has ensnared not only Petrobras'
former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former
presidents and at least one third of the Brazilian Congress.
According to Plaintiffs, Defendants' fraudulent scheme involved
billions of dollars in kickbacks, tens of billions of dollars in
overstated assets, as well as significant losses to Petrobras
investors.

In a February 2, 2016 Opinion and Order, the District Court
certified all the classes proposed by the Plaintiffs, encompassing
not only purchasers of Petrobras American Depository Receipts, but
also Petrobras bondholders who acquired securities pursuant to
domestic transactions.  Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Defendants appealed the District Court's certification opinion on
multiple grounds, including for failure to satisfy the requirement
of ascertainability and for failure to satisfy the burden of
showing that the Petrobras securities at issue traded in efficient
markets.  The Second Circuit accepted the appeal and largely
rejected Defendants' arguments, sending the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings.

The Second Circuit's decision is important and favorable precedent
in several respects.  First, in an issue of first impression, the
Second Circuit squarely rejected Defendants' invitation to adopt
the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which would
have required plaintiffs to demonstrate that determining
membership in a class is "administratively feasible."  The Second
Circuit's rejection of this standard is not only a victory for
bondholders in securities class actions, but also plaintiffs in
consumer fraud class actions and other class actions where
documentation regarding Class membership is not readily
attainable.

With respect to Petrobras' bondholders, the Court vacated the
District Court's granting of class certification, but only to the
extent that it did not perform an analysis regarding the impact of
the Supreme Court's Morrison decision on the predominance
requirement of class certification.  Specifically, the Second
Circuit required the District Court to analyze whether "common
answers" to whether a transaction occurred in the United States
could be ascertained via common proof.   The record in this case
easily supports such a determination.  Indeed, as the Second
Circuit acknowledged, "the district court might properly certify
one or more classes that capture [] all of the Securities holders
who fall within the Classes as currently defined."

The Second Circuit also refused to adopt a requirement, urged by
Defendants, that all securities class action plaintiffs seeking
class certification prove through direct evidence (i.e., via an
event study) that the prices of the relevant securities moved in a
particular direction in response to new information.  Reaffirming
the Supreme Court's guidance in Halliburton II that the burden for
plaintiffs seeking class certification "is not an onerous one,"
the Second Circuit rejected the notion that complicated event
studies be submitted by Plaintiffs at the class certification
stage.  The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that "event studies offer
the seductive promise of hard numbers and dispassionate truth, but
methodological constraints limit their utility in the context of
single-firm analyses."

Jeremy Lieberman, Managing Partner of Pomerantz commented: "We are
very pleased with the Second Circuit's decision today, which
provides important precedent for both domestic and foreign
investors seeking redress for securities fraud impacting the U.S.
capital markets.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a
sweeping fraud lasting nearly a decade, which caused billions of
dollars in losses to Petrobras investors, and hobbled the
political and economic framework in Brazil, one of the largest
economies in the world.  This decision represents a victory for
class action plaintiffs in securities, antitrust and consumer
cases.  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."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the company
overstated its property, plant, and equipment on its balance sheet
by overpricing contracts to certain companies relating to its
refineries and operations and accepted kickbacks from construction
companies approved for those contracts; (2) the company was
receiving multi-billion dollar bribes from third-party contractors
to secure contracts from Petrobras; (3) the company was in
violation of its own Code of Ethics, as its employees and
executives were routinely accepting bribes from certain
construction companies; (4) the company's internal controls over
financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Petrobras' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


PICHARDO 2230: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lopez" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Antonio Lopez filed an appeal from a District Court
order dated June 5, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Lopez v. Pichardo
2230 Restaurant Corp., Case No. 15-cv-648, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2230 Grand
Concourse, in Bronx, New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Lopez v. Pichardo 2230
Restaurant Corp., Case No. 17-2058, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Lopez, Individually & on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

Defendants-Appellees Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corporation, DBA
Caridad Restaurant, Lazaro Pichardo and Ruben Pichardo are
represented by:

          Victor Jose Molina, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF VICTOR J. MOLINA
          930 Grand Concourse
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 401-1600
          E-mail: v.j.molina@verizon.net


PINGTAN MARINE: Faces Class Action for Human Trafficking
--------------------------------------------------------
Elliot J. Joh, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that a recently filed class action illustrates how
allegations of illegal activity abroad can result in securities
class action exposure in the United States -- even for a Chinese
fishing company incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

According to the plaintiff in Zhong Zheng v. Pingtan Marine
Enterprise Ltd., et al., Pingtan (trading on NASDAQ as "PME") made
a small, but materially false statement in its 10-Q and 10-K forms
regarding its fishing operations. Namely, the statement that
Pingtan's vessels are "fully licensed to fish in Indonesian,
Indian, or Western and Central Pacific Ocean of the international
waters."

The plaintiff alleges that this statement is not only false and
misleading, but also part of a "hoax" to cover up significant
illegal activity. In support of his allegations, plaintiff cites a
report published earlier this year by Aurelius Value:

Pingtan is specifically banned from Indonesia and a senior
government minister has said she would report Pingtan to the
NASDAQ upon suspicion of an "international fraud case." Indonesian
Armed Forces raided Pingtan's key fishing base and the Government
implicated Pingtan and its affiliates in serious crimes that
include human trafficking, forced labor, illegal fishing, forgery,
and bribing corrupt officials. . . .

The nature of Pingtan's fraud strikes as being especially
egregious because investor capital has financed widespread illegal
activity. Indonesian Supreme Court documents describe violent
"torture ships" that implicate Pingtan in the modern-day slavery
that has infected pockets of South East Asia's fishing industry.

Pingtan's stock price allegedly fell by 28% as a result of the
information in the Aurelius report. The plaintiff asserts claims
against Pingtan, its CEO, and its CFO under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Zhong Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., et al., Case No.
17-cv-03807, is currently pending in the Eastern District of New
York before Chief Judge Dora L. Irizarry. Given the unlikely, but
nevertheless interesting confluence of: (1) U.S. securities law,
(2) a Chinese corporate defendant, (3) the Indonesian government,
and (4) a Brooklyn venue, we will continue to monitor and report
on this case.  [GN]


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews Asks Court to Grant Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH ANDREWS, an individual, TIFFANI
ANDREWS, an individual, BACIU FAMILY LLC, a California limited
liability company, ROBERT BOYDSTON, an individual, CAPTAIN JACK'S
SANTA BARBARA TOURS, LLC, a California limited liability
company, MORGAN CASTAGNOLA, an individual, THE EAGLE FLEET, LLC, a
California limited liability company, ZACHARY FRAZIER, an
individual, MIKE GANDALL, an individual, ALEXANDRA B. GEREMIA, as
Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998, JIM
GUELKER, an individual, JACQUES HABRA, an individual, ISURF, LLC,
a California limited liability company, MARK KIRKHART, an
individual, MARY KIRKHART, an individual, RICHARD LILYGREN, an
individual, HWA HONG MUH, an individual, OCEAN ANGEL IV, LLC, a
California limited liability company, PACIFIC RIM FISHERIES,
INC., a California corporation, SARAH RATHBONE, an individual,
COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California limited liability company,
SANTA BARBARA UNI, INC., a California corporation, SOUTHERN CAL
SEAFOOD, INC., a California corporation, TRACTIDE MARINE
CORP., a California corporation, WEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., a
California corporation and STEPHEN WILSON, an individual,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership, PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas limited
partnership, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on October 23, 2017, for an order granting their motion for
class certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1d5BXcC8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008

               - and -

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Daniel Mensher, Esq.
          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          David Cousineau, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227
          Telephone: (805) 564 2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5950

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Ling K. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556


POSTMATES INC: Hit with TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern Calofirnia Record, reports
that a Los Angeles County individual claims that a delivery
driving service company unlawfully sent him spam text messages.

Jonathan Payton filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Postmates Inc. and Does 1
through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from receiving several unwanted text messages from the
defendant in September 2016. The plaintiff states he was never a
customer of the defendant. The plaintiff holds Postmates Inc. and
Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
sent several spam messages to the plaintiff's cellular telephone
without his permission.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief and any other relief as the court deems
just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Meghan E. George and Adrian R. Bacon of
The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04551 [GN]


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Martin Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Martin, Sandra Lee Reyes-Troyer and Michael Yeo, three of the
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled In re PRETIUM RESOURCES INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13-cv-7552, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed
an appeal from a District Court memorandum & opinion dated June
13, 2017, and District Court judgment dated June 14, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as In re PRETIUM RESOURCES INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17-2135, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 20,
2017, Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed the case because the
Plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite scienter needed to plead
a claim of securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act.

Lead plaintiffs Gary Martin and Sandra Lee Reyes Troyer, and
Plaintiff Michael Yeo claim that the Defendants Pretium and three
individual Pretium officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's corresponding rule, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.  They are suing on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased common stock of Pretium between June 11,
2013 and Oct. 22, 2013, and retained such shares until after the
Class Period ended.  They allege that Pretium's stock price was
artificially inflated during that period as a result of material,
uncorrected misstatements, and that they were damaged as a result.

Aside from the Plaintiffs-Appellants, the other Plaintiffs are
Pretium Group, Randall Damgar, Dennis P. Sweeney, Martin Mayer,
Diana Garcia, and Petitioner Tim Kosowski, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

Aside from the Defendants-Appellees, the other Defendants are
Joseph J. Ovsenek, John Smith, Ross Mitchell, Tom S.Q. Yip and
Silver Standard Resources Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Yeo, Gary Martin and Sandra Lee
Reyes-Troyer are represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Robert Allan Quartermain, Kenneth C.
McNaughton, Pretium Resources Inc. and Peter Adrian Johan De
Visser are represented by:

          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0020
          E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com


PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: "Pfefferkorn" Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Erin Pfefferkorn, et al., the Plaintiff,
v. PrimeSource Health Group LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class
without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 12, 2017,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. The
Defendant's motion for leave to file answer, instanter is denied
as moot. Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint is granted.  The
Amended complaint shall be filed as a separate document on or
before July 14, 2017. Notice of voluntary dismissal is moot.
Motion hearing set for July 13, 2017 is stricken. Another status
hearing is set for July 20, 2017 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1725.

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


QUADRANT 4: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Quadrant 4 System Corporation (OTC: QFOR) securities between
August 14, 2012 and June 30, 2017 (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until September 4, 2017 to apply to the Court to be appointed
as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On November 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice announced
that it was charging then-current CEO Nandu Thondavadi over
actions related to the Company's SEC filings. Following this news,
on December 1, shares of QFOR fell $0.16, or over 84%, to close at
$0.03 per share. On June 30, 2017, the SEC announced further
charges against Thondavadi and the Company's CFO, Dhru Desai.
Following this news, shares of QFOR fell $0.008, or 40%, to close
at $0.012 per share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Defendants Thondavadi and Desai engaged in an
accounting fraud scheme that misled investors; (2) Defendants
Thondavadi and Desai stole more than $4 million from the Company;
(3) Defendants Thondavadi and Desai caused the Company to
understate its liabilities and inflate its revenues and assets and
evaded scrutiny by lying to the Company's auditors and providing
them with forged and doctored documents; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Quadrant 4 securities
during the Class Period and suffered a loss or continue to hold
shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Quadrant 4 System
Corporation lawsuit, please go to http://www.bespc.com/qfor.
[GN]


REAL TIME: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. REAL TIME
RESOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00957-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REMINGTON ARMS: AG Urges Appeals Court to Overturn CA Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Welsh, writing for Hudson Valley News Network, reports
looking to hold Remington responsible for the harm caused by the
defective triggers on many of its rifles, Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman announced that he is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit to overturn a class action settlement
arranged by the gun manufacturer. Attorney General Schneiderman is
part of a coalition of 14 Attorneys General urging the reversal.

As reported by 60 Minutes and CNBC, more than 7.5 million
Remington rifles are prone to accidentally fire without a trigger
pull, a defect that already has resulted in numerous deaths and
other serious bodily injuries. Despite these ongoing risks, under
the settlement, fewer than 25,000 (0.3%) of the defective guns are
expected to be repaired.

"The issue at hand here isn't a simple product defect -- it's a
fundamental flaw that has already claimed lives, and continues to
put families at risk," said Attorney General Schneiderman. "There
are as many as 7.5 million potentially defective rifles; yet under
this settlement, just 0.3% of them will be fixed. We urge the
court to reverse this settlement, and protect the lives of
families in New York and around the country."

In an amicus brief, the attorneys general criticize the settlement
with Remington because it unfairly terminates valuable legal
claims for the rifle owners while leaving consumers and the public
at ongoing risk of death or injury. Attorneys General have a
responsibility to protect consumer class members under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which specifically establishes a
role for Attorneys General in the approval process for class
action settlements.

Although Remington acknowledges that there is a simple replacement
for the defective triggers, as many as 7.5 million guns will
remain unrepaired because many owners were not given legally
required notice of the settlement. Even when notice was received,
owners were not properly warned of the serious and ongoing risk
that their guns can unexpectedly fire without a trigger pull.

Documents show that Remington has been aware of the defect for
decades and has declined to fix it, for reasons that include
potential exposure to personal injury liability and the cost of
alternative trigger designs. In the intervening time period, there
have been hundreds of reports of personal injuries, including
deaths, as well as of significant property damage.

The brief was led by Massachusetts and joined by attorneys general
from New York, California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington. In total, the Attorneys General
represent states where more than two million potential defective
rifles are present.

According to Public Justice's website:

-- The Remington Model 700 and a dozen other Remington rifles can
    fire -- and maim and kill people -- when no one pulls the
    trigger.

-- These rifles have killed or injured hundreds of people without
    any trigger pull.

-- Remington knew its trigger was defective for decades, but kept
    the documents proving that sealed.

-- Public Justice helped get the documents unsealed and is making
    them public.

-- In a proposed national class action settlement, Remington has
    now agreed to replace the triggers for free in these rifles --
    Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, and
    770 -- for any gun owner who files a claim.

-- All owners of these rifles should stop using them and file a
    claim to protect themselves, their family, friends and loved
    ones.

-- All owners of three other Remington rifles with these triggers
    -- Models 600, 660, and XP-100 -- should stop using them, get
    them repaired for free through Remington's 1979 recalls of
    Models 600 and 660 and Model XP-100 rifles, and consider
    filing a claim for the compensation the proposed settlement
    provides.

-- All owners of three other Remington rifles with these triggers
    -- Models 721, 722, and 725 -- should stop using them, unless
    you get the defective trigger fixed, and consider filing a
    claim for the compensation the proposed settlement provides.
    [GN]


ROYAL BANK: Instalment Warrants Buyers File AU$100MM Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for Daily Telegraph, reports all Rebecca
Dillon wanted was an investment property. Instead she ended up in
"unlisted rolling instalment warrants".

Now the PE teacher and as many as 250 other people are preparing
to go to trial against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in a class
action over combined losses of as much as AUD100 million.

Ms. Dillon followed her parents into the investment. Their
finances were devastated, while other relatives and friends were
totally "wiped out", she said.

"I want to set them free," Ms. Dillon, the lead applicant in the
case, said.

In 2007, financial planner Steve Navra told her she couldn't
afford an investment property and instead recommended she and her
husband borrow AUD200,000 against their western Sydney home plus
another AUD200,000 via a margin loan and put the money into
managed funds run by Mr. Navra.

Soon after they increased the margin loan by AUD105,000.

But then the Navra fund units plunged in value. To avoid a margin
call, Mr. Navra advised selling all the units, repaying the margin
loan and investing what remained in RBS warrants.

According to documents filed in the Federal Court, Mr. Navra
allegedly said the warrants offered a non-recourse loan,
"insurance against any downside" and would allow claimants to
"ride out the storm" of the GFC. They were "safer than banks" and
suitable.

The action claims the warrants were actually limited recourse
"with the claimants still . . . exposed to the loss of their
equity".

It is alleged RBS then replaced the initial warrants with a new
set containing a "stop loss feature . . . protecting itself
against further falls in the market and transferring that risk" to
the claimants.

Navra Financial Services (NFS) went into liquidation in 2011 and
he declared bankruptcy in 2012. The class action alleges NFS and
RBS were "linked credit providers" making them "jointly and
severally liable to the claimants for the amount of loss or damage
suffered as a result of the breaches of contract and
misrepresentations by NFS".

RBS is accused of breaching warranties covering "due care and
skill" and "fitness for purpose", as well as misleading and
deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.

In the defence RBS has filed it denies the allegations. It did not
respond to requests for comment on the case.

Ms. Dillon's lawyer Shine principal Vicky Antzoulatos said it had
130 clients who had lost a combined AUD50 million and there were
another 120 eligible to join the action. She urged people who
bought instalment warrants via Mr Navra to come forward.

"The majority of our clients are unsophisticated investors," Ms
Antzoulatos said. "Some of them had never invested in shares in
their entire lives. Some were retirees who put their lifesavings
into these products. They've lost the entirety."

Shine filed proceedings against RBS in 2014. The Federal Court
recently scheduled a four-week hearing starting in March next
year. [GN]


SALOV NORTH: Frank Appeals Ruling in "Kumar" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Theodore H. Frank filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Rohini Kumar, et al. v. Salov North America
Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-02411-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 19,
2017, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed with prejudice the
case pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Final Approval of
Class Settlement.

The appellate case is captioned as Rohini Kumar, et al. v. Salov
North America Corp., Case No. 17-16405, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 10, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 11, 2017;

   -- Appellant Theodore H. Frank's opening brief is due on
      October 19, 2017;

   -- Appellees Rohini Kumar and Salov North America Corp.'s
      answering brief is due on November 20, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:

          William Isaac Chamberlain, Esq.
          COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
          1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 331-2255
          E-mail: will.chamberlain@cei.org

Plaintiff-Appellee ROHINI KUMAR, an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee SALOV NORTH AMERICA CORP. is represented by:

          Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
          Mark E. Haddad, Esq.
          Nitin Reddy, Esq.
          Collin Partington Wedel, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6010
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
                  mhaddad@sidley.com
                  nreddy@sidley.com
                  cwedel@sidley.com


SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Beckett Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BECKETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMARITAN VILLAGE, INC. d/h/a
SAMARITAN DAYTOP VILLAGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
704110/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 12, 2017), seeks to recover
award for unpaid straight or agreed upon wages, unpaid overtime,
and pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; damages for
each workday that Defendant failed to provide accurate wage
statement; award of declaratory and injunctive relief as the Court
deems necessary and proper to prevent against future violations of
New York Labor Law; award for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on
behalf of two subclasses of current and former employees employed
by Samaritan Village, Inc. who were not paid for work done during
meal breaks and before the start of their shift.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and
continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices
including requiring Housing Specialists to perform work without
compensation during meal breaks; requiring Housing Specialists to
perform work without compensation before the start of their shift;
requiring Housing Specialists to perform work without compensation
from home and on days off; failing to pay Housing Specialists at
their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40
hours in a week; failing to pay Housing Specialists overtime of
time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a week; and failing to provide accurate wage
statements.

Samaritan Village operates an independent, residential, and
assisted living retirement community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Ste. 410
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 247 0404


SATELLITE UNLIMITED: Overtime Pay Sought in "Dorman" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Dorman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Satellite Unlimited LLC, an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02163 (N.D. Miss., June
23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant provides in-home entertainment and communication
services throughout the Southeast for DISH subscribers where
Plaintiff worked as satellite technician assigned to the
Greenwood, Mississippi area. He claims to be denied overtime pay
and worked through meal/rest periods. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
      4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
      Jackson, MS 39211
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      Email: cespy@forthepeople.com


SCRIPPS RANCH: Class Action Mulled Over Botched AP Tests
--------------------------------------------------------
Jared Aarons, writing for KGTV, reports that some parents of
students at Scripps Ranch High School may file lawsuits over
botched AP Tests at the school.

The San Diego Unified School District says almost 900 tests were
administered improperly, and the College Board invalidated their
scores.  That means about 500 students will have to retake the
tests to get credit for them.

"It's demoralizing," said Keren Stashower, whose son Noah will
have to retake his AP psychology test.

"People need to step up and take responsibility for their
mistakes," she told 10News, "not leave this up to the kids to put
the energy into it."

In an email to 10News, several parents said they might file an
injunction against the College Board to let the original test
scores stand until an investigation is completed.  They're also
discussing a class-action lawsuit.

One parent, who asked to remain anonymous, wrote of the monetary
aspect, saying: "My daughter has to retake the AP English test . .
.  the college she hopes to attend would have accepted it in place
of her taking an English Class.  At about $1,300 per credit,
that's real money."

The school district says students taking the tests were sitting
too close together and partitions were put in between them. Both
of those things are against AP testing rules.  While the College
Board found no evidence of cheating, they still decided to
invalidate the tests.

Parents feel it punishes the students for the school's mistake,
and they also claim that the school knew the set up violated the
rules.

One parent told 10News that the school had complained to the
district for years about compliance issues, but SD Unified did
nothing to solve it.

The parents were set to bring up these claims at a meeting at
Marshall Middle School at 6:00 p.m. on July 5. [GN]


SEMACONNECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned E & G, INC., the Plaintiff, v.
SEMACONNECT INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02774
(S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Johnston entered an order
withdrawing a "Placeholder" Motion for class certification.

The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

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


SINOVAC BIOTECH: Faces "Wu" Suit in New York Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sinovac Biotech Ltd.
The case is captioned as HAOQUAN WU, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEIDONG YIN,
SIMON ANDERSON, YUK LAM LO, KENNETH LEE, MENG MEI, SINOVAC BIOTECH
LTD., SINOVAC (CAYMAN) LIMITED and SINOVAC AMALGAMATION SUB
LIMITED, the Defendant, Case No. 654745/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
12, 2017).

Sinovac is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
research, development, manufacture and commercialization of
vaccines that protect against human infectious diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493 9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280 7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


SINOVAC BIOTECH: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on July 5 disclosed that a
securities class action lawsuit against Sinovac Biotech Ltd.
("Sinovac" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: SVA).  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between April 30, 2013 and
May 16, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), should contact the
firm in advance of the September 1, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

If you purchased Sinovac shares during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may also choose to take no action and remain a passive class
member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Sinovac
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Weidong Yin bribed a
member of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration to assist
Sinovac's vaccine clinical trial and approval; that such conduct
would subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny; thus,
Sinovac's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.  When this information reached the public,
shares of Sinovac declined in value materially, which caused
investors harm according to the Complaint.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, Esquire, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone at (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com. [GN]


SKY CHEFS: Polsinelli Discusses FCRA Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian K. Morris, Esq. -- bmorris@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli
PC, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the
Northern District of Texas weighed in on the proper application of
Article III standing requirements in light of the Supreme Court's
2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016),
and delivered a win to employers in Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) cases.

In Dyson v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2017 WL 2618946 (N.D. Tex. June 16,
2017), the court held that the plaintiff in a putative class
action who alleged the improper inclusion of "extraneous"
information in a FCRA disclosure, lacked Article III standing.
The employer's document did not "consist solely of the disclosure"
because it contained: (a) an "ongoing authorization" clause; (2)
state and municipal law notices; (3) a summary of rights; and (4)
a legal disclaimer.  While the employer's disclosure was not a
standalone document (as required by the statute) it provided the
plaintiff with all of the statutorily-required information.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, contending that the
inclusion of extraneous information was a procedural rather than a
substantive violation and thus did not constitute injury in fact.
The court agreed, concluding that the plaintiff did not allege a
concrete informational or privacy-based injury.

In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the
substantive right to information from the procedural right to
receive it in a specified format, and made clear that the
allegations in Dyson fell squarely in the latter box:

"Plaintiff does not allege that he did not receive a disclosure or
that he failed to understand it, he just attacks the fact that it
wasn't on its own sheet of paper.  Where . . . plaintiffs do not
allege that they did not see the disclosure, or were distracted
from it, the allegations amount to no more than a bare procedural
violation of the stand-alone requirement. . . . Plaintiff's
allegations therefore do not confer standing on an informational
injury theory."

Id. at *7 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The court also rejected the contention that the employer obtained
the background check with "no legal right to do so" and thus
caused a privacy-based injury.  Embracing the principle that
violating the standalone disclosure requirement necessarily
renders the background check unauthorized would "negate the entire
procedural/substantive distinction" articulated in Spokeo.

According to the court, the existence of a privacy and
informational injury in a FCRA case turns on the same central
question: whether the plaintiff received the requisite information
(even if provided in an improper format) prior to knowingly
authorizing the background check.  Because the plaintiff signed
the authorization and did not claim ignorance regarding its
content or import, he did not allege an invasion of privacy.

What This Means For Employers
Courts throughout the country continue to wrestle with the impact
of the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo and are reaching
divergent conclusions.  Indeed, the Dyson court explicitly
declined to follow a recent contrary decision from a Virginia
federal court.  Because of the unsettled nature of the law and the
proliferation of high-dollar FCRA class actions predicated on
highly-technical statutory violations, employers should evaluate
their FCRA compliance by:

   -- Updating FCRA documents, including disclosures,
authorizations, and state and locality-specific notices.

   -- Training managers and human resources professionals
regarding background check processes such as how to present
information to applicants and employees (e.g., disclosures,
authorizations, etc.) and providing appropriate notices when
taking an adverse action based on information obtained in a
background check. [GN]


SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Scott Cole & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide putative class action was filed on July 5, 2017 by
Scott Cole & Associates, APC and Wakeford Gelini against alcohol
distribution giant Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits.  The action
brings numerous claims of fraud, unfair competition and violations
of state and federal laws significantly impacting the liquor
industry.  If successful, the case could substantially compensate
victims going back years.

"Southern's clients trusted they'd be treated right -- not charged
for liquor they never bought, not forced to buy what they didn't
need.  The sheer number of potential violations is jaw-dropping,"
reports Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- the lead lawyer
on the case.  "It's time for the company to answer for these
charges and make this right."  That's what the Plaintiffs' lawyers
seek to achieve and, according to the company's admissions, it has
the ability to comply.  Southern Glazer's is the largest liquor
distributor in the nation, having done business for many years in
almost every state.  "Particularly as an industry leader, Southern
is bound to act responsibly toward its clients.  I am astounded by
the scope of the allegations," says Kelley Gelini, another
principal attorney on the case.

The lawsuit is entitled Nguyen, et al. v. Southern Glazer's Wine
and Spirits, LLC, et al. (U.S.D.C., Northern District Case # 5:17-
cv-03805-HRL).

Scott Cole & Associates, APC has served for 25 years as one of
California's premiere class action law firms, dedicating itself to
large scale consumer and workers' rights litigation.  For more
information about its practice and cases, visit it at
www.scalaw.com, by email at info@scalaw.com, or by calling (510)
891-9800. Wakeford Gelini is a civil litigation law firm with
offices in San Francisco and Marin County, California.  Wakeford
Gelini can be reached at (415) 578-3510 or on-line at
www.wakefordlaw.com. [GN]


SUMMONS PIZZA: "Mizquiri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Mizquiri and Brigido Galvez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Summons Pizza By Certe, LLC
d/b/a Pizza By Certe, Goldlyn LLC d/b/a Certe, and Edward Sylvia,
Case No. 155885/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), seeks to
recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
illegally retained tips, unpaid compensation due to off the clock
work, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Pizza By Certe restaurant at 132
East 56th Street, New York, New York 10022. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


TAHOE RESOURCES: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Tahoe Resources Inc. concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between March 12,
2015 and July 5, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the September 5, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Tahoe
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that consultation obligations relating to the permitting of the
Escobal mining license were not met; that the Escobal mining
license is subject to suspension; and that as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. On July 5, 2017, Tahoe disclosed that the
Supreme Court of Guatemala issued a provisional decision
suspending the Escobal mining license of its subsidiary Minera San
Rafael, in connection with an action brought by CALAS against
Guatemala's Ministry of Energy and Mines ("MEM"). CALAS alleges
that MEM violated the Xinca Indigenous people's right of
consultation in advance of granting the Escobal mining license.
When this information was released, shares of Tahoe fell in value
materially, which caused investors harm according to the
Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.
[GN]

         Brian Lundin, Esq.
         Lundin Law PC
         Telephone: 888-713-1033
         Facsimile: 888-713-1125
         E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com


TAILORMADE EXECUTIVE: "Edwards" Alleges Verbal Abuse, Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Edwards, Kiara Mosley, Zachary Ortiz, Adam Kerns, Cathie
Patrick, Candace Stone and Mary Grace Howard, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated to themselves, Plaintiffs, v.
Tailormade Executive, LLC and James Larson, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02355 (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2017), seeks out-of-pocket
losses as well as back pay in an amount equal to the sum of wages,
salary, employment benefits and other compensation denied together
with interest thereon, statutory damages and penalties,
compensation for mental and emotional damages, liquidated and
punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and all other fees
and costs associated with this action, prejudgment interest and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were classified as exempt from overtime, even though
their primary duties were performing clerical and administrative
tasks. They claim to be subjected to verbal abuse, often with
racist remarks. Edwards and Howard, in particular, were sexually
harassed.  Ms. Mosley, an African-American, asserts claims of
racial discrimination and retaliation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, tax fraud, and minimum wage and overtime
violations.

Plaintiffs were eventually terminated for airing out their
complaints.

TailorMade is engaged in the business of leadership coaching. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. McCabe, Esq.
      THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
      3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Office: (404) 250-3233
      Fax: (404) 400-1724
      Email: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Stay Lifted in Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Jordan Larimore, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that the
stay that had halted a class-action lawsuit against TAMKO Building
Products in Jasper County Circuit Court was officially lifted on
July 6. The step was a procedural one but now formally allows the
suit to move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May denied a petition for certiorari by
the Joplin company, deferring to findings in the Jasper County
Circuit Court and Missouri's Southern District Court of Appeals
that the suit can be filed against the company. TAMKO had
contended that the plaintiffs, Lee Hobbs, of Elk Creek, and
Jonesburg United Methodist Church, agreed that any customer
complaints would be resolved through private arbitration because
of an agreement printed on the packaging of TAMKO shingles both
parties purchased.

The stay in circuit court, ordered by Judge Gayle Crane in
November 2016, was pending the outcome of TAMKO's petition, of
which the Supreme Court notified the Circuit Court on June 1. The
stay had not formally been lifted, though, until this week.

Deputy Circuit Clerk Lori Shellenbarger said the attorneys for
each party will determine what happens next in the case. Crane
will not issue orders or schedule hearings without filings first
being made by either side's attorneys, she said.

"Once the attorneys file whatever they need to file, then we'll
proceed," Shellenbarger said.

As of July 7 afternoon, neither party's attorney had made recent
filings requesting hearings or other motions.

Attempts to reach those attorneys on July 7 were not successful.
Repeated messages left with two of the attorneys representing
Hobbs and Jonesburg, Eric Holland, Esq. -- ehooland@allfela.com --
and Seth Crompton, Esq. -- scrompton@allfela.com -- of Holland Law
Firm in St. Louis, have gone unanswered. Royce Deryl Edwards, Esq.
-- dmedwards@liberty.edu -- of Liberty School of Law, an attorney
representing TAMKO, also could not be reached on July 7.

Representatives of TAMKO also did not return messages seeking
comment sent on July 7. Attempts to reach Hobbs directly were also
not successful.

After the Supreme Court's denial of TAMKO's petition, president
and CEO David Humphreys indicated he may seek to move the company
out of Missouri, saying in a statement that TAMKO "will need to
reconsider our presence in Missouri versus other states where the
rule of law outweighs the rule of trial lawyers."

The company has not responded to repeated requests for
clarification on Humphreys' plans regarding TAMKO's future in the
state.

The suit, filed in 2014, alleged TAMKO sold defective shingles
that failed before their guaranteed 30-year warranty. The
shingles, the suit said, began "warping, curling and beginning to
fail," which then allegedly led to structural problems at the
church and Hobbs' house by allowing moisture to penetrate the
roof.

In addition to contending the arbitration agreement required
disputes to be resolved privately, TAMKO said the shingles became
damaged because of normal weather damage and improper
installation.

The warranty included an arbitration provision that read,
"Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Every claim, controversy, or
dispute of any kind whatsoever including whether any particular
matter is subject to arbitration . . . between you and
TAMKO . . . relating to or arising out of the shingles or this
limited warranty shall be resolved by final and binding
arbitration, regardless of whether the action sounds in warranty,
contract, statute or any other legal or equitable theory."

The suit had been on hold for more than a year while the question
of whether it could even be brought was examined in courts. Both
the Jasper County Circuit Court in 2014 and Missouri's Southern
District Court of Appeals in 2016 disagreed with TAMKO's
contention, and July 3's Supreme Court denial means the suit's
issues can now be addressed in Jasper County Circuit Court.

TAMKO was founded in Joplin in 1944. The company has operations on
High Street and Range Line Road, and its headquarters at 220 W.
Fourth St. In 2014, it also purchased the Commerce Bank Corporate
Center at 211 S. Main St. to be remodeled for TAMKO use. The
company has a plant in Lamar, as well as plants and operations in
10 other states, and it operates in all 50 states. [GN]


TARRANT COUNTY: "Cobb" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Brandon Cobb, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Tarrant County Tools, Inc. and Aldo G.
Rayos, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00517, (N.D. Tex., June 23,
2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants provides fracking and other oilfield services related
to natural gas production where Cobb worked as an operator. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Trial Begins in Fukushima Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nature reports that three former executives of the energy company
that runs the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan have
pleaded not guilty to criminal charges related to the facility's
2011 meltdown.  The former chairman and two ex-vice-presidents of
the Tokyo Electric Power Company, whose trial began on June 30,
are accused of failing to take action to prevent the nuclear
disaster, which was triggered by a tsunami.  The case is the first
to allege that the company could have prevented the accident; it
blames the trio for the death of some 40 critically ill patients
who were at a local hospital at the time but died after being
evacuated.  The class-action group bringing the charges points to
previous reports showing that a large earthquake was expected that
could cause damage to the plant's reactors.  The executives argue
that they could not have anticipated such damage. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Challenge Class Action Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a driver who
launched a proposed class action alleging Uber breached its
contract with drivers by stiffing them on fares with its so-called
upfront pricing model urged a California federal judge on July 3
to reject the ride-hailing giant's bid to toss the suit, saying
the agreement at issue is unambiguous.

Plaintiff Martin Dulberg filed a brief opposing Uber Technologies
Inc.'s recent motion to dismiss his suit alleging that drivers
have been shortchanged on fares -- a percentage of which they're
promised in their driver agreements with the company -- after Uber
switched to a so-called upfront pricing model in the fall of 2016.

Mr. Dulberg said he and Uber are currently bound by the company's
Dec. 11, 2015, technology services agreement, and he insists the
language of that agreement backs up his allegations that Uber took
a bigger cut of passenger fares than it said it would in the
agreement, according to Mr.  Dulberg's brief.

"Even if the [technology services agreement] allowed Uber to
charge passengers an upfront fare and that upfront fare could be
different from and higher than the fare determined by the fare
calculation (i.e., the only fare in the TSA, the fare that
Mr. Dulberg charges and the fare on which Uber's service fee is
based), Uber has still breached the TSA because Uber may deduct
only its service fee -- 20 percent 'of the fare determined by the
fare calculation' -- before remitting the remainder of the upfront
fare to Mr. Dulberg," the opposition brief said.

Under the upfront pricing model, the ride-hailing giant charges
passengers a fare before their ride even begins, but Uber bases
that fare on an aggressive and often inflated projection of the
distance and time involved in a particular ride, Mr. Dulberg
alleged.  The driver is entitled to a set percentage of the fare
as laid out in the driver agreements, but Uber pays based on a
calculation of the distance and time actually driven, which can
often be less than what the customer actually paid, allowing Uber
to pocket the difference, according to Mr. Dulberg's complaint.

Uber moved for dismissal in June, telling U.S. District Judge
William Alsup that Mr. Dulberg has misread the agreement and
doesn't even have a valid case.

"Plaintiff's claims rest on a misreading of the agreement," Uber
said in its motion to dismiss.  "The contract itself is before
this court, and its written terms provide no support for
plaintiff's contentions. Adopting plaintiff's interpretation would
alter the bargain that the parties actually made."

Uber insisted that Mr. Dulberg's suit should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim because his breach of contract
allegations don't even square with the actual provisions in his
contract, according to the motion to dismiss.

"Contrary to the mischaracterization of the agreement set forth in
the complaint, the agreement itself does not base driver payments
on 'whatever money passengers pay' or get 'charged' (whether
'upfront' or at the 'end of the ride')," Uber says.  "Plaintiff's
contention -- that the 'fare' assessed to riders, or paid by
riders (whether upfront or otherwise), constitutes the 'fare' owed
to drivers -- is irreconcilable with the contract's actual terms."

Uber also said its statement about upfront pricing is a
promotional statement addressed to riders who use the service, not
to drivers.  Furthermore, it does not discuss what portion of the
upfront price will be paid to drivers, and it describes some
components for calculating the upfront price or "fare" that differ
from the fare calculation that produces the fare found in the
agreement.

Mr. Dulberg, a Raleigh, North Carolina, resident who has been an
UberX driver since May 2014 and an Uber Select driver since
February 2015 launched the proposed class action in February,
claiming Uber drivers are promised that they will be able to
retain 80 percent of the fare charged to passengers for UberX
rides, but in fact, retain a smaller percentage of the fare.

"Defendants, by charging a greater fare to riders than the
calculation used to determine payment to drivers, have deprived
plaintiff and the class members of the full benefits they are
entitled to under the parties' agreements," Mr. Dulberg alleged in
the complaint.

Mr. Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo and Andrew Dressel of
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

Uber is represented by Jonathan R. Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com --
Susan K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford E. Yin --
cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- and Sean P.J. Coyle --
scoyle@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.

The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 3:17-
cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]


ULTA SALON: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Ulta Salon employee has filed a class action over
allegations that she was injured because she was not provided
accurate wage statements.

Elizabeth Wise filed a complaint on June 23 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California against Ulta Salon,
Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and Does 1-100 citing state labor
codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was hired by Ulta in
September 2015 at its Modesto location to work as a hair stylist.
The plaintiff holds Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and
Does 1-100 responsible because the defendants allegedly improperly
calculated her overtime wage rate, failed to provide paid rest
periods and other counts.

The plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; injunctive relief, liquidated damages; all legal fees,
interest; and any other relief as the court deems just.  She is
represented by Robert J. Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com --
William J. Gorham -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Nicholas J. Scardigli
-- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- and John P Briscoe of Mayall Hurley
P.C. in Stockton.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California case
number 1:17-at-00493
[GN]


UNITED STATES: AGs Sue Over Delay of For-Profit College Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shackner, writing for Pittsburg Post Gazette, reports that
attorneys general from Pennsylvania, 17 other states and the
District of Columbia are suing U.S. Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos and the U.S. Department of Education over a decision to
forestall federal relief that was to take effect July 1 to protect
college students from abusive loan practices.

The Borrower Defense Rule, finalized last fall after the collapse
of for-profit giant Corinthian Colleges, was intended to make
institutions accountable for cheating students and taxpayers out
of billions of dollars in federal loans. The lawsuit, filed on
July 6 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., objects to the
department's decision to delay the enhanced protections.

"Rolling back student loan protections harms Pennsylvania college
students and their families," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh
Shapiro said in announcing he was taking part in the litigation.

"With a rising number of students burdened by college loan debt or
in default, this is exactly the wrong time for the Department of
Education to abdicate its responsibility to protect students from
deceptive practices by these for-profit schools," Mr. Shapiro
said. "If Secretary DeVos and her department won't protect our
college students, I will."

Pennsylvania's announcement noted that the commonwealth has more
than 200 colleges and universities and trade schools, and about
100 other for-profit educational institutions. The AG's office
pointed out as well that Pennsylvania's college graduates carry
the third-highest average debt in the nation, $34,798.

In response to the lawsuit, agency spokeswoman Elizabeth "Liz"
Hill issued a statement that read in part:

"With this ideologically driven suit, the state attorneys general
are saying to regulate first, and ask the legal questions later .
. .

"The borrower-defense regulations suffer from substantive and
procedural flaws that need to be considered before imposing new
burdens on regulated parties that will come at a cost to taxpayers
of $14.9 billion in the next 10 years.''

According to Mr. Shapiro, the suit is over borrower protections
against improper practices by schools and colleges, including for-
profit ones, and also would aid in enforcing state consumer
protection laws.

The rule would allow student borrowers to be forgiven debt "if
they were victims of deceptive practices by their school or
college, such as misrepresenting job placement rates at the school
or other abusive practices," the AG's office said.

Ms.DeVos said earlier this year that the agency would rethink the
Borrower Defense Rule and would delay portions of it, according to
the AG's office. The AG said she was doing so "without soliciting
or receiving any comment from stakeholders or members of the
public."

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the department's delay
unlawful and order the department to implement the Borrower
Defense Rule.

Along with Mr. Shapiro, the other attorneys general joining the
lawsuit include those from Massachusetts, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington,
Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Hearing Set in Class Action Against UIA
------------------------------------------------------
Darren Cunningham, writing for FOX 17, reports that a court
hearing was scheduled for July 7 in Detroit for a class-action
lawsuit against the Unemployment Insurance Agency.  Three judges
in the Court of Appeals were tasked with deciding whether the case
moves forward. Regardless of the outcome, it may head to the state
supreme court.

The case is Bauserman v. UIA, and it was filed in September 2015.
It seeks compensation for damages for the tens of thousands of
people wrongly accused of unemployment fraud by the MiDAS computer
system.  The state seized millions of dollars in the process.

Jennifer Lord with Pitt McGehee Law Firm is representing the
plaintiffs in this case.  The Michigan Attorney General's Office
tried to get the case dismissed based on 'governmental immunity'.
That term means the state cannot be sued.

However, in March 2016, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens
denied that motion and ruled the case must move forward.  So the
AG's office appealed her decision to the Court of Appeals.  Both
sides were set to argue their positions on Friday, July 7.

Ms. Lord said, "We'll be responding forcefully with our claim that
this is a constitutional violation that deprived many workers of
their money, of their good credit ratings, forced them into
bankruptcies, and we're looking forward to the opportunity to
address the Court of Appeals."

When reached for comment, the AG's office directed FOX 17 to the
UIA which stated it would be inappropriate to comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Key Hearing Held in Iraqi Immigrants Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Garagiola and Derick Hutchinson, writing for ClickonDetroit,
report that with the fate of more than 100 Iraqi immigrants
hanging in the balance, a key hearing was held on
July 5 in federal court.

A stay was ordered on the deportation of Iraqis rounded up around
the country, but the 14-day period is running out.  Both sides
returned to court on July 5 to argue over jurisdiction in the
case.

"The substantial allegations made here are the detainees face
extreme, grave consequences (such as) death, persecution and
torture," U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith said.  "Such harm far
outweighs any government interest the government may have in
proceeding with the removals immediately."

Plaintiffs asked the judge to extend the stay of the deportation
order while the question of jurisdiction is settled. The
plaintiffs want the case heard in federal court as a class-action
lawsuit.

If the case goes to immigration court, no class action is allowed.

The judge could extend the stay an additional two weeks or longer
while the first legal question is solved.

Family members said those who were detained came to the U.S.
legally.  Some of them are married to U.S. citizens and have
American-born children. Many of them, however, have prior
convictions.  Under President Trump's immigration policy, the
country is cracking down on these immigrants and deporting them.

Hundreds of immigrants were arrested during the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement roundup. They were taken to a detention center
in Youngstown, Ohio, where they will remain during the 14-day
period.

"As a result of recent negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq,
Iraq has recently agreed to accept a number of Iraqi nationals
subject to orders of removal," ICE said in a July 3 statement.
"As part of ICE's efforts to process the backlog of these
individuals, the agency recently arrested a number of Iraqi
nationals, all of whom had criminal convictions for crimes
including homicide, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping,
burglary, drug trafficking, robbery, sex assault, weapons
violations and other offenses.

"Each of these individuals received full and fair immigration
proceedings, after which a federal immigration judge found them
ineligible for any form of relief under U.S. law and ordered them
removed."

In some cases, people were approached at their homes.  Families
recorded their loved ones being taken away in cuffs.  Many are
Chaldean and immigrated to the U.S. from Iraq.

"There's a reason why we fled our country," said Zeinab Al-Badry,
whose husband was also detained.  "It's not to have fun in
America, but to be safe."

"If you go to Iraq and pass by ISIS, they are going to get
killed," said Junior Seiba, whose cousin was detained. [GN]


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled OPAL MILLMAN, ERIC POWELL, and LAURY
POWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR
CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United
Technologies Automotive, Inc., ANDREWS DAIRY STORE, INC., and L.D.
WILLIAMS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00312-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order certifying this case as
a class action, appoint the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives,
and appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs propose that the Class be defined as:

   "all persons who have owned, rented, or resided at property
   within the Class Area at any time between 1983 and July 18,
   2016".

The Plaintiffs propose that the Petroleum Subclass be defined as
follows:

   "all persons who have owned, rented, or resided at property
   within the Petroleum Subclass Area at any time between 1993
   and July 18, 2016".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tLp2vWkF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Barnard, Esq.
          Rodney L. Michael, Esq.
          Tammara D. Porter, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Wolowski, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS &HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713 3500
          Facsimile: (317) 713 369


UNITED POTATO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Potato Cartel
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSUN Today reports that U.S. potato-grower cooperatives in the
early 2000s deployed drones and scanned satellite images as they
colluded to reduce the amount of potatoes grown across the country
in an effort to increase their profits, according to a report by
California State University, Northridge business law professor
Melanie Stallings Williams.

The cooperatives' plot meant Americans paid more for their french
fries, while cooks of every stripe -- from those at home to those
in high-end restaurants and even manufacturers -- paid up to 49
percent more for a staple of the American diet.

"If you had a potato in the last decade or so, then you paid
significantly more because of widespread collusion in the potato
industry," Ms. Williams said.  "Every time you went to McDonald's,
every time you had something that had potato starch added to it,
you paid more."

Ms. Williams and her colleagues -- Michael A. Williams, director
of Competition Economics, a legal research and consulting firm,
and Wei Zhao, a consultant with Competition Economics -- published
their findings in a report titled "The OPEC of Potatoes: Should
Collusive Agricultural Production Restrictions Be Immune from
Antitrust Law Enforcement?" in the winter 2017 edition of Virginia
Law & Business Review.

Their report is the result of an investigation of American potato
farmers as part of an antitrust, class-action lawsuit brought by
potato buyers against the United Potato Growers of America (UPGA)
and the United Potato Growers of Idaho (UPGI), collectives of
farmers and agricultural cooperatives that agreed to reduce the
output of potatoes.  Though the collectives settled the lawsuit in
2015 before it went to court, a look into collectives' practices
provided Williams and her colleagues evidence of how the UPGA,
within one year of its formation in 2005, controlled more than 60
percent of the nation's fresh potato-growing acreage, reduced the
amount of potatoes grown and increased the open-market prices for
the vegetable by 48.5 percent. By 2007, UPGA had reduced potato-
growing acreage by 20 percent from its 2004 levels.

As a result, Ms. Williams and her colleagues concluded, the
production caps "significantly increased the cost to buyers, with
an average nationwide overcharge of 30 percent for fresh potatoes
and 48.7 percent for Russet potatoes at the point of shipping, and
24.4 percent for fresh potatoes and 36.5 percent for Russet
potatoes at the wholesale level. The social welfare costs are thus
substantial.

"Potatoes are the leading vegetable crop in the United States,"
Williams said, "and are a staple in every household in America.
Even those who don't eat potatoes on a regular basis may be
surprised to learn how often potato starch is used in everyday
items that we consume, as a supplement or a filler. That means
every one of us was impacted."

In 2005, America's potato farmers, buffeted by market volatility
and high supply, banded together to form the UPGA.  The Capper-
Volstead Act, a pre-Depression era statute, allows farmers to
cooperate in marketing their goods as a way to counter the clout
of industrial agricultural behemoths.  Some people, Ms. Williams
noted, have interpreted the act to mean that farmers can avoid
antitrust laws.  Others contend otherwise and have filed class-
action suits, which is what happened in the recent case involving
the UPGA and UPGI, she said.

The UPGA hosted conferences to monitor and set minimum prices for
potatoes.  To ensure compliance, the organization conducted on-
site inspections, deployed drones, scanned satellite imagery and
did surprise audits. Violators were subject to a $100-per-acre
fine. Anyone who was not part of the association was pressured to
comply with its rules.

"They called those farmers who didn't comply 'cheaters,' and
monitored what they did with flyovers, crop inspections and
financial penalties," Ms. Williams said.  "By 2010, one
cooperative reported that they had cut potato growing acreage by
38 percent."

In 2008, the UPGA's chairman said the goal was "to take potatoes
to market in an orderly manner so that farmers make a profit," and
he noted that the organization has reduced potato acreage by 20
percent in just three years.  The goal, according to documents
Williams and her colleagues examined, was "a steady, planned and
coordinated lifting of market prices across the country."

Ms. Williams said the cooperatives' leaders celebrated the higher
prices, with one member observing, "growers who've historically
competed with each other are now communicating and coordinating
supplies for the betterment of the industry as a whole."

Reporters with the Wall Street Journal did not question the
legality of the UPGA's actions, and, in a 2006 article, even
noting that one farmer destroyed part of his potato crop to keep
prices high.  The reporter went on to observe that the UPGA
"aspires to be to potatoes what OPEC is to oil by carefully
managing supply to keep demand high and constant."

But, Ms. Williams pointed out, no court has held that agricultural
cooperatives that restrict output are exempt from antitrust law
enforcement.  While four class-action lawsuits have been filed in
recent years against agricultural cooperatives -- against milk,
egg product, mushroom and potato producers -- none of the
proceedings have yet to reach a verdict.

"The potatoes case settled, but more cases are pending, with
class-action lawsuits against the milk, egg and mushroom
industries," Ms. Williams said.  "However, because of the expense,
uncertainty of the verdict and potentially high awards, cases like
these tend to settle.  But while the legality of agricultural
cartels is uncertain, what is indisputable is that such behavior
raises prices -- a lot."

Ms. Williams said UPGA officials justified their efforts as
"marketing," which is allowed under the Capper-Volstead Act.

"But marketing does not traditionally include production
restrictions, because those hurt consumers by raising prices and
reducing incentives for innovation," she said.

Ms. Williams said small farmers have used cooperatives for decades
to reduce costs by sharing processing plants and to be more
economically efficient in their marketing. She cited the example
of Sunkist.

"There is no single farm called Sunkist, it's a cooperative of
orange growers who share processing, distribution and advertising.
That's what the (Capper-Volstead Act) is designed to do," she
said.  "The fact is the law, in this instance, was not used to
help in the production of potatoes.  The potato cartels weren't
working together to distribute potatoes, they were working
together to limit the supply and manipulate prices." [GN]


VIRGINIA: Dept. of Corrections Faces Federal Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBC29 reports that the Virginia Department of Corrections is
facing a federal class action lawsuit.

Nexus Services claims Augusta Correctional Center denied medical
care to an inmate who was diagnosed with Hepatitis C.

Documents filed in court say that the Department violates inmates'
Eighth Amendment Constitutional Rights by withholding medical
care.

Doctors diagnosed Terry Rigglemen in 2005 while incarcerated at
Lawrenceville Correctional Center. Mr. Rigglemen is now serving
time at Augusta Correctional Center and has had requests denied
for medical care on the grounds that his enzyme levels were not
elevated enough.

Nexus is partnering with a group named Americans Resisting
Minority and Ethnic Discrimination, known as ARMED, to take this
case to court. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Tycko & Zavareei Files Overdraft Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Wells Fargo customer filed a class action lawsuit on June 30 in
the Northern District of California alleging that Wells Fargo's
practice of charging overdraft fees on one-time debit card
transactions violates its contracts with accountholders and
consumer protection law.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo promises its customers who
did not opt into the Debit Card Overdraft Service that it will not
charge them overdraft fees for non-recurring, every day
transactions, like transactions with Uber and Lyft.  However,
Wells Fargo does charge such fees on certain one-time debit card
transactions like these that it knows or should know are not
recurring.

Plaintiff Angelo Clamor was charged an overdraft fee on a Lyft
ride sharing transaction, and seeks to represent all individuals
who, like him, were charged overdraft fees on one-time debit card
transactions of Lyft, Uber, or other one-time transactions.

Jefferey Kaliel, a partner with Tycko & Zavareei, commented that
"the bank's contract and consumer protection law prohibited Wells
Fargo from charging overdraft fees on one-time transactions like
Lyft or Uber transactions, but the bank did it anyway in order to
maximize its fee revenue."

Tycko & Zavareei LLP of Washington, DC and Oakland, CA are
representing Clamor, and urge consumers who have been impacted by
overdraft fees on one-time transactions, such as those with Lyft
or Uber, to learn more about their legal rights.  For additional
inquiries, please contact Jeffrey Kaliel at jkaliel@tzlegal.com.

                   About Tycko & Zavareei

Tycko & Zavareei LLP, based in Washington, D.C. with offices in
Oakland, California, has a long and successful record of
litigating complex cases.  The firm routinely handle large and
complex matters throughout the country, advocating on behalf of
individuals fighting for their civil rights, consumers seeking
redress for unfair business practices, whistleblowers exposing
fraud and corruption, and non-profit entities and businesses
facing difficult litigation. [GN]


WESTERN EDGE: Court Approval of Opt-In Notice Sought in "Hamman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SKYLAR HAMMAN, STEWART MCGEE, and STEVE
RODGERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN EDGE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, MARK
TUCKER, and CINDY TUCKER, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00092
(S.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court for approval of a form of
opt-in notice to be sent to potential class members, as well as
establishing other procedures and requirements for the issuance of
notice to the class.

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and involves
a class of construction workers employed by the Defendants who
contend that they were not paid overtime for hours that they
worked in excess of forty hours per week.

The parties have stipulated that the case should be conditionally
certified as a collective action, and have agreed to submit the
motion to obtain formal court approval to send notice to
potentially-affected class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=viN7ZtRo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Golub, Esq.
          DOW GOLUB REMELS & GILBREATH, PLLC
          E-mail: asgolub@dowgolub.com
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1750
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 526 3700
          Facsimile: (713) 526 3750

The Defendant is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040

               - and -

          Breanna Trombley, Esq.
          NEWLAND & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 221 9393
          Facsimile: (501) 221 7058
          E-mail: btrombley@newlandassociatespllc.com


WESTERN-SHAMROCK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magge Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Western-Shamrock Corporation, Case No. 7:17-cv-00246
(S.D. Tex., June 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Western-Shamrock Corporation operates a consumer finance and
installment loan lending business in San Angelo, Tom Green County,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      Michael M. Guerra, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com
              mike@mmguerra.com


XACTLY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Vista Equity Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that on June 30, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District court against Xactly
Corp., its directors, excalibur parent among others

The lawsuit alleges that the merger with Vista Equity offers
inadequate consideration to company's stockholders

The lawsuit alleges the company violated section 14(a) of exchange
act, rule 14a-9 by purportedly omitting material info from proxy
issued related with deal. [GN]


ZENCO COLLECTIONS: Benson Asks Court to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members described below, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX
REL THOMAS D. BENSON, the Plaintiffs, v. ZENCO COLLECTIONS LLC; DE
VILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and VIP CAPITAL
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05220 (N.D. Ill.),
Mr. Thomas D. Benson asks that the Court enter an order
determining that Counts I, II and IV of the action, alleging
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), may
proceed as a class action against Defendants

With respect to Count I, alleging that defendants violated the
FDCPA through the misleading collection of time-barred debts, the
plaintiff seeks to certify two classes.

The Zenco class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom
   Zenco sought to collect a credit card debt (c) on which the
   last payment was made more than 5 years prior to the
   collection attempt (d) where Zenco referred to settlement or
   litigation or enforcement (e) where any such communication
   occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of
   this action".

The DAM class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom an
   attempt was made to collect a credit card debt (c) by or on
   behalf of DAM (d) where the last payment on the credit card
   was made more than 5 years prior to the collection attempt (e)
   where any reference was made to settlement or litigation or
   enforcement (f) where any such communication occurred on or
   after a date one year prior to the filing of this action".

With respect to Count II, alleging failure to provide the "notice
of debt", plaintiff seeks to certify two classes.

The Zenco class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals (b) to whom Zenco sent a letter (c) to
   collect a debt (d) without providing the "notice of debt" (e)
   no later than 5 days after the sending of the letter (f) where
   the letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the
   filing of this action".

The DAM class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals (b) to whom a letter was sent (c) by or
   on behalf of DAM (d) to collect a debt (e) without providing
   the "notice of debt" (f) no later than 5 days after the
   sending of the letter (g) where the letter was sent on or
   after a date one year prior to the filing of this action".

With respect to Count IV, alleging that defendants violated the
FDCPA by sending letters referring to legal enforcement and
litigation and offering settlements to residents of Illinois when
defendants were prohibited from undertaking legal action against
residents of Illinois because they were not licensed in Illinois,
plaintiff seeks to certify two classes.

The Zenco class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom
   Zenco sought to collect a debt (c) where Zenco referred to
   settlement or litigation or enforcement (d) where any such
   communication occurred on or after a date one year prior to
   the filing of this action".

The DAM class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom an
   attempt was made to collect a debt (c) by or on behalf of DAM
   (d) where any reference was made to settlement or litigation
   or enforcement (e) where any such communication occurred on or
   after a date one year prior to the filing of this action".

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8KPctLta

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Amendments to FCRA Can Increase Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that applicant background reports can be vital
tools for employers, especially in the hiring process.  However,
amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") significantly
increase the rights of applicants and employees to receive certain
disclosures and to choose whether to authorize certain background
reports.  Given the increase in litigation over these issues,
employers (as well as their attorneys and investigators) are well-
advised to pay close attention to the detailed requirements of the
FCRA.

The FCRA requires that employers disclose to applicants that a
background report may be obtained for employment purposes, and
obtain signed authorization from applicants before procuring a
background report.  Further, the Act requires that employers
provide applicants a copy of the background report and a summary
of their rights under the FCRA before taking any adverse action
(such as not hiring the applicant) based in whole or in part on
information contained in the report.  Finally, when an employer
actually takes adverse action based in whole or in part on a
background report, the employer must give the applicant written
notice of the adverse action along with specific information about
the consumer reporting agency which provided the background
report.

While these requirements may appear straightforward, they contain
subtle nuances that create a trap for employers who assume
compliance.  A procedural error in one instance is often exploited
to allege widespread violations, which lead to costly and time-
consuming class action litigation.  The penalties quickly add up,
as a simple $1,000 statutory penalty for a violation with respect
to one applicant is multiplied by hundreds or thousands of
potential class members to create millions of dollars in potential
liability.

In recent years, several large companies have made headlines as
they've paid out millions of dollars in settlement of FCRA class
actions.  The claims against most of these companies stem from an
alleged failure to comply with the FCRA's authorization and
disclosure requirements.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged
that their respective employer failed to provide the necessary
stand-alone disclosures associated with conducting and using
background checks in the employment context.

While these large settlements have become more difficult to obtain
in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the threat of FCRA litigation is not going
away.  According to ACA International, FCRA litigation has
increased 47 percent in the last year and is expected to continue
to surge.

Employers should therefore be mindful of their background check
procedures, and audit their forms and policies for compliance on a
regular basis.  As the law develops, practices that once were
assumed lawful may have fallen into disfavor with the courts.
Employers are therefore better served to proactively revise their
procedures to conform to the most recent best practices, rather
than defend them with the potential for millions in exposure if
they are found unlawful. [GN]


* DOL Agrees to Drop Prohibition on Class Action Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Department of Labor on July 3 defended its fiduciary rule for
retirement account advisers against a Fifth Circuit challenge,
saying the Obama administration reasonably expanded the definition
of fiduciary, but agreeing to drop a controversial prohibition on
class action waivers.

Attorneys with the DOL and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a
brief urging the Fifth Circuit to uphold a summary judgment for
the regulator in a challenge to its fiduciary rule.

Although the Labor Department is considering changes, which took
partial effect on June 9, while reviewing the regulation per
President Donald Trump's mandate, the July 3 brief said the
original regulation, promulgated in April 2016 by the Obama
administration, "reasonably expand[ed] DOL's interpretation of the
statutory definition of 'fiduciary'."

The DOL said Texas' U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn was
right to reject challenges raised against the rule "with one
narrow exception."  The agency said it is no longer defending a
condition that prohibits advisers who want to collect commissions,
from requiring investors to waive their right to participate in
class action litigation.

"The government no longer defends that condition in light of the
Acting Solicitor General's construction of the Federal Arbitration
Act in a case pending before the Supreme Court, but that condition
is severable from the remainder of the fiduciary rule, as the rule
itself makes clear," the July 3 brief said.

The U.S. solicitor general recently reversed an Obama-era stance
on class action waivers in an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme
Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA Inc.
defending the legality of arbitration agreements that prohibit
employees from pursuing work-related claims as a class.

The Labor Department's fiduciary rule requires financial
professionals to act in their clients' best interests when
recommending investment products.

Advisers and broker-dealers that fall under the expanded
definition of a fiduciary will largely be prohibited from
collecting commissions unless the professionals take advantage of
the so-called best interest contract exemption by entering into a
contract with clients affirming the professionals will uphold the
clients' best interest.

Several financial industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association sued over the rule in June 2016, but Judge Lynn
granted the Labor Department's motion for summary judgment in
February 2017, finding the agency acted within its authority under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and had adequately
weighed the costs and benefits of the rule during the rule-making
process.

In opening briefs filed before the Fifth Circuit in May, the
Chamber plaintiffs argued the DOL did indeed outstrip its
authority by using the best interest contract exemption to
regulate individual retirement accounts, which the groups said
flouted congressional intention to prohibit the agency from
regulating, investigating or bringing enforcement actions against
IRA fiduciaries.

The groups also argued that the DOL, by broadening the definition
of fiduciary to broker-dealers and other agents that sell products
to retirement investors, was impermissibly rejecting a distinction
"between selling products and giving advice that has been
fundamental to the securities laws for nearly 80 years."

But the Labor Department said on July 3 that its interpretation of
ERISA is entitled to deference because of the significant
authority Congress granted the agency and its long-standing
expertise in the area.

Moreover, the brief said, ERISA does not unambiguously restrict
its definition of fiduciary to the narrow common-law definition of
relationships based on trust and confidence, and the structure of
the statute indicates Congress meant to cover a broader range of
relationships.

The Labor Department also took issue with the plaintiffs' claim
that the rule runs afoul of the First Amendment's free speech
protections.  The agency said the groups' argument was not
properly before the Fifth Circuit, because the groups did not
raise the argument during the rule-making process, and that the
argument also failed on the merits because the rule regulates
commercial conduct and "only incidentally burdens speech."

The agency ceded ground only on the challenge to the BIC
exemption's prohibition on class action waivers, admitting the
government is no longer defending that provision.

But the DOL said it previously clearly indicated that it would
have adopted the BIC exemption even without the anti-arbitration
condition, and that severing the condition would not impair the
exemption or the rule overall.

"Thus, invalidation of this condition does not mandate
invalidation of the remainder of the BIC Exemption, let along the
entire fiduciary rule," the brief said.

The DOL is still considering changes to the rule.  The agency
issued a request for information, asking for data and information
that could be used to revise the rule, at the end of June.

Respective representatives for the DOL and the appellants did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appellants challenging the rule are represented by Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher LLP, WilmerHale, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP and
Sidley Austin LLP and by in-house attorneys with the U.S. Chamber
Litigation Center, Financial Services Institute Inc., Insured
Retirement Institute, Financial Services Roundtable, and
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

The DOL is represented by Hashim M. Mooppan, John R. Parker,
Michael S. Raab, Michael Shih and Thais-Lyn Trayer of the U.S.
Department of Justice and Nicholas C. Geale, G. William Scott,
Edward D. Sieger, Thomas Tso and Megan Hansen of the U.S.
Department of Labor.

The case is U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al. v. U.S. Department of
Labor et al., case number 17-10238, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. [GN]


* Employers Can't Use Class Action Waivers Under NY Freelance Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Hogan, Esq. -- clhogan@littler.com -- and David Wirtz,
Esq. -- dwirtz@littler.com -- of Littler, in an article for
JDSupra, report that New York City's Freelance Isn't Free Act goes
into effect on July 24, 2017.  Anticipated rules to "clarify" the
Act, which amend Title 6 of the City's Rules by adding a new
chapter 12, have now been promulgated by the Department of
Consumer Affairs.1

Of particular significance, Rule 12-05 provides, in relevant part,
that:

"If a contract includes language that waives or limits a freelance
worker's right to participate in or receive money or any other
relief from any class, collective, or representative proceeding,
said waiver or limitation is void."

"Wherever a hiring party asks a freelance worker to waive or
limit, via contract, any other procedural right normally afforded
to a party in a civil or administrative action, any such
contractual waivers and limitations are void under section 20-9352
of the Administrative Code. . . ."

"A freelance worker has the right to disclose the terms of a
contract with a hiring party to the director [of NYC's Office of
Labor Standards].  Any private contractual agreement that purports
to waive or limit a freelance worker's right to communicate the
terms of such a contract to the director is void as against public
policy."

Subsection (b) explicitly prevents employers from including
collective/class action waivers in their independent contractor
agreements.  Subsection (c) reflects an apparent attempt to
prohibit arbitration provisions and provisions that shorten the
Act's statute of limitations.  Subsection (d) voids
confidentiality provisions that do not carve out disclosure to the
Director of NYC's Office of Labor Standards.

The new rules also:

Expand the coverage of those who can violate the Act from the
"hiring party" to the "actual or apparent agent [of the hiring
party] or any other person acting directly or indirectly on behalf
of a hiring party";
Provide that the Act applies regardless of a freelancer worker's
immigration or work authorization status;

"Clarify" what the term "value" means when establishing
jurisdiction and defining what damages are owed to include the
"reasonable" value of services, supplies, and expenses; and
Establish a "motivating factor," rather than a but-for standard,
applicable to retaliation claims under the Act.

Employers need to consider these new rules when drafting both
independent contractor agreements with freelance workers
performing services in New York City and agreements that terminate
such services in exchange for a general release. [GN]


* Justice Department's Aversion to CA Will Have Wide Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the recent switch by the Trump administration's U.S. Justice
Department from opposing to defending bans on class actions in
workplace arbitration agreements will have consequences beyond a
trio of challenges the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear this
fall.

On June 16, acting solicitor general Jeffrey Wall informed the
justices that the Justice Department was reversing its position in
a key labor case, National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil,
which tests employee arbitration agreements. The government said
it would no longer support the NLRB's position that arbitration
agreements barring class actions violate federal labor law.

Less than three weeks later, on July 3, the Justice Department
relied on that reversal in the high court to justify abandoning
its support for a class action provision in the U.S. Labor
department's so-called "fiduciary rule." Also in that same period
of one month, the Justice Department allowed a June 2 deadline to
lapse for its appeal of a temporary injunction against a nursing
home rule that banned mandatory arbitration agreements.
The two reversals and the lapsed appeal signal a broadening effort
by the Trump administration to prohibit or restrict class actions
through litigation or regulation.

The Justice Department continues to defend the fiduciary rule,
Obama-era regulations that raised standards for financial
advisers, even as the Labor Department moves to revise provisions
in the rule. There's only one part of the rule the Trump Justice
Department won't now support in court: a class action provision.
In its July 3 filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, the Justice Department, represented by Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Hashim Mooppan, urged the court to strike down a
provision restricting class action waivers in arbitration clauses.
The restriction on class action waivers is a condition on
financial advisers who want to qualify for the fiduciary rule's
"best interest contract exemption," or BIC. If they qualify, those
advisers are exempt from certain prohibited transaction provisions
in federal retirement laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a lead
plaintiff in the case, has argued the condition violates the
Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA. The Justice Department now
agrees.

"Given the government's position in Murphy Oil, the government is
no longer defending the BIC Exemption's condition restricting
class-litigation waivers insofar as it applies to arbitration
agreements," Justice Department lawyers wrote in their brief. The
government's legal team said the condition is "a discriminatory
obstacle to arbitration that cannot be harmonized with the FAA and
[AT&T Mobility v.] Concepcion under the interpretation of those
authorities adopted by the government in Murphy Oil."

The government's flipped position in Murphy Oil "complicates
things a lot," said Deepak Gupta of Washington's Gupta Wessler,
who has supported the provisions of the best interest contract
exemption on behalf of the American Association of Justice. Gupta
on July 6 filed an amicus brief for the group.

"Depending on how expansively you read the solicitor general's
brief, the worst reading is the FAA forecloses any effort to limit
arbitration and class litigation unless there is some very, very
specific delegation, a clear statement [in the statute]," Gupta
told The National Law Journal.

In the fiduciary rule case, Gupta said, the government is not just
announcing a change in position, but also telling the appellate
court to vacate a provision in a government rule that regulators
had successfully defended in lower courts.
"It leaves the case in this awkward position where the circuit
court doesn't have an adversarial position," Gupta said. "This is
not how you're supposed to repeal rules. This is a faster, backend
way of repealing an unwanted provision of the rule."

Gupta wrote in the American Association of Justice amicus brief:
"Because of the government's late-breaking change in position, no
party before this Court is defending either the class-action
provision or the district court's decision upholding it."

The Labor Department is seeking comment on any proposed changes to
the fiduciary rule, which went into partial effect last month. The
rule doesn't fully kick in until Jan. 1, 2018 -- an effective date
that federal regulators are weighing whether to delay.

A group of consumer advocates on July 6, in an amicus brief in the
Fifth Circuit, said the Justice Department reversed "its position
without justification." The groups, including Americans for
Financial Reform, Better Markets and Consumer Federation of
America, said the issues in the Supreme Court's Murphy Oil case
are distinct from those presented in the Fifth Circuit fiduciary
rule litigation.

The fiduciary rule's best interest contract exemption, the
consumer advocates said in their amicus brief, "does not prohibit
the enforcement of existing arbitration agreements," which is "the
core focus" of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Other lawsuits challenging the rule are pending in Washington,
Minnesota and Kansas federal courts. In Minnesota, the plaintiff
there, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, seized on what it called
the Justice Department's "surprise" filing in the Fifth Circuit.
The government's refusal to defend the fiduciary rule's class-
action provision "supports entry of judgment in Thrivent's favor,
not an indefinite stay of this matter. Staying this litigation
would only prolong Thrivent's business uncertainty about its
compliance obligations, in a manner that would be highly
prejudicial to Thrivent," Mark Johnson of Greene Espel wrote in a
letter to the court this week.

The nursing home rule prohibiting mandatory arbitration agreements
was issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or
CMS, last year. The American Health Care Association quickly
challenged it and on Nov. 7, a Mississippi federal court imposed a
temporary injunction blocking the rule.

The government had a June 2 deadline for an appeal, but the
deadline lapsed with no government action. On June 5, CMS proposed
a rule revision that would eliminate provisions that prohibit
binding pre-dispute arbitration.
[GN]


* Pro-Trump Prophet Proposes Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Miranda Blue, writing for Right Wing Watch, reports that in a
conversation with pro-Trump "prophet" Frank Amedia this week,
televangelist Jim Bakker proposed that "all the church people"
band together to launch a "class action suit against them, whoever
they are" who are "literally stripping the power from the
president of the United States."

Bakker and Amedia were discussing the Supreme Court's decision to
allow Trump's travel ban to take partial effect while they wait to
hear arguments on its constitutionality, a case that Amedia
insisted the courts "should have never even heard."

The case was evidence, Amedia said, that "the plots of the Enemy,
the spirit of the Enemy that are raised up against the Kingdom,
and they happen to be raised up against the United States and the
Judeo-Christian doctrines because they're integrally linked, that
same spirit is trying to find every leverage to resist the move of
God both in our country and the Kingdom."

"We were headed to having a president, a leader, who had no
power," Bakker marveled. "They were literally stripping the power
from the president of the United States. If we would have had an
army attack us, they want to take his power away."

He then proposed a "class action suit against them, whoever they
are, whoever's taking the power from America because they're
destroying the United States of America."

"They've unelected a president," Bakker said. "It's wrong! It
should be a great crime."

Later in the program, Amedia shared prophecies that he has been
receiving through his POTUS Shield project, including that God has
planned three "shifts" in the Supreme Court during the Trump
administration, including the confirmation of Justice Neil
Gorsuch, an upcoming retirement, and lastly Justice Sonia
Sotomayor allowing God to "transform and move in her life."

He added that while the Supreme Court is on recess it's important
to pray that the justices "have encounters and visitations from
God."

"I believe God will move right into their bedrooms, right into
their children, the children will speak, their aides will speak
and things will happen in their lives," he said. [GN]


* Supreme Court Could Put Pressure on Finra Class-Action Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment News reports that Finra may rethink its ban on class-
action waivers in arbitration clauses, depending on whether the
court sides with the Trump administration

Mark Schoeff Jr. writing for Investment News reports that if the
Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration on the question
of class-action litigation in arbitration agreements, it could
cause Finra to rethink its policy banning waivers.

In a series of pending cases the court will hear next year, the
Trump administration argues that class-action can be prohibited in
arbitration clauses, taking a different stance than that of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., the broker-dealer
self-regulator, which does not allow class-action waivers in
arbitration clauses between brokers and customers.

In a brief filed in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit
involving the Labor Department fiduciary rule, the regulation's
class-action provision is the only one that the Department of
Justice did not defend, saying that doing so would contradict the
position of the Trump administration in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA
Inc., which the Supreme Court will take up in its next term.

In 2014, the Finra board forced the Charles Schwab Corp. to stop
using class-action waivers in its arbitration agreements,
following a Schwab appeal of a Finra hearing panel decision. But a
Supreme Court ruling could change the atmosphere surrounding the
Finra rule.

"Brokerage firms would love the Trump administration to win on
this issue," said Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago securities attorney
and the incoming president of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar
Association. "It's more likely than not that Finra would try to
adopt the position of the Trump administration."

A Finra spokeswoman declined to comment on the pending Supreme
Court cases.

But a former director of Finra arbitration doubts that the
regulator would be swayed by a Supreme Court decision.

"There would be political pressure brought to bear on Finra to
change its policy if the government's position on class-action
waivers is upheld by the court," said George Friedman, an adjunct
professor of law at Fordham University. "Finra's policy would
withstand a legal challenge. As the regulator, Finra is permitted
to establish reasonable regulations governing the conduct of the
securities industry."

As an example of Finra going its own way with regard to the
Federal Arbitration Act, Mr. Friedman pointed to a FAA rule that
allows a participant in an arbitration case to move to vacate a
decision within 90 days. In Finra arbitration, securities industry
participants only have 30 days to file a motion to vacate.

Finra has considerable latitude, according to Hugh Berkson, a
principal at McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Liffman.

"It's up to Finra to enforce its own rules with its own members,"
said Mr. Berkson, who is on the PIABA board. "One hopes it will."

Finra is especially protective of the arbitration forum that it
administers. Nearly every brokerage contract includes a mandatory
arbitration clause that is heard by a panel of Finra arbitrators.

"The arbitration system is something Finra takes great pride in,
and I don't think it will give in to pressure from any side to
make substantial changes to the system," Mr. Berkson said.

Although the Trump administration and Finra diverge on class-
action waivers, they're in sync on arbitration as a means of
remediation.

"There's no question this administration is pro-arbitration," Mr.
Friedman said. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband's Overalls Causes Wife's Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Scott, writing for Eastern Daily Press, reported that
the family of a King's Lynn woman who believed that washing her
first husband's dirty overalls may have led her to develop
asbestos-related cancer have joined with lawyers to call for his
former colleagues to help them get justice.

Kathleen Carnegie, 70, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer
of the lining of the lung commonly associated with asbestos
exposure, in January after she suffered breathlessness and tests
revealed there was fluid on her lungs. She died in June.

Following the diagnosis, Mrs Carnegie instructed specialist
asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate
how she came to develop the illness. While she was not exposed to
the material during office jobs throughout her working life, it is
believed that washing her first husband Anthony Nixon's overalls
may have played a part.

As he died in 2003, she called on former colleagues who worked
with him at Cape Asbestos in Uxbridge in the 1960s to come forward
with information regarding the working conditions he may have
faced.

Samantha Shaw, the specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell who is representing Kathleen, said: "Our client's
story may seem unusual, but we have seen a great number of cases
in which people have developed mesothelioma despite never working
in close contact with asbestos."

Mr Nixon worked at Cape Asbestos from 1960 to around 1969 and wore
his overalls in the family car as he travelled home and would keep
them on after returning to the house.

Mrs Carnegie's son, Nigel, who has taken over the legal case,
said: "Mum's diagnosis was a shock to all of us. Considering mum
only ever worked in offices we were all stunned when she was told
she had mesothelioma and we can only think that it has come about
after washing Tony's clothes.

"I remember talking to her about her condition and she would tell
me how she could still remember the smell of Tony's overalls and
how dusty they were.

"She often would have to wash them a couple of times a week and
would always need to give them a shake before getting started. She
didn't have a washing machine then either, so she was often
washing them by hand.

"It is extremely difficult to take that she might have got the
illness that killed her in this manner and we as a family feel we
deserve to know how it happened. I would be hugely grateful if any
of Tony's former workmates can come forward."

A former university lecturer from Hunworth is also appealing for
information, after working as a labourer between school and
university.

Bernard Waites, 71, was diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer in
February and worked on the construction of barracks in Aldershot
in the 1960s.

Legal experts are keen to speak to anyone who may have worked with
Mr Waites during his time at Gee Walker and Slater -- between
January and July 1964. Specifically, they are keen for details
about the construction of the Montgomery Lines Barracks in
Aldershot.

Mr Waites, who grew up in Aldershot, began working at Gee Walker
and Slater after leaving school following the completion of his A-
Levels. He later studied in London before working for the Open
University. On his retirement in 2010, he moved to Norfolk with
his wife of 38 years, Elizabeth.

He said: "I worked as a labourer on the construction of the site
and recall that while many people involved in the work were local,
some also commuted through from Portsmouth.

"The work was very varied and involved helping out the tradesman
as and when the help was needed. Developing mesothelioma has had a
huge impact on me and my family and we just want to know how this
happened and, ultimately, whether more should have been done to
protect me. We would be hugely grateful if anyone with information
could come forward."

Rosemary Giles, the lawyer at Irwin Mitchell's Cambridge office
who is representing Mr Waites, said: "Our client's story is
similar to a huge number we see every year, as it demonstrates how
exposure to asbestos can have huge consequences and lead those
affected to develop very serious conditions such as mesothelioma.

Anyone with information about Mrs Carnegie is asked to contact
Samantha Shaw on 01223 791 815 or samantha.shaw@IrwinMitchell.com
or for information regarding Mr Waites, contact Rosemary Giles on
01223 791815 or rosemary.giles@IrwinMitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit Filed by Former Texaco Worker
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that a lawsuit
alleging asbestos exposure has been brought by a man who worked at
a Texaco facility in the 1940s.

Willie Adams and his wife Doris filed suit against Texaco and
several other companies on July 3 in Jefferson County District
Court.

The other defendants named in the suit include 3M Company, Able
Supply, Guardline, Metlife, Owens Illinois and TMR Company.

According to the lawsuit, from 1947 to well into the 1970s, Willie
was exposed to asbestos while employed by Texaco Asphalt in Port
Neches. He worked at the company until 1985.

The asbestos products Willie was exposed to were made and sold by
the defendants, the suit states.

The defendants allegedly failed to warn him of the dangers of
asbestos exposure.

Willie is suffering mesothelioma, according to the suit. He is
suing for his pain and medical expenses.

Nederland attorney Tina Bradley of Hobson & Bradley represents the
plaintiffs.  Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been
assigned to the case.

Case No. E-200326


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burden Placed on Company in Asbestos PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that a
woman can go forward with her asbestos-based personal injury
lawsuit against several companies that allegedly supplied products
to the Westchester County Department of Laboratories and Research,
where she worked in the 1970s.

An Appellate Division, Third Department, panel has ruled Eileen
O'Connor, diagnosed in 2015 with pleural mesothelioma, can proceed
against defendants Fisher Scientific Co., Thomas Scientific and
VWR International. Other named defendants were not addressed in
the opinion.

The ruling by Justice William McCarthy reversed the 2016 decision
of Saratoga County Supreme Court Justice Richard Aulisi, who had
granted the companies summary judgment.

McCarthy, joined by Justices Elizabeth Garry, Michael Lynch,
Robert Rose and Eugene Devine, wrote in O'Connor v. Aerco
International, 523122, that the companies bore the initial burden
of demonstrating their products couldn't have contributed to
O'Connor's injuries.

He noted that although no deponents could say whether defendants'
brand names, trademarks or logos were on products during the
relevant time, O'Connor and other department employees testified
there were products containing asbestos in the lab between 1975
and 1979 and that employees consulted defendants' supply catalogs,
among others, to place orders.

The three companies, McCarthy wrote, failed to establish that they
didn't sell asbestos-containing products to the department during
the relevant time. Fisher Scientific, for instance, stated it
didn't have records of selling the products to the department.
Gennaro Savastano, a Weitz & Luxenberg associate, represented
O'Connor and her husband and couldn't be reached for comment.

Counsel for the companies also couldn't be reached. The firms were
Hinkhouse Williams Walsh in Chicago and Troutman Sanders for
Fisher Scientific; Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in
Roseland, New Jersey, for Thomas Scientific; and Littleton Joyce
Ughetta Park & Kelly in New York for VWR International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Builder Dies from Asbestos Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Doyle, writing for Somerset Live, reported that a former
builder from Yeovil who died of asbestos contamination may have
inhaled lethal fibres decades before a fatal cancer developed.

Michael McInerney, 77, who lived in Sunningdale Lodge Care Home in
the town, and was originally from Chard, had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma -- a cancer associated with asbestos contamination.

He was admitted to Yeovil Hospital on June 26 for palliative care
as his condition was incurable.

Somerset coroner Tony Williams said it was impossible to tell when
or where Mr McInerney's exposure to the asbestos would have
occurred.  He said the fibres could lie in the lungs for many
years from a much earlier time -- "decades" before they triggered
the disease.  He recorded the cause of death as malignant
mesothelioma and concluded it was death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. High Ct. Agrees to Take Up Asbestos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WLRN.com reported that in a dispute that focuses heavily on expert
witnesses, a divided Florida Supreme Court has agreed to hear a
case filed by a man who said he suffered mesothelioma because of
exposure to asbestos in cigarette filters and other products.

Justices, in a 4-3 decision, issued an order accepting the case.
The majority was made up of Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and
justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, while
justices Charles Canady, Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson dissented.

Plaintiff Richard DeLisle took the case to the Supreme Court after
the 4th District Court of Appeal last year ruled in favor of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Crane Co., a manufacturer accused of
exposing DeLisle to asbestos in gaskets. The appeals court ruling
came after DeLisle had won an $8 million verdict in the Broward
County case.

Along with exposure in the gaskets, DeLisle alleged exposure in
filters of Kent cigarettes he smoked in the 1950s. R.J. Reynolds
is a successor company to the manufacturer of Kent cigarettes.

The appeals court ruled that testimony of three of DeLisle's
expert witnesses should not have been admitted in circuit court.
In issuing the order agreeing to take up the case, the Supreme
Court did not immediately set a date for oral arguments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Funds Asbestos Cleanup Along South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has matched funds from the
City of Pickens to clean up asbestos around the popular Doodle
Trail. The Brownfield Grant will also be used to generally improve
the area around the trail.

"Crews will be going in and taking out any material that contains
asbestos," said environmental consultant for the city Tice
Welborn.

The safe handling and removal of asbestos is important due to the
toxic properties of the substance. Asbestos is a known carcinogen.
When in good condition, it doesn't present a hazard. When worn or
damaged, it's a great risk to the health and safety of humans.

The entire Doodle Park Project in South Carolina will cost $1.2
million, but the grant is for around $152,000. In fact, over the
20-year period from 1980 to 2000, 634 South Carolinians died from
asbestos disease with mesothelioma victims accounting for slightly
more than half.

Pickens is about 30 miles away from Greenville, which has a
history of manufacturing and industrial roots that place the city
in a high-risk category for asbestos exposure.

According to Welborn, "They [EPA] saw what has already been done
with the trail itself already being constructed." The City of
Pickens found asbestos in the rail depot two years ago and applied
for the grant.

"They don't like to award projects if they're not going to be
finished or if there's not going to be some benefit to the
community."

According to mesothelioma survivor Heather Von St. James, there's
been concern over the EPA cutting funds with the current Trump
administration.

In 2012, the Trump tweeted: "If we didn't remove incredible
powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that
doesn't work, the World Trade Center could never have burned
down." Tons of asbestos were used and rained down all over
Manhattan when the Twin Towers fell.

The EPA is working hard on the Doodle Trail project. A playground,
workout stations, and a farmer's market are in the works.

Trail user Trey Cox says, "Just having a place to go is awesome. I
think it'll bring more business to the area for sure, give people
something to do in Pickens."

The project groundbreaking will commence this Friday.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Facing Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that historically,
mesothelioma cancer mostly affects older men exposed to asbestos
while they served in the military or worked certain blue-collar
jobs. But women now comprise nearly one-fourth of all cases, and
mesothelioma incidence rates among women are on the rise, showing
the gender gap is closing.

A full-text copy of the report is available at
https://is.gd/YEX0lB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Play in Rubbish Dump with Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Thorp, writing for Grimsby Telegraph, reported that disgusted
residents have hit out after children were seen playing in mounds
of rubbish feared to contain deadly asbestos -- more than ten days
after they first reported it.

Youngsters were spotted hanging around the mounds of fly-tipped
waste off Burwell Drive, Nunsthorpe, where sheets of corrugated
roofing, an abandoned trailer and sharp pieces of metal have been
left in a car park close to the junction of Wootton Road.

A concerned resident, who lives in the area and has asked to
remain anonymous, said the fly-tipping was first reported to North
East Lincolnshire Council on Monday, July 3, following fears the
corrugated roofing sheets contained asbestos and that the dump was
a potential fire hazard.

And despite making repeated calls to the council, the rubbish
remained piled in the car park on July 13 -- more than ten days
since the resident said she first warned the local authority.

"I've seen kids down there chucking the rubbish about. If that
asbestos gets broken up then it could be very dangerous," she
said.

"People may say, 'Okay, but the parents should stop them,' but
these children are walking back from school. How are they supposed
to?"

Asbestos is hazardous if material inside it becomes damaged and
the fibres are released into the air.

The resident added: "I don't think the council's response has been
very good at all. I thought it would have been an emergency given
that it looks like it's asbestos. It's a right mess.

"I could understand it if it was just rubble but it looks like
asbestos. It's disgusting and it's a health hazard."

South ward councillor Jane Bramley said she had also reported the
fly-tipping to the council and said there had been an "awful lot
of trouble with fly-tipping" in the car park before.

"It's ridiculous. If you report fly-tipping to the council or any
housing association responsible action should be taken, especially
if it's dangerous litter being left. It should be collected
straight away," she said.

It comes after piles of bricks, garden waste and even a three-
piece suite were dumped close to a busy main road in Cleethorpes.

In yet another shocking case of fly-tipping in the area, mounds of
waste were left piled high in the layby off Hewitt's Avenue, just
a few hundred yards from the entrance to Tesco.

There had been some suggestion that the Nunsthorpe car park
belonged to Shoreline Housing Partnership, however a spokeswoman
for the organisation denied this.

North East Lincolnshire Council were unavailable for comment last
night.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Schools Poses No Risk, Says Councils
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Stewart-Robertson, writing for Clydebank Post, reported
that asbestos present in almost every school in Clydebank poses no
risk to children or staff, insist council bosses.

Hundreds of older buildings throughout the country had asbestos in
foundations or walls, but remain safe provided the substance is
not disturbed.

A list emerged in June of 10 schools and nurseries across
Clydebank and 16 in north-west Glasgow -- effectively all older
buildings -- that still have the potentially deadly substance in
them.

Education officials say they know where the asbestos is in each
building and carry out regular checks to ensure there is no risk.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) formal advice is that
asbestos is only a risk when released into the air and breathed
in. When materials are in good condition and not likely to be
damaged, they should be left in place and monitored.

The former St Eunan's Primary site was found to have asbestos in
the foundation only once the school was demolished. There is no
suggestion pupils ever came into contact with the substance
because of its location.

A West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) spokesman told the Post: "Like
schools across Scotland, some of our buildings have asbestos
containing materials such as ceiling texture coatings (Artex, for
example) and in some older insulation products.

"It is important to note the HSE's advice that asbestos only
becomes a risk to human health when it is disturbed.

"The council will continue to adhere to a strict and robust
asbestos policy in line with current legislation, with the policy
subject to regular review. If any issues are identified in the
course of regular inspections, appropriate action will be taken."

Jackie Baillie MSP urged the SNP-led council to continue the work
of the previous Labour administration to replace or refurbish all
schools.

She said: "Clydebank was once known as the asbestos capital of
Europe as a result of our shipbuilding heritage and heavy
industry. Local people know as well as anyone that we need to do
everything possible to protect future generations from the risks
of the deadly substance.

"After years of underinvestment, the previous Labour
administration started the work of rebuilding and refurbishing the
primary school estate. And when the new-build OLSP opens this
year, every young person in Dumbarton, Alexandria and Clydebank
will be in a modern state-of-the-art high school. This report
highlights the need to get on with the job Labour started and
rebuild or refurbish every school in West Dunbartonshire."

Clydeside Action on Asbestos (CAA) has called for all schools to
be asbestos free by 2040. Speaking before an annual memorial
service for victims of mesothelioma, the group's manager, Phyllis
Craig, said they want to raise awareness of Scots still exposed to
asbestos in public buildings.

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 more than 1,500 schools
and nurseries in Scotland contain asbestos.

"Our priority is to see asbestos removed from all schools and
nurseries in Scotland by 2040."

A Glasgow City Council spokeswoman said: "We have a robust
management programme in place to ensure safety in all our
buildings and work closely with the Health & Safety Executive.

"The management of asbestos within occupied buildings is a complex
arena, and whilst there are times where removal is appropriate, it
is also true that on many occasions, asbestos is safer when left
alone and managed appropriately.

"Asbestos that remains undisturbed presents no risk."

Clydebank and Old Kilpatrick schools:

   * Carleith Primary School
   * Clydemuir Primary School
   * Edinbarnet Primary School
   * Gavinburn Primary School and EE & CCC
   * Kilpatrick Primary School
   * Linnvale Primary School and EE & CCC
   * Our Holy Redeemer's Primary School
   * Our Lady of Loretto Primary School
   * St Joseph's Primary School
   * Whitecrook Primary School & Cunard School

North-west Glasgow schools:

   * Knightswood Secondary School
   * Bankhead Primary School
   * Blairdardie Primary School [getting new building]
   * Cloverbank Nursery
   * Corpus Christi Primary School
   * Drummore Primary School
   * Garscadden Primary School [now closed]
   * Langfaulds Primary School
   * Onslow Drive Day Nursery
   * Pikeman Nursery
   * Scotstoun Primary School
   * St Brendan's Primary School [now closed]
   * St Ninian's Primary School
   * St Paul's (Whiteinch) Primary School
   * Whiteinch Primary School
   * Yoker Primary School [now closed]


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Asbestos Find Led to Kitchen Closure
------------------------------------------------------------
Conor Gogarty, writing for Essex Live, reported that a Tiptree
school was forced to close its kitchen after asbestos was found.

Miles Bacon, headteacher of Thurstable School on Maypole Road,
alerted parents on July 14 that the kitchen would be shut.

He wrote: "The restaurant kitchens have had to be closed as a
small amount of asbestos has been found and tests need to be
completed before they can be used again.

"The main servery (next to the Hall) will be closed at break and
lunch. The Snack Shacks will be open at break, but will not have
hot food available.

"The Snack Shacks will be open at lunch, but only the Noodle Bar
(next to the playground) will have a limited hot food option, as
well as sandwiches, muffins etc."

One parent, who did not give their name, said: "You can't help but
worry when you hear something like this.

"It's really concerning for the parents. Hopefully it will all be
sorted out soon."

Mr Bacon revealed catering at Thurstable will be as normal today.

He said: "The small amount of asbestos found in the kitchens
whilst removing a cupboard has been professionally sealed, air
tests have been completed and are clear, and the kitchens have
been re-opened.

"The asbestos will be professionally removed over the summer.

"At no time was there any risk to students, and the situation was
managed strictly according to asbestos management regulations
throughout."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Ockendon Electrician Dies from Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Duggan, writing for Essex Live, reported that an
electrician who began his career working in a factory filled with
asbestos died as a result of mesothelioma, an inquest has heard.

John Pedder, 65, collapsed at his home in Poplar Close, South
Ockendon, as his wife helped him climb the stairs on May 27.

Although paramedics were called they were unable to resuscitate
him as there was a DNR in place, Essex Coroner's Court heard July
14.

A post mortem examination carried out at Basildon Hospital gave a
provisional cause of death as mesothelioma, a cancerous disease.

"I turn to consider the work history of Mr Pedder to see whether
or not this is a work related death," said Senior Coroner Eleanor
McGann.

She considered a letter provided by Mr Pedder's solicitors in
which he wrote an account of his working life.

That same letter has also been filed at the High Court of Justice.

In April 1969, a year after he had become an apprentice
electrician, Mr Pedder was sent to work for eight weeks at the
Cape Asbestos factory in Barking.

That placement, which was his first job, saw him charged with
taking down light fittings to exchange them.

Reading from Mr Pedder's letter, Mrs McGann said: "He had to climb
the scaffolding which was covered in a thick layer of dust which
must have contained asbestos.

"Some times my face was level with the fittings and other times it
was above my head.

"I had to tip the fittings towards me.

"This would cause the thick layer of dust to fall into his face
and then over his body."

Mrs McGann spoke of how Mr Pedder, who did not have anything to
protect his face, would try to move out of the way of the dust but
still breathed it in.

Mr Pedder's letter also described how the dust was so thick he
could see it floating in the air.

"He continued to come into contact with asbestos with his work,"
said Mrs McGann.

"I have accepted the evidence of Mr Pedder and my conclusion is
that John Frederick Pedder died as a result of an industrial
disease, namely mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitui Residents Exposed to Asbestos at Dumpsite
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Muasya, writing for Standard Media, reported that sometimes
in March this year, a son to a prominent Kitui politician traveled
from Nairobi to Kiongwe in Kitui East and rounded up a few
villagers who have been farming on their family land.

He had a sweet proposal. They were to vacate the land by June so
that he could put up a massive tourist hotel, which would absorb
many of them as workers.

"We were excited since we thought with such a facility, we would
easily get jobs and it would also help develop the economy of the
region," recalls Paul Utee Kimanzi, a farmer who had a one-on-one
chat with the farm owner.

To sweeten the deal, the farm owner told them he would sink a high
volume water borehole that would serve the hotel and the
neighbouring community. What the residents did not know, however,
was that they were being fooled to create room for a dump site of
toxic waste materials.

Soon, hopes of securing jobs at a high end hotel disappeared only
to be replaced with worries for their lives following the dumping
of tones of highly hazardous and dangerous asbestos waste
materials buried only six feet deep in a water catchment area.

The site where the purported hotel was to be build is a
spectacular scenery, sandwiched between scenic hills which
provides an aerial view of Kitui town, some 20 kilometres away and
Zombe and Mutito towns.

At the foot of the hills is Kiongwe River and other tributaries
which feed into the giant Thua River downstream.

Two days after the man had left with his lofty promises, a
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) officer based in
Kitui together with Sonata Kenya Limited officials and a
subsidiary and Earth Care companies visited the area, and they had
an excavator.

For the better part of the day, the earth mover tore into the
ground with relentless fury, kicking dust and crushing stones into
smithereens as it flattened the area. Locals gazed in awe
believing it was preparation for the said hotel.

Police escort

But something curious happened when the revving excavator dug four
giant pits and young men were hired to erect a chain link. A
temporary toilet and bathroom were also erected. Days later, two
trucks and a semi-trailer, all full to capacity with asbestos
waste, under tight police escort, wound their way to the site in
the wee hours.

Mr Kimanzi and 19 other young men were hurriedly assembled to off-
load the cargo. "They introduced themselves as officials from NEMA
and paid us Sh800 each to off-load and bury the materials. But
what drew our curiosity was when they gave us gloves, masks and
aprons before we embarked on the job. We concluded this must be a
dangerous mission," Mr Kimanzi said.

He recalls one of the men identifying the material as asbestos and
telling them they had to be properly protected since the material
contains fibre which once inhaled is likely to cause lung cancer
and other life-threatening ailments.

Consuming water mixed with asbestos fibre would also be harmful,
either for humans or animals, they were told.

For two days, the young men would off-load the materials to the
pits and cover them with soil.

But their concern for their health surpassed the quick money they
made and would soon blow the whistle to the rest of the villagers.
Later, the residents formed a committee which wrote letters to
NEMA, the police and the County Government seeking the removal of
the material.

It has now emerged that NEMA flouted set guidelines on disposal of
asbestos waste while issuing the licence to Sonata Kenya Limited.
Letters in possession of the Sunday Standard have established
communication between the Kitui Directorate of Criminal
Investigations (DCI) and the County Government addressed to NEMA
and Sonata about the potential danger posed by huge quantities of
asbestos dumped at Kiongwe area.

Police claim they informed NEMA about the dangers the local
community was exposed to but nothing has happened despite
assurance that the toxic material was to be excavated. In the
letters, police say the Director General of NEMA assured them that
Sonata had been directed to immediately remove the waste and
restore the area to its original wholesome status.

The county government also wrote to NEMA raising the issue and
demanded immediate action against Sonata.

"You issued an Environmental Impact Assessment licence to Sonata
Kenya Ltd without proper due process. The site where the materials
were dumped is a water catchment area which feeds into Thua River
and no disposal or dumping is allowed in such a critical ecosystem
whatsoever," said the letter addressed to NEMA by the County
Executive in-charge of Environment, Energy and Minerals investment
George Mulatya.

Mulatya further complained that the site slope is over 60 per cent
hence not ideal of disposal of high risk materials such as
asbestos. Another letter from the DCI signed by Richard Wasilwa,
who was leading the investigations notes that samples collected
from the site and taken to the Government Chemist to ascertain if
indeed the material was asbestos turned out positive.

Mr Wasilwa said they are looking for Sonata directors "to come and
record statements and see who is responsible for the offence."

On June 13, the DCI officers, together with senior NEMA officials
from Nairobi, visited the site after which NEMA issued an order to
the company to remove the materials.

"So far NEMA headquarters has issued the company with a cessation
and restoration order for asbestos disposal site on plot number
690/Nambani/Maluma," the letter reads.

The DCI has already instituted charges against Sonata through one
of its directors, Noah Khaemba, for breach of disposal licence
guidelines. Mr Khaemba will appear at a Kitui court on July 25, to
answer to among others, charges of flouting the disposal
guidelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Cobb & Co. Site
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Morris, writing for ODT.co.nz, reported that up to 15
contractors were exposed to asbestos-contaminated soil while
working to open a new Cobb & Co restaurant at the Dunedin Railway
Station, it has been confirmed.

Plumbing, electrical and IT communications staff were among those
installing services in underfloor areas of the building before the
asbestos was detected, the Dunedin City Council confirmed
yesterday.

DCC organisational development and performance director Marian
Rillstone said the risk to workers was considered "incredibly
low", as the find was in damp soil and not airborne.

However, Worksafe had been notified and the affected workers
advised to consider adding their names to Worksafe's asbestos
exposure database if they were concerned, she said.

The council, as the building's owner, was working with Worksafe,
Cobb & Co's directors and the contractors involved in the
restaurant's fit-out to ensure the situation was managed
appropriately, she said.

Parts of the railway station were tested for asbestos last
November but underfloor areas at the north end of the building --
where the Cobb & Co restaurant now was -- were not examined, Ms
Rillstone said.

Traces of the toxic mineral were only detected after an underfloor
area at the southern end of the building was tested for asbestos
in recent weeks.

When soil tests results came back positive, the council
"immediately" halted work on the Cobb & Co site at the northern
end of the building while its underfloor areas were tested, she
said.

The results also confirmed asbestos in the damp soil, while air
samples found no trace of contamination, she said.

The contaminated area had since been sealed, allowing work to
resume and the restaurant to open on July 4.

The contractors had also met an occupational physician and been
offered other help, Ms Rillstone said.

The council, as the building's owner, was required by law to be
aware of hazards and inform contractors and others on site of
them, she said. It was also responsible for checking employers
were taking steps to keep their workers safe.

"From my perspective, I'm perfectly comfortable that we have acted
responsibly."

Cobb & Co director Ange Copson said the discovery "did slow down
the proceedings a little bit", but had been handled appropriately
and posed no risk to diners.

"There was some concern for our contractors that had been working
on the property, but there were checks put in place."

A WorkSafe spokeswoman could not comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Shefford Schools Shut Due to Asbestos Fears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bedfordshire On Sunday reported that two schools in Shefford have
been closed because of safety concerns over nearby demolition
work.

Shefford Lower School and Robert Bloomfield Academy have both shut
their doors to pupils due to an asbestos risk stemming from the
demolition of the old Shefford Lower School over the weekend.

The Acorn Pre-School has also closed for the day.

A statement from the head of Robert Bloomfield, Mr Axford, read:
"Due to demolition of the old Shefford Lower School, concerns have
been raised about the safety of the environment."

The head of Shefford Lower School shared the concerns and has also
closed her school for the day.

An email from Ms Callender, sent to parents, read: "Over the
weekend we have been advised that the old schools buildings have
been demolished.

"There are concerns about a number of issues and unconfirmed risks
concerning the safety of the site; the safety of the boiler room
which is now partially demolished and any potential asbestos
risk."

She added: "We appreciate that this causes a great deal of
inconvenience and we apologise for this but we are just not able
to take the risk with the children."

The demolition and subsequent asbestos warning has caused alarm
with some parents in Shefford.

Central Bedfordshire Council is currently investigating.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Enlists EPA to Test for Asbestos from Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Gray, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported that
when a historic building built by Mark Twain's uncle, James
Clemens Jr., burned in an early morning fire, nearby residents
were initially concerned about the fire spreading to other homes -
- at least two of which were ignited by windblown embers.

Now, they're worried about whether the thin pieces of charred
debris that still litter neighborhood yards and sidewalks contain
asbestos.

Larry Chapman, a resident of the 1600 block of Helen Street, north
of the scene of the fire, says that debris he had tested
independently confirmed the presence of asbestos. City officials
said that they enlisted help of Environmental Protection Agency
personnel to conduct tests of their own.

Todd Waelterman, director of operations for the mayor's office,
said the city became involved once public health concerns arose
"beyond the building footprint" of the long-vacant Clemens House.

Waelterman said officials had not received permission from the
Clemens House owners -- the community development organization
NorthSide Regeneration -- to access the property to collect
samples for testing. Meanwhile, samples of burned material were
being taken from nearby streets and public areas.

A statement on behalf of NorthSide Regeneration and its owner,
Paul McKee, said that the house is currently unsafe and that its
insurance company has urged people not to enter it yet.

"Once we receive assurance that the Clemens House is deemed
structurally safe it will be available for entry and inspection
and any necessary testing," spokesman Jim Gradl said in the
statement.

Asbestos was the only substance being tested for, according to
John Frey, a federal on-scene coordinator for the EPA. He said
test results are expected within a day of samples being submitted.

Waelterman suggested that based on past documentation, the
building's owners had removed asbestos from at least parts of the
structure.

"That's my understanding that, about three years ago, the flooring
and the pipes were cleaned up," he said.

But he wasn't sure if that asbestos removal extended to the
roof -- much of which, he believes, went up in smoke.

Some in the neighborhood are worried about material that has ended
up on their property.

"I'm afraid to cut my grass because I don't know what's in this
grass," Chapman said. "And once I go over it with the motor, I'm
blowing it into the air."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Confirms Asbestos Contamination at Church
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Richards, writing for Needles Desert Star, reported that
tests have now confirmed the presence of asbestos in Needles'
Assembly of God Church at Broadway and C Street, according to a
letter from Pastor Thomas Lamb presented to Needles City Council.

The letter states a test conducted inside the church by an
asbestos and environmental consulting firm revealed contamination
from airborne chrysotile asbestos at 358,000 structures per square
centimeter. A centimeter is .39 inches. Significant contamination
is quoted to be 100,000.

Lamb's contention: that work done in the old Ford garage across C
Street from the church generated a dust containing asbestos that
has blown into the church and school. That work, as described by
Lamb, involved removing an envelope of asbestos and tar paper from
around steel pipes. The church, and its attached school, were
closed May 4 out of fears of such contamination. The congregation
is meeting, temporarily, at 11 a.m. Sundays in the Needles
Recreation Center. No school is being offered.

Lamb's letter asks the city to hold the purported generators of
the contamination responsible. Rick Daniels, city manager, said
the letter has been sent to all of the regulatory agencies that
issued permits for the work. Those include transporting the waste
and acceptance, according to one document, disposal of 7.66 tons
of bagged, non-friable asbestos at a landfill in Azusa, Calif.

Regulators include the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District. Bret Banks, of MDAQMD's compliance section and also
executive director of the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District, agreed that they are aware of the situation and are
presently consulting with the California Air Resources Board about
how to proceed. "Some of the things we're trying to put together,"
Banks said, "are working with the state to try to determine what
the next steps are to investigate the facility across the street.
Is there any increased exposure to residents as a result of the
activity that happened there.

"The first thing we're trying to determine is where the material
came from. Is there a potential for continued contamination?"

Once that's been resolved, Banks continued, regulators will see
what needs to be done to in the way of cleanup.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Lowers Limit of Exposure to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cottrill, writing for OH&S Canada, reported that the
Government of Canada furthered its efforts to ban asbestos across
the country on July 12, when it announced that it was lowering the
acceptable level of workplace exposure to airborne chrysotile
asbestos to as close to zero as possible.

The move was effective immediately, according to a news release
from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). Patty Hajdu,
the federal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and
Labour, announced in Gatineau, Que. that the lower threshold would
minimize the risk of workers contacting airborne asbestos fibres
and align Canada's national standard with those of individual
provinces and territories. The new limit is also more consistent
with international standards.

"Every employee has the right to a safe workplace," said Hajdu, as
quoted in the release. "I'm proud to be announcing these long-
overdue regulatory changes on asbestos, a key element of our
government's comprehensive ban."

Federal Science Minister Kirsty Duncan said in a press statement
that protecting Canadians' health and safety "is of utmost
importance" to the Justin Trudeau government.

"Canadians can be confident my colleagues and I will continue to
work hard to ensure that families, workers and communities will be
protected from the harmful impacts of asbestos exposure," added
Duncan, "so they may lead healthy, secure lives."

The move is part of the federal government's ongoing strategy to
ban all asbestos and asbestos-containing products by next year.
Canada's occupational health and safety law regulations require
exposure to airborne asbestos to follow the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values at 0.1
fibres per cubic centimetre, according to a backgrounder on the
ESDC website.

Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff, whose
organization has been lobbying for a complete asbestos ban for
some time, told COHSN that the lower threshold was a move "in the
right direction" that would "send a clear message" that the
carcinogenic mineral should not be used.

"We welcome the action of the government," said Yussuff. "There's
always going to be argument on what level of threshold is
acceptable for workers to be exposed, and we believe no amount of
asbestos fibres is safe. So lowering the threshold certainly
brings us one step closer to the inevitable situation that the
government already announced, a complete ban of both import and
export of asbestos."

Yussuff added that there is still a lot more work to do, including
bringing all provincial asbestos-exposure standards into line and
creating registries of buildings that still contain the mineral.
"We've got some distance to go," he said.

"I also believe that we need a national registry for workers that
are dying from asbestos-related disease in this country,"
explained Yussuff, "to give us, really, an account as to how many
people are affected by the substance, yet decades after the worker
may have been exposed to it."

ESDC announced its strategy on a nationwide asbestos ban last Dec.
15. In addition to the new occupational exposure limit, the
strategy consists of regulating the handling, removal, repair and
disturbance of asbestos-containing material to minimize worker
exposure. Previously, Public Services and Procurement Canada had
already banned the use of asbestos in all new federal construction
and renovation projects (COHSN, April 12, 2016).

"It moves us one step closer, of course, to try to make this
country a safer place for workers who work in industry," Yussuff
said about the lowered threshold.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Makeup Brand Contains Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------
Sophia Tulp, writing for USA Today, reported that a popular retail
chain catering to girls, Justice, says it has stopped selling a
cosmetic and is conducting an investigation after a televised
report alleged the product contains toxic substances, including
asbestos.

According to the report, they sent samples of a highlighter called
Just Shine Shimmer Powder to a lab to see if it contained any non-
listed ingredients. However, the station said its investigation
turned up asbestos and a handful of toxic heavy metals.

Exposure to asbestos, once commonly used for building insulation,
has been found to lead to certain types of cancers and tumors on
internal organs.

Since the investigation, the product has been pulled from shelves,
Justice says. The FDA prohibits sale of contaminated makeup
products, like those containing the talc with asbestos.

The chain, based in New Albany, Ohio, and part of Ascena Retail
Group, has stores nationwide. While Justice officials could not be
reached for comment, the chain posted a statement on Facebook.

"Upon receiving an inquiry about the Just Shine Shimmer Powder
product . . .  we immediately began an investigation and, out of
an abundance of caution, stopped the sale of this product in our
stores and on our website," The statement read. "Our suppliers are
required to produce all products in compliance with applicable
laws and regulations. If any supplier fails to do so, it is our
practice to hold them responsible. We cannot speculate regarding
the matter while we investigate."

In addition to asbestos, WTVD says the lab found four toxic heavy
metals -- barium, chromium, selenium, and lead -- in Just Shine
Shimmer Powder.

This is not the first time that makeup products have been alleged
to contain some less-than-desirable ingredients. Lead has been
found in lipsticks, and formaldehyde in nail polishes, eyelash
glues and deodorants. Some have called for the FDA to more
strictly regulate the cosmetic industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairbanks Wins Summary Judgment in "Charbonneau"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOROTHY CHARBONNEAU, individually and as
personal representative of the estate of ROBERT CHARBONNEAU,
deceased, Plaintiffs, v. FAIRBANKS COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. N15C-01-045 ASB (Del Sup.), Judge Calvin L. Scoot, Jr.,
of the Superior Court of Delaware issued an Order granting
Defendant Fairbanks's Motion for Summary Judgment due to the
failure of Plaintiff Dorothy Charbonneau to satisfy the summary
judgment criteria.

The Superior Court ruled that, under Massachusetts law, to prove
causation in an asbestos case, the plaintiff must establish (1)
that the defendant's product contained asbestos (product
identification), (2) that the victim was exposed to the asbestos
in the defendant's product (exposure), and (3) that such exposure
was a substantial contributing factor in causing harm to the
victim (substantial factor).

Judge Scoot held that there is no evidence in the record that the
replacement parts Mr. Charbonneau worked with were asbestos parts
manufactured or supplied by Defendant, Fairbanks.  Without any
indication that the replacement packing, external insulation, or
parts in the Fairbanks valve were manufactured by Fairbanks,
Plaintiff asks the Court to speculate that Defendant is
responsible.  When viewing the evidence in a light most favorable
to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could not infer that Mr.
Charbonneau was exposed to asbestos from Fairbanks product beyond
speculation, Judge Scoot further held.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/tz88iS from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Roebuck Wins Summary Judgment in "Glaser"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE:  ASBESTOS LITIGATION, SCOTT GLASER and SANDRA HURST,
Plaintiffs, v. SEARS ROEBUCK, CO., et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N15C-08-207 ASB (Del. Sup.), Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the
Superior Court of Delaware issued an Order ruling in favor of
Defendant Sears Roebuck's Motion for Summary Judgment for failure
of Plaintiffs Scott Glaser and Sandra Hurst to satisfy the summary
judgment criteria.

The Superior Court of Delaware cited Michigan law, which provides
that, in a product liability action, a seller other than a
manufacturer is not liable for harm allegedly caused by the
product unless either of the following is true:(a) The seller
failed to exercise a reasonable care, including breach of any
implied warranty, with respect to the product and that failure was
a proximate cause of the person's injuries;(b) The seller made an
express warranty as to the product, the product failed to conform
to the warranty, and the failure to conform to the warranty was a
proximate cause of the person's harm.

Judge Scoot held that Sears did not now and has never mined,
milled, manufactured, processed or distributed wholesale asbestos-
containing products as those terms are commonly used and
understood in this litigation. The Court finds Plaintiffs did not
meet their burden under Michigan law to show that Sears sold a
product in a defective condition, the defect caused the injury,
and the seller failed to exercise reasonable care. The court in
Dreyer v. Excel Indus (S.A., 2009 WL 1184846) noted that the
plaintiff offered no support for the proposition that a non-
manufacturing seller is under a duty to warn of the dangers
associated with a product manufactured by another.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/WugcHS from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dionne" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, CLARENCE DIONNE, Plaintiffs, v.
ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-11-062 ASB (Del.
Sup.), Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of
Delaware ruled in favour of Plaintiff Clarence Dionne and issued
and Order denying the Defendant's Clear-Brooks' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The Superior Court ruled that Wisconsin law is the applicable
substantive law in this matter. Under Wisconsin law, a plaintiff
must prove that the alleged defect in the defendant's product was
a cause of the plaintiff's injury or damage.

Plaintiff, according to Judge Scoot, has presented evidence that a
reasonable juror could infer Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos
from Defendant's boilers.  Plaintiff also provided evidence that
Cleaver-Brooks sold replacement asbestos-containing parts such as
gaskets, cement, and rope. Further, Plaintiff was responsible for
ordering the replacement parts for these boilers and he testified
that he ordered the parts from Cleaver-Brooks. Plaintiff also
demonstrated that it took hours to remove and replace insulation
in the boilers. A reasonable jury could infer that Defendant's
asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff
Clarence Dionne's injuries.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/mzBlCZ from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Opinion in "Paulus"
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, issued an Order modifying its Opinion filed on June 30,
2017, in the case captioned ELAINE MARGIE PAULUS et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant, No. B269904 (Cal. App.).

According to the modified opinion, there is no change in judgment.
As before, the petition for rehearing is denied.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/Kr4bPl from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.D. Lee Can Practice Pro Hac Vice in "Moore"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, issued an order granting the application for admission
to practice pro hac vice of Joshua Douglas Lee, Esq., in the case
captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants., No. 1:16-cv-157
(W.D.N.C.), together with Timothy W. Bouch, Esq., as good members
of this Court, having paid the admission fee and provided their
email addresses.

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 12, 2017 is available at
https://is.gd/cKTbNq from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul
-- kpaul@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC,
pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart J.
Purdy, Esq. -- spurdy@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black --
info@wardblacklaw.com -- Ward Black, P.A.

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Stuart J. Purdy,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A.

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Douglas
Lee, -- jlee@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von
Keller, 92 Broad Street, PO Box 59, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone:
843-937-8811 Fax: 843-937-0606.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com --  Wall,
Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, -- mmcdonaldhsblawfirm.com --  Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice & Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III -- csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Esq. -- tim.pecksmithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Claims Against Trane in "Roper"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for
Western District of Washington, Seattle, by virtue of a
stipulation between Plaintiffs and Trane U.S., Inc., entered an
Order of dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against defendant Trane,
its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, parents, affiliated
entities, directors and officers in the case captioned WILLIAM
ROPER and CAROL ROPER, individually and as a marital community,
Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as successor-by-merger
to BorgWarner Corp., et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-01453-TSZ
(W.D. Wash.), without prejudice and without costs to either party.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/YBgNqk from Leagle.com.

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Gladd,
Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, pro hac vice -- 125-01 Queens
Boulevard, Kew Gardens, NY 11415.

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers, Esq.
--- michaeldmyersattorneyatlaw.com -- MYERS & COMPANY & Tammy C.
Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice. 360 Lexington Ave,
11th Floor, New York, NY 10017 USA Telephone: (844) 230-7676.

Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Gladd,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael David Myers, MYERS &
COMPANY & Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice.
Brand Insulations, Inc, Defendant, represented by David A. Shaw,
Esq. --dshaw@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS &
Malika Johnson, Esq. -- mjohnson@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS
KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

     Barry Neal Mesher, Esq.
     Brian D. Zeringer, Esq.
     Christopher S. Marks, Esq.
     SEDGWICK LLP
     1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 4100
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 223-7961
     Fax: (206) 223-7107

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP
& Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com --  GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne
-- horne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward
Ricketts, -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim --
mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES.

Lone Star Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard
(Terry) I. Hall, thall@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD,
Melissa K. Roeder, mroeder@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD &
Zackary A. Paal, zpaal@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, gawlowski@wscd.com WILSON SMITH COCHRAN &
DICKERSON.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP,  Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. 600 University St Ste 2915,
Seattle, WA, 98101-4172 Office (206) 462-7560


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loss of Consortium Claim Barred by Res Judicata
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, affirmed the judgment of the District Court for summary
adjudication against Plaintiff Janet Stewart's loss of consortium
claim in favour of Defendant Union Carbide Corporation on the
ground of res judicata.

In  Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788,  the
wife of a smoker who developed lung cancer sued cigarette
manufacturer Philip Morris for loss of consortium. For some
unknown reason, she quickly dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice,
but after her husband's death claimed loss of consortium in a
wrongful death action.  The California Supreme Court held that the
wrongful death action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata,
which prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same
cause of action.  The California Supreme Court held that the
wrongful death action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata,
which prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same
cause of action.  It concluded the widow's wrongful death action
involved the same primary right and breach as her former loss of
consortium action and sought the same post-death loss of
consortium damages.  The Court is bound by decisions of our
state's highest court that remain good law and may not re-examine
their correctness.

The Court of Appeals ruled further that, it is undisputed that
appellant alone received the entire amount of the settlements with
the Manville and Gypsum trusts, even though those settlements
resolved all heirs' wrongful death claims. Since appellant is the
only heir who collected payment under the settlements, she is the
only party with a potentially double recovery in this wrongful
death case.

The appealed case is JANET STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. B267405
(Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 12, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/bKxDYG from Leagle.com.

The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., Farrise Firm, Simona A.
Farrise, Esq. -- farriselaw@farriselaw.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Polsinelli, Stephen M. Nichols, Esq. -- snichols@polsinelli.com --
Farah S. Nicol -- fnicol@polsinelli.com -- and David K. Schulz PO
Box 348408 Sacramento, CA 95834 for Defendant and Respondent


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sets Filing Deadlines in "Carroll"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Western District of Wisconsin
issued an Order granting in part, reserving and denying in part
different motions and sub-motions of parties in the case captioned
PATRICIA CARROLL, individually and as personal representative of
THE ESTATE OF RONALD KENNETH CARROLL, deceased, Plaintiff, v. JOHN
CRANE INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-373-wmc (W.D. Wis.), setting date
for partial telephonic pre-trial conference and deadlines for
additional filings.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 11, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/RjayIT from Leagle.com.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam
Iola -- siola@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
PC.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
Scott Schulte, -- sschulte@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson,302 N. Market St.,
Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC
& Craig Ronald Steger, Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik, 505
King St. Suite 300, La Crosse, Wisconsin 5460

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, -- dgriffin@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns
LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell -- mark@otmblaw.com -- Tivin,
Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram
Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. : 135 S La Salle St Ste
2300, Chicago

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., 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 -- schintam@vonbriesen.com --
von Briesen & Roper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION, DOROTHY CHARBONNEAU, individually
and as personal representative of the estate of ROBERT
CHARBONNEAU, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-01-045 ASB (Del. Sup.), Judge
Calvin L. Scoot, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware issued an
Order granting Defendant Cleaver-Brooks Motion for Summary
Judgment due to the failure of Plaintiff Dorothy Charbonneau to
satisfy the summary judgment criteria.

The Superior Court ruled that, under Massachusetts law, to prove
causation in an asbestos case, the plaintiff must establish (1)
that the defendant's product contained asbestos (product
identification), (2) that the victim was exposed to the asbestos
in the defendant's product (exposure), and (3) that such exposure
was a substantial contributing factor in causing harm to the
victim (substantial factor).

There is no evidence in the record that the replacement parts Mr.
Charbonneau worked with were asbestos parts manufactured or
supplied by Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks. As stated under Morin
(Morin v. AutoZone Ne., Inc., 943 N.E.2d 495, 499 Mass. App. Ct.
2011), it is Plaintiff's burden to show that Defendant's product
contained asbestos and that the victim was exposed to the asbestos
in the defendant's product. Plaintiff has not met this burden

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 11, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/tz88iS from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Disclosure Deadline Stipulations OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order to Continue the Expert
Disclosure Deadline in the case captioned WILLIAM ROPER and CAROL
ROPER, individually and as a marital community, Plaintiffs, v.
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as successor-by-merger to BorgWarner
Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01453-TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), based on all parties filed Corrected Joint Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 11, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/tz88iS from Leagle.com.

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Gladd,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, pro hac vice -- 125-01 Queens Boulevard,
Kew Gardens, NY 11415

William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers,  ---
michaeldmyersattorneyatlaw.com -- MYERS & COMPANY & Tammy C.
Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice. 360 Lexington Ave,
11th Floor, New York, NY 10017 USA Telephone: (844) 230-7676

Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Gladd,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael David Myers, MYERS &
COMPANY & Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice.
Brand Insulations, Inc, Defendant, represented by David A. Shaw, -
-dshaw@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS & Malika
Johnson,  mjohnson@williamskastner.com WILLIAMS KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by, Barry Neal Mesher,
Esq., SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP
& Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com --  GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne
-- horne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward
Ricketts, -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim --
mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES.

Lone Star Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard
(Terry) I. Hall, thall@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD,
Melissa K. Roeder, mroeder@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD &
Zackary A. Paal, zpaal@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, gawlowski@wscd.com WILSON SMITH COCHRAN &
DICKERSON.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP,  Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. 600 University St Ste 2915,
Seattle, WA, 98101-4172 Office (206) 462-7560


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 53 PI Suits at April 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still defending themselves against 53
pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of April 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April
30, 2017.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products
as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as
building fires.  As a distributor of building materials, we face
an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the
event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past
or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in
economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated
environmental, health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in
design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product,
negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In
particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979, which have not materially impacted
our financial condition or operating results.

"Since 2002, as of April 30, 2017, approximately 979 asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits have been brought and we
vigorously defend against them.  Of these, 891 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 29 are on deferred or inactive court
dockets, 53 are pending and only 6 have been settled."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/kMfE6F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at June 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company still faces asbestos-related claims and
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 3, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We
are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without
payment.  If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that
compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our
products, the case is generally settled for an amount that
reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and
character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number
and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction
in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent
We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.  To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1qVSbk









                         *********


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  * * *