CAR_Public/170728.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, July 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 148



                            Headlines

1220 MANAGEMENT: "Rubin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AB&K PLUMBING: "Gonzalez" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime
ALGONQUIN & WILKE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Robles" Suit Says
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Lawrence" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

AMWAY CORP: "Lin" Seeks Unpaid Bonuses, Alleges Discrimination
ARCELORMITTAL: Friedman Remains a Class Member in Antitrust Suit
ARCONIC INC: Sued in US Over Fatal London Tower Fire
ARCONIC INC.: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ARCONIC INC: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims

ATWOOD OCEANICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Settlement Deadline May Be Too Tight
BROADSMART GLOBAL: Faces "Sapkota" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Hit with Class Action Over ADA Violations
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Medi-Cal Program

CANADA: Ontario's Beekeepers File Class Action Over Pesticides
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
CHECKR INC: Glackin Sues Over Unfair & Illegal Background Reports
CLYDESDALE BANK: Customers Launch Legal Action Over Mis-sold TBLs
CONAGRA: Says Seesaw Week Proves Need for Ascertainability Review

CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Moves to Certify Class of Retirees
CROSSVILLE BNRV: Smith's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
DEJA VU: Settlement Appeal Delays Payment to Class Members
DIBELLA CORP: Rojas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wage, Damages
DIET WORKS: False Therapeutic Claims Alleged in "Greek" Suit

DIRECTV LLC: Class Wins Certification in Telemarketing Suit
DRYSHIPS INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
EQT CORP: "Adams" Asserts Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Lustig" Disputes Inaccurate Credit Report
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Appeal on Dropped Class Suit in Fla. Underway

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Naher" Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
FEDEX CORP: 20 Settlements in Cases vs. Unit Win Final Court OK
FELCOR LODGING: "Johnson" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Meyer" Suit
FORZA SAFETY: "Jones" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.

GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wagner"
GLOBAL TEL: Faces Federal Class Action Suit Over Prison Phone Scam
GROTON LONG POINT, CT: Tax Increases Not Excessive, Judge Rules
GV WELDING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Salinas" Suit Says
HAIN CELESTIAL: 3 Securities Suits Consolidated in E.D.N.Y.

HAIN CELESTIAL: "Silva" and "Barnes" Suits v. Directors Underway
HARDY ANIMAL: Faces Class Action Over Smelly Painesville Plant
HONGLI CLEAN ENERGY: "Ellis" Sues Over Share Devaluation
HP INC: Fights to Dismiss Cartridge Monopoly Class Action
IASIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Properly Pay Nurses, Reinhardt Says

INC RESEARCH: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Action
KIIP INC: Illegally Obtains Consumers Personal Info, Suit Claims
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Sued by Mattocks Over Scott(R) Products
KLLM TRANSPORT: "Jowers" Claims Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Renews Bid to Certify Class in Drywall MDL

LENSCRAFTERS INC: Faces "Seegert" Suit Over False Lens-Price Tag
LONDON SCHOOL: Students to Sue Over Mouldy, Mice-Infested Flats
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Decertification of Inmate Class
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court Denies Bid to Shorten Time in "Gold"
MARYLAND: #AFROMATION Protesters File Class Action Suit

MASSACHUSETTS: Machado Sues Over Withheld Bonus for Veterans
MCDONALD'S USA: Faces "Deslandes" Suit in N.D. Ill.
MCDONALD'S USA: Faces "Disomma" Suit Over Tax on Bottled Water
MDL 840: Human Rights Victims Lose Bid to Enforce $2-Bil. Award
MDL 2081: Bid to Exclude Beyer Expert Reports Denied

MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE: Sallard Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MEDTRONIC PLC: Sprint Fidelis Putative Class Suit Still Underway
MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Still Pending in Minnesota
MEDTRONIC PLC: Still Awaits Court Ruling in "Merenstein" Lawsuit
MEDTRONIC PLC: Lawsuit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Still Pending

METHODIST LE BONHEUR: Faces Class Actions Over Illegal Billing
MEZZECANTINA LLC: Violates FLSA and Wage and Hour Law, Marin Says
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Oom"
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Misleading Debt Collection Practices
MINI JAKE: Anderson Sues Over Civil Rights Violation

MINNESOTA: St. Paul School District Faces Discrimination Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Nearly 100 Concussion Suits Consolidated
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Fraser" Seeks Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
NICARAGUA: California Judge Dismisses Portion of Miskitu Case
NIKE RETAIL: Labor Law Suit to Remain in Calif. Federal Court

NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Timing Chain Noise
NOMURA HOLDINGS: Units Still Face Antitrust Class Suits in N.Y.
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action
OHIO STATE: Ex-Football Player Files Antitrust Class Action
OHIO STATE: Spielman Files Suit to Block Use of Player Images

ON DECK CAPITAL: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing
PELICAN POINT: Gross Moves for Certification of Laborers Class
PELLA CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Opalka" Suit
PERPETUAL: May Face Huge Legal Bill from Brickworks-Patt Case

PIONEER NATURAL: "Barrett" Seeks 401(K) Plan Restoration
PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over FCRA Breach
PRO-MASTERS AUTO: Accused by Otterson of Failure to Pay Overtime
QUADGEN WIRELESS: "Pham" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
RENT-A-CENTER: Arbitration Bid Hearing Continued to Sept. 7

RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
RUBY CORP: Reaches Settlement in Ashley Madison Data Breach Suit
SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over $300 Trash Pickup Fee
SEATTLE, WA: Nov. 1 Fairness Hearing on "Reynoldson" Settlement
SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Arias Seeks to Certify Class of Agents

SKM RECYCLING: Class Action Mulled Over Coolaroo Plant Fire
SNAP INC: Faces "Gupta" Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Issues
SPOTIFY: Royalty Dispute with Songwriters to Hamper IPO Plans
SPOTIFY USA: Judge Says Davis Wright Attys Misled Him
STATOIL USA: Oil & Gas Royalty Litigation Continues in Pa.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Certify McKinsty's Class
TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Sues Over Defective Airbags
TAQUERIA LP: "Mora" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
TECHPRECISION CORP: No Trial Date Set for Class Suit vs. Ranor
TIAA-CREF: Del. Ct. Won't Disturb Class Action Coverage Verdict

TIME WARNER: "Sims" FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
TJX COMPANIES: Dates in "Chester" Suit Vacated Over Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
TOYOTA MOTOR: Defends 33 Economic Loss Class Lawsuits at June 23
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Nygaard Wants to End Illegal Debt Collection

TRIBUNE MEDIA: Shareholder Sues to Prevent Sale to Sinclare
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Gives CA Conditional Certification
ULTA SALON: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Free Gifts
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Zuckerman Spaeder Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Asylum Seeks Sue Customs Officers in Los Angeles

UNITED STATES: Rulings in H2-B Class Action Motion Delayed
UNITED STATES: Judge Halts Deportation of 1,400 Iraqis
UNITED STATES: Syphilis Study Victims' Families Seek Settlement
UNITED STATES: Claims vs. SSA Commissioner in "Nassiri" Dismissed
UPS OF AMERICA: "Cervantes" Sues Over Autodialled Calls

VORNADO REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing on Class Cert. Bid to End by Aug. 25
WALGREENS BOOTS: Plaintiffs in M.D. Pa. Lawsuit Seek to Lift Stay
WARBY PARKER: Young Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Web Site
WASHINGTON: Settlement in SSC Treatment Suit Has Final OK

WASHINGTON STATE: Faces "Sheth" Suit in Wis. Over Data Breach
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit
WEST CORPORATION: "Bushansky" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
WESTWOOD VILLAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Association Management
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: US$16.0MM Settlement for "Epstein" Class Suit

YOURMECHANIC INC: Faces Class Suit for Misclassifying Mechanics
YOUTUBE: Faces Class Action Over Extreme Content Censorship


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Power Plant Valves Gave Man Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stubblefield Couple Sue St. Louis Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Outlines Next Steps in STL Asbestos Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsfield Man Fined for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-related Tumor Treatment Misses Key Goal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Health Risk Despite Asbestos Tests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Limits Take-Home Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amcor Sues Ramsay as Asbestos Dispute Escalates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 50+ Borders Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Doesn't Expand Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Clacton Widow Fights for Asbestos Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Old Bingo Hall a Public Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case Mngt Rules Delayed by Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Oxford Bldg Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Clemens Mansion Debris

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Talc Case Could Set Pattern of Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Throws Out Bid to Dismiss "Howell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Determine Sufficiency of Responses Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Blair" Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Issues Deposition Order in "Carroll"




                            *********


1220 MANAGEMENT: "Rubin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Rubin, on her behalf and those similarly situated v. 1220
Management Group LLC, MH Employment Services, LLC, and Keith
Menin, Case No. 1:17-cv-22483-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage, tip reimbursement, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a personnel agency in Miami,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Jackson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN JACKSON, PA
      1136 Southeast Third Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
      Telephone: (954) 779-2272
      E-mail: KJackson@krjlaw.com


AB&K PLUMBING: "Gonzalez" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Florian Gonzalez, and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. AB&K Plumbing Corp., a Florida Corporation, and
Jesus Mesa, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22412 (S.D.
Fla., June 28, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
willful violations of overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a plumbing company in Miami-Dade County, Florida
where Plaintiff was employed as a plumber. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALGONQUIN & WILKE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Robles" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Robles, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Algonquin & Wilke Currency Exchange, Inc., and Michael
H. Factor, Case No. 1:17-cv-04988 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Algonquin & Wilke Currency Exchange, Inc. operates a financial
services company located at 1764 W. Algonquin Rd Arlington
Heights, IL 60005. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
      Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
      LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
      77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 420-6784


ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH SMITH and IGNATIUS HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
STROM ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00911-RCM (W.D.
Pa., July 10, 2017), seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, Pennsylvania law, and Oregon law for
unpaid wages, including overtime compensation due for their
uncompensated labor.

Allegheny Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and operates worldwide.
ATI operates specialty material manufacturing plants in over 30
locations across the United States.

Strom Engineering Corporation is a Minnesota corporation
headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  Strom provides
replacement labor staffing for employers involved in labor
disputes across the United States, including for co-Defendant
ATI.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Michaela Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone/Fax: (215) 792-6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Lawrence" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Lawrence, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alliedbarton Security Services
LLC, Universal Protection Service, LLC and Universal Security
Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04834 (S.D. N.Y., June
27, 2017), seeks all overtime wages due, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, interest, costs and
disbursements and such other and further relief for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants are security service providers that provide security
guards, janitors and other personnel for businesses nationwide.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants assigned to 4 Irving Plaza, New
York, New York 10003 as a security guard from in or around
February 2014 through February 28, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 420-9300
      Email: mmadzelan@sssfirm.com


AMWAY CORP: "Lin" Seeks Unpaid Bonuses, Alleges Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jiong Lin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Amway Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03882
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, an
injunction, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further legal and equitable
relief resulting from breach of contract, discrimination and
unjust enrichment.

Amway is a multilevel marketing company which produces and markets
a variety of household products through a network of distributors.
Lin, an Amway distributor, alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay their contractually agreed-upon bonuses because of his Chinese
origin. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARCELORMITTAL: Friedman Remains a Class Member in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman Industries, Incorporated remains a class member of a
steel antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Illinois,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 29, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.

Friedman Industries said, "The Company is a class member of steel
antitrust class action litigation brought against certain steel
manufacturers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The litigation was initiated by several
complaints filed in September and October of 2008 alleging the
defendants conspired, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to
restrict their output and therefore raise or fix the prices for
steel products sold for delivery in the United States between
April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs sought
monetary and other relief on behalf of themselves and the class.
A portion of the defendants reached settlements in 2014 totaling
US$163,900,000 and the Company received settlement proceeds of
US$316,310 in fiscal 2016 related to this settlement.  A
settlement was reached with the remaining defendants in February
2017 totaling US$30,000,000.  It is not yet known when the
settlement proceeds will be distributed and the Company is unable
to estimate the amount of settlement proceeds to be received."

According to a Law360 report, Plaintiffs and the proposed class
are represented by Michael K. Kellogg, Mark C. Hansen, Michael J.
Guzman and Steven F. Benz of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans &
Figel PLLC and by Roberta D. Liebenberg, Donald L. Perelman,
Jeffrey S. Istvan, Matthew Duncan and Adam J. Pessin of Fine
Kaplan And Black RPC.

ArcelorMittal is represented by Andrew S. Marovitz, Thomas V.
Panoff and Kristin W. Silverman of Mayer Brown LLP and by Mark
Leddy, Mark W. Nelson and Kenneth S. Reinker of Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP.

The case is In Re: Steel Antitrust Litigation Standard Iron Works
v. ArcelorMittal et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-0521 (N.D. Ill.).

Friedman Industries, Incorporated is engaged in steel processing,
pipe manufacturing and processing and steel and pipe distribution.
The Company has two product groups: coil and tubular products.  It
was incorporated in 1965 and is currently headquartered in
Longview, Texas.


ARCONIC INC: Sued in US Over Fatal London Tower Fire
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stemple, writing for Reuters, reports that a shareholder
of Arconic Inc (ARNC.N) on July 13 filed a lawsuit accusing the
company of defrauding shareholders over its supply of cladding
panels used at Grenfell Tower, the London high-rise where at least
80 people died in a fire.

In his proposed class-action complaint, Michael Brave is seeking
to recoup "significant" shareholder losses stemming from Arconic's
failure prior to the June 14 blaze to properly disclose its use of
"highly flammable" Reynobond PE panels.

The shareholder lawsuit filed in the federal court in Manhattan,
where Arconic is based, may be the first in the United States tied
to the fire that gutted the 24-story Grenfell Tower, in London's
North Kensington section.

Arconic's share price fell 21 percent between June 14 and June 27,
the day after the company once known as Alcoa said it would stop
selling the panels for use in high-rises.

That decline reduced Arconic's market value by more than $2.5
billion, according to Reuters data.

Arconic declined to comment on the lawsuit. Brave also named
former Chief Executive Klaus Kleinfeld and current Chief Financial
Officer Kenneth Giacobbe as defendants.

The complaint seeks to allow Arconic shareholders from Feb. 28 to
June 26 to sue as a group.

Brave said shareholders were deceived by Arconic's inadequate
disclosures regarding the cladding panels, and that their use
significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury or
death in buildings containing them.

He said Arconic's public statements were "materially false and
misleading at all relevant times," and that Kleinfeld and Giacobbe
should also be held liable for their contents.

It is common for shareholders to sue companies in the United
States over unexpected stock price declines that they believe
could have been averted.

Shares of Arconic closed on July 13 up 26 cents at $24.45. They
had closed at $21.84 on June 27.

The case is Brave v Arconic Inc et al, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 17-05312. [GN]


ARCONIC INC.: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Arconic Inc. ("Arconic")
(NYSE:ARNC) common or preferred stock during the period between
November 4, 2013 and June 26, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Tripson v. Arconic Inc., et al., No. 17-5369.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 13, 2017. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/arconic/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Arconic and its former CEO with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Arconic is engaged in
engineering and manufacturing aluminum and other lightweight
metals into products used worldwide in the aerospace, automotive,
commercial transportation, packaging, building and construction,
oil and gas, defense, consumer electronics, and industrial
industries. Arconic's aluminum Reynobond PE panels consist of two
sheets of thin aluminum, each permanently bonded to an extruded
thermoplastic core, which are combined with insulation to form
cladding used to cover residential and office towers and other
commercial structures.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Arconic's business and operations,
including that, contrary to defendants' representations that
Reynobond PE was "a fully tested product, with building-code
approvals throughout the world," Arconic was knowingly selling
Reynobond PE for use in construction projects where the product
was to be used in a manner that the Company knew was unsafe and
presented a fire hazard, and that Arconic's marketing and sales of
highly flammable Reynobond PE for use in high-rise tower projects
across the United Kingdom and other countries directly conflicted
with the purported strong culture of safety, ethics and legal
compliance that the Company claimed to have and exposed Arconic to
hundreds of millions of dollars in potential civil and criminal
liability and reputational harm. As a result of these false
statements and/or omission, Arconic common and preferred stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period, with its common stock reaching a Class Period high of
nearly $40 per share. These materially false statements and
omissions also permitted Arconic to improve its corporate debt
ratings, which facilitated Arconic selling $1.250 billion in debt
securities and another $1.250 billion in depositary shares in two
underwritten securities offerings on September 18, 2014.

On June 14, 2017, a fire engulfed Grenfell Tower, a 24-story, 220-
foot high residential tower block of public housing flats in North
Kensington, West London. The Grenfell Tower fire resulted in at
least 79 fatalities and over 70 injuries. On June 24, 2017,
Reuters reported that Arconic employees knew Reynobond PE panels
were being used on the Grenfell Tower, despite the warnings in
Arconic's own sales brochures that such use was inappropriate and
a fire hazard. The article cited email communications of Arconic's
own personnel, dating back to 2014, questioning the use of the
cheaper but more dangerous product on the Grenfell Tower project.
In response to the Reuters article, the prices of Arconic common
and preferred stock declined precipitously, with Arconic common
stock trading as low as $22.65 in intraday trading on June 26,
2017, an 11% decline.

After the close of trading on June 26, 2017, Arconic announced
that it would stop selling Reynobond PE panels for use on
residential high-rises. On June 26, 2017, the Guardian also
reported that the U.K. Department for Communities and Local
Government had instituted a "combustibility testing programme" for
aluminum composite materials and that in early testing, 60 samples
from buildings in 25 areas were classed as combustible, with
approximately 540 then still yet to be tested. As further reported
by the Times on the same day, "[t]he Metropolitan Police ha[d]
also said they [would] consider manslaughter among other charges,"
because "in Britain, corporations can be charged with
manslaughter." On this news, the prices of Arconic common and
preferred stock fell further, with Arconic common stock trading as
low as $21.76 per share in intraday trading on June 27, 2017, and
closing down more than $2 per share, a more than 9% decline.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Arconic common or preferred stock during the Class Period (the
"Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide.  [GN]


ARCONIC INC: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the
federal and state securities laws by Arconic Inc. ("Arconic") and
certain of its officers.  A class action lawsuit against the
Company has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Arconic between November 4, 2013 and June 26, 2017, (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Arconic's business and operations,
including that, contrary to defendants' representations that
Reynobond PE was "a fully tested product, with building-code
approvals throughout the world," Arconic was knowingly selling
Reynobond PE for use in construction projects where the product
was to be used in a manner that the Company knew was unsafe and
presented a fire hazard.

On June 14, 2017, a fire engulfed Grenfell Tower, a 24-story, 220-
foot high residential tower block of public housing flats in North
Kensington, West London.  The Grenfell Tower fire resulted in at
least 79 fatalities and over 70 injuries.  On June 24, 2017,
Reuters reported that Arconic employees knew Reynobond PE panels
were being used on the Grenfell Tower, despite the warnings in
Arconic's own sales brochures that such use was inappropriate and
a fire hazard.  The article cited email communications of
Arconic's own personnel, dating back to 2014, questioning the use
of the cheaper but more dangerous product on the Grenfell Tower
project.  Following the Reuters article, the prices of Arconic
common and preferred stock declined.

If you purchased Arconic between November 4, 2013 and June 26,
2017 and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than September 11, 2017.

If you have held Arconic shares continuously before November 4,
2013, as a long-term shareholder, and you may have standing to
hold Arconic harmless from the damage the officers and directors
may have caused by making them personally responsible. You may
also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are an Arconic shareholder and are interested in learning
more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim
Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email,
please include your phone number.

                  About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


ATWOOD OCEANICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of holders of Atwood Oceanics, Inc.
("Atwood") (NYSE:ATW) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Atwood by Ensco plc and Echo Merger Sub LLC
(collectively, "Ensco") announced on May 30, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Atwood, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Ensco, is captioned Stern v. Atwood
Oceanics, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01942 (S.D. Tex.)

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 May 29, 2017, Atwood entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ensco.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Atwood will receive 1.60 Class A
ordinary shares of Ensco per Atwood share (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 June 16,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Atwood 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 Atwood's financial projections, the analyses performed
by Atwood's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed
Transaction.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief
and damages on behalf of holders of Atwood common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 11, 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]


AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Settlement Deadline May Be Too Tight
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the tight deadline to
get $70 million in compensation paid to Manus Island detainees
before the offshore immigration detention centre closes may be
extended if there is a groundswell of objections.

Lawyers hope to get the funds distributed to 1905 current and
former Manus Island detainees before the centre closes at the end
of October.

A hearing is scheduled for September 4 for the Victorian Supreme
Court to approve the class action settlement reached with the
Australian government and operators of the Manus Island Regional
Processing Centre.

Justice Cameron Macaulay says the timetable may prove to be too
tight if there is a great number of objections.

"I'm well aware that the fundamental driver for the urgency of
this is to try and achieve distributions of money to people before
Manus Island is largely vacated," he said on July 17.

Justice Macaulay said if there is a groundswell of objections or
applications to opt out of the class action group, he may decide
that more time is needed.

Group members have the right to object to the proposed settlement
and can ask the court for more time to opt out, which would
preserve their legal rights to take separate action.

The time spent in detention will influence how much each person
receives in damages, as well as any physical and psychological
injuries.

Justice Macaulay said the 816 men who remain in the Manus Island
centre are likely to be those with the greatest financial stake.

Barrister Fiona Forsyth said law firm Slater and Gordon did not
know where the detainees would end up once the centre closed.

"As a practical matter, once people have left Manus Island and are
potentially dispersed around the globe, it's very difficult to
determine how easy it will be to contact those people."

The court heard the Australian government is working with the
International Organisation for Migration to distribute the
required notices to former detainees, where Slater and Gordon does
not have their contact details. [GN]


BROADSMART GLOBAL: Faces "Sapkota" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parash Sapkota, and all others similarly situated v. Broadsmart
Global Inc., Broadsmart Inc. and Todd Correll, Case No. CACE-17-
012569 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 5, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a phone and telephone company in
Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Hit with Class Action Over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Four senior citizens living in California assisted living
facilities run by Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., who have
significant care needs and disabilities, have filed a class action
lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco accusing Brookdale of
financial abuse and widespread violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA").  Brookdale is the largest
provider of assisted living for senior citizens and persons with
disabilities in the U.S. and its stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange.  There are more than 5,000 residents in
Brookdale's 89 assisted living facilities in California.  This is
believed to be the first class action lawsuit against an assisted
living provider to be brought under the ADA.

Plaintiffs and their families came to Brookdale because they
required assistance with their activities of daily living
including medication management, dressing, bathing, toileting,
hygiene, food preparation, laundry and transportation. Rather than
finding the care and comfort they needed, plaintiffs, their family
members, and the proposed class they seek to represent have all
encountered in Brookdale a system of understaffed assisted living
facilities that fails to consistently provide even the most basic
level of promised care.

According to the complaint: "Brookdale systemically understaffs
its facilities, cuts caregiver hours, and fails to train workers,
all to boost its profitability, while the residents in Brookdale's
care are forced to endure increasingly expensive monthly charges
and worsening care.  The results of Brookdale's callous and
profit-driven approach are devastating: as multiple reports by
state regulators confirm, residents are left without assistance
for hours after falling, they are given the wrong medications,
they are denied clean clothing, showers, and nutritious food, and
they are left in their own waste for long periods of time."

Brookdale promises families peace of mind, but instead they find
heartache when they learn that their loved ones are not receiving
medications they need or even the most basic housekeeping and
hygiene -- despite monthly fees ranging from $4,000 to $5,000 or
more for each resident.

As alleged more fully in a 70-plus page complaint filed on July 14
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Brookdale has engaged in a policy and practice of
violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
("ADA"), accompanying regulations, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Brookdale discriminates against seniors with disabilities in
myriad ways, including by failing to address multiple barriers in
their living quarters and throughout the facilities, restricting
the number of persons in wheelchairs who can take weekly outings,
and failing to provide sufficient staff to care for persons with
cognitive and other disabilities.  The complaint also alleges that
Brookdale has engaged in a policy and practice of violating the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, committing Elder Financial Abuse, and
engaging in Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices.

The case is Eidler v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, Case #3:17-cv-03962.
Anyone with information about conditions at Brookdale facilities
in California may contact Gay Grunfeld at -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com --
or 415-433-6830. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Medi-Cal Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Tolan, writing for Mercury News, reports that a coalition of
civil rights groups sued the state of California charging that the
state's Medi-Cal program is a second-class health care plan that
isn't adequately funded.

The lawsuit argued that the 13.5 million Californians covered
under Medi-Cal -- the majority of whom are Latino -- are trapped
in "a separate and unequal system of health care" because of
bureaucratic red tape and the low reimbursement rates for doctors
and hospitals.

"Medi-Cal is supposed to be a lifeline," said Darin Ranahan, one
of the attorneys who filed the suit. "It ends up being an empty
promise."

The lawsuit underscores a towering dilemma for California, which
has used money from the Affordable Care Act to bring millions of
additional low-income adults onto Medi-Cal in recent years. Medi-
Cal, California's version of Medicaid, has long reimbursed
providers at a much lower rate than what is paid by employer-
sponsored health insurance or Medicare, as well as Medicaid
programs in most other states, and many doctors refuse to accept
Medi-Cal as a result.

With Republicans in Congress promising to repeal Obamacare,
California now faces the potential loss of billions of dollars
annually in funding. That would put Medi-Cal under increased
pressure to cut costs even as advocates are demanding that the
state spend more.

The lawsuit was filed on July 12 in Alameda County Superior Court
by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the
Civil Rights Education Enforcement Center on behalf of four
plaintiffs on Medi-Cal who say they've had trouble getting care.
The lawyers are hoping to certify a class action suit that could
represent all Californians on the program -- about a third of the
state's population.

State officials on July 12 denied the allegations in the suit.

The state Department of Health Care Services "has not identified
any systemic problems with patient access to services in the Medi-
Cal program nor has the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services identified any issues," department spokeswoman Carol
Sloan said in an email.

The suit is aimed at forcing state officials to increase
reimbursement rates and reduce delays in Medi-Cal recipients
getting care.

Medi-Cal enrollees "suffer from greater pain, illness, and
undiagnosed and untreated serious medical conditions -- with
significant impact to their overall health -- than do their fellow
Californians with other insurance," the lawsuit states.

Latinos make up 54 percent of the people on Medi-Cal, and the
lawsuit alleges that the difference between the Medi-Cal system
and private insurance companies in California that insure mostly
whites amounts to a civil rights violation.

In the past, when Medi-Cal served mostly white people,
reimbursement rates were closer to other insurance plans, the
plaintiffs allege. But since 2000, the number of Latinos on Medi-
Cal has increased from 2.3 million to 7.2 million and payment
rates are down 20 percent, the suit says.

"The pattern of disinvestment as Latino representation has grown
is extremely suspicious," Ranahan said at a news conference on
July 12 at the Alameda County courthouse.

The lawsuit is the evolution of a complaint the same groups filed
with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights in December 2015. The federal office declined to act
on that complaint, so the plaintiffs are bringing it to state
court.

One of the plaintiffs, Sacramento resident Esther Casta§eda, 56,
said she suffered almost a year of debilitating nausea and
abdominal pain in 2015 as she struggled to find a surgeon who
would perform a critical gall bladder surgery under Medi-Cal. Two
surgery appointments were later canceled because the doctors
didn't take her insurance, she said. She ended up having her
surgery during a family trip to Mexico -- and paying out of pocket
-- after doctors there told her she couldn't wait any longer.

"No one should suffer simply for having Medi-Cal," she said in
Spanish, choking back tears.

Stories like Casta§eda's are powerful illustrations of Medi-Cal's
problems, said Janet Coffman, a professor of health policy at UC
San Francisco. "The vision of expanding Medi-Cal was to get folks
access to what they needed -- and to encourage folks to seek care
outside of the emergency room," she said.

Patients shouldn't have to go to the emergency room or Mexico to
get the care they need, Coffman said.

The lawsuit is the latest effort in the long struggle to increase
Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, said Anthony Wright, executive
director of Health Access, a California consumer advocacy group
that is not involved in the legal action. What's different is the
civil rights framing of the lawsuit, he said.

Wright said his biggest concern right now is the Republican effort
to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a health
care law that would cut  the growth in Medicaid spending across
the country.

"The issues of access that exist now would grow to be far, far
worse if anything close to what's pending in Congress passes,"
Wright said. [GN]


CANADA: Ontario's Beekeepers File Class Action Over Pesticides
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Jodoin, writing for Global News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed in Ontario could help the future of bees
across Canada.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a few beekeepers in the
province against the use of certain pesticides -- mainly used on
corn and soybeans -- that are harmful to bees.

Director of the Beekeepers Commission of Alberta Kevin Nixon said
the same chemistry in the neonicotinoids are used in Alberta,
mostly on canola, but as a seed treatment.

He told the Alberta Morning News, it's when the pesticide is
applied other ways that harms the bees.

"There are cases where it could be used as a foliar application,
sprayed above ground.  That's where the risk comes very high, but
when it's being used as a seed treatment, the pesticide is in the
ground it's very targeted.

He said despite the competing nature of different agro-groups,
they do need to work together for a healthy agro-system.

"There's a lot of opportunities for us to work together, and the
partnership that beekeepers have across the country with growers
of all kinds of different fields, it's a great relationship. It's
something that we can all be proud of.  There's times when it
comes where we'll all need to be careful in what we do to protect
each other's investment."

As for Alberta's bees, Nixon said that the season is underway
after a late start due to a colder spring.

He said beekeepers are eager to get started with the 2017 harvest.
[GN]


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the "Shoemaker" stockholder securities
litigation against Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., among other
defendants, filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2017, according
to the Company's Form 8-K filed on June 29 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 4, 2016, a stockholder filed a lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Shoemaker v. Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc. et al., 0:16-cv-00568 (D. Minn.). The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the alleged class,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

On March 29, 2017, the Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint, dismissed
Plaintiffs' amended complaint without prejudice, and granted the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint.

On June 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
complaint makes similar allegations as the original complaint,
namely, that the Company made materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
business, operational and financial performance, in violation of
federal securities laws, relating to alleged kickbacks to health
care providers. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs of litigation.

Cardiovascular Systems said, "The Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a medical technology company,
develops, manufactures, and markets devices to treat vascular
diseases in the United States.  The Company sells its products
directly to hospitals or office-based labs.  It was founded in
1989 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.


CHECKR INC: Glackin Sues Over Unfair & Illegal Background Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GLACKIN and NATHANIEL ROMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHECKR, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-
03691-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2017), is a consumer class action
based on Checkr's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, as amended and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and
thousands of employees and employment applicants throughout the
country, who have been allegedly the subject of unfair,
prejudicial, misleading and illegal background reports performed
by Checkr and sold to employers.

Checkr, Inc., is a business entity that regularly conducts
business in the Northern District of California, and has a
principal place of business located at in San Francisco,
California.  The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency, and an
investigative consumer reporting agency.  The Defendant
investigates and reviews public record databases and maintains
consumer files that contain public record information concerning,
among other things, the alleged criminal record history of
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


CLYDESDALE BANK: Customers Launch Legal Action Over Mis-sold TBLs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for AFR, reports that the ghost of
National Australia Bank's disastrous time in Britain continues to
haunt it, with a legal action set to allege thousands of small
business customers were fraudulently mis-sold a loan product that
destroyed their businesses and torched potentially billions of
pounds.

The action, which is similar to a class action in Australia, will
be funded by British litigation funder Augusta Ventures and
managed by claims management company RGL.

It is against Clydesdale Bank, which was wholly owned by NAB until
last year, along with NAB and certain banking executives. The
claim will allege Clydesdale Bank mis-sold thousands of fixed
interest Tailored Business Loans (TBLs) to small businesses
between 2002 and 2012.

An estimated 8000 of these fixed interest TBLs contained embedded
or hidden swaps which were not disclosed to customers who thought
they were entering into a simple fixed rate loan.

When interest rates plunged during the global financial crisis,
TBL customers, with these hidden swaps, suddenly found themselves
being charged interest repayments that were as much as three times
the bank's variable rate.

If they broke the contract they were hit with crippling break fees
of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of the principal of the
loan.

In the case of customer John Glare, who signed a TBL for GBP3.95
million ($6.6 million) with Clydesdale in February 2008, interest
rates started to escalate to a point where he couldn't afford to
make the repayments.  When he tried to break the loan, the exit
fee was a staggering GBP783,383.  His business collapsed, he was
evicted and became bankrupt in 2011.  He took legal action,
claiming GBP4 million in damages, but lost the case.

The sale of products such as fixed interest tailored business
loans and the financial havoc wreaked on customers like Glare
prompted an investigation by the financial regulator and a
parliamentary inquiry into nine banks, including Clydesdale, back
in 2014.

The parliamentary inquiry report, released in March 2015, found
that NAB and Clydesdale Bank behaved badly.  It said Clydesdale
Bank had mis-sold TBLs to small business owners, which "led to
considerable consumer detriment" and "this gap in the regulatory
perimeter meant that the product created by Clydesdale Bank was
not covered by the usual safeguards . . . Some [customers] were
probably unaware that the product fell outside the scope of FSMA
[Financial Services and Markets Act]."  It said regulators had
been powerless to provide redress to those affected by wrongdoing.

The 2015 report also criticised the remediation program.  The
parliamentary committee found a "lack of public oversight, minimal
transparency and limited coverage of the [compensation] scheme"
meant the committee could not have faith in the process.

RGL chief executive James Hayward told The Australian Financial
Review that the legal action was likely to be filed this year in
the High Court in London.

He said there were more than 6000 victims of TBLs that have
legitimate grounds to join the action.  Some had TBLs less than
GBP1 million, some greater than GBP2 million to GBP3 million.  The
losses include overpayment of interest, break fees and
consequential damages.  Together the losses are in the billions of
pounds.

The Financial Review understands there is at least one other law
firm considering launch legal action on behalf of customers sold
TBLs through Clydesdale Bank.

But victim Jim McGrory has joined RGL.  Speaking from Scotland,
the hotelier of more than 40 years said he signed up after
spending the past eight years trying to fight the bank.

Mr. McGrory's problems date back to 2007, when he borrowed
GBP562,000 from Clydesdale, saying he was told it was a straight
fixed business loan.  When he tried to refinance the loan in 2010
with another bank he was told the break fee was almost GBP100,000,
which he couldn't afford.

It cost him a property in Canada -- a photo of which hangs on the
wall of his house as a reminder of what he lost -- and a student
rental property in St Andrews, as well as the income generated
from both properties.

Mr. McGrory complained to Britain's Financial Ombudsman in 2009,
which he won on appeal in September 2013.

The adjudication said the overpayment of interest, GBP125,000,
should be refunded, but he says he hasn't received a cent because
he wanted consequential damages of GBP500,000 through the forced
sale of properties.  He said the bank refused to separate the
claims so he had no option but to keep fighting.

'"Life has been deadly for me.  I can't sleep well, my mind is
constantly churning," he said.

NAB demerged from Clydesdale Bank in 2016 after years of
disappointing financial returns and reputational damage that
earned it the title "the death star".

Over the years it found itself embroiled in a series of scandals,
including the sale of fixed interest TBLs and an industry-wide
scandal involving the mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance
(PPI), which cost it a fortune in compensation.

In March 2015 it suffered the ignominy of being slugged with a
record fine from the Financial Conduct Authority after finding
"serious failings" in its complaints processes for PPI.  It was
found to be falsifying records and adopting "inappropriate
policies" that resulted in the short-changing of victims of PPI
who sought compensation.

After years of investor pressure, NAB finally decided to get out
of the UK.  To do so, the Prudential Regulation Authority
requested it enter a conduct indemnity agreement with Clydesdale
Bank to cover potential losses related to legacy conduct costs not
covered by existing provisions it had made.  These legacy issues
included PPI and fixed interest TBLs.

That agreement included a capped indemnity of more than GBP1
billion.

In NAB's 2017 half-year accounts it said after Clydesdale draws
down another GBP150 million for PPI in its half-year results it
would leave the unutilised indemnity amount at GBP511 million.

In a statement, Clydesdale Bank said it had seen media reports
about a potential claim relating to TBLs but it was yet to hear
from RGL Management.  "It is therefore not possible to comment on
speculation around any potential case or the basis for any claim."

It said TBLs had been subject to "significant scrutiny" and the
bank had been working with customers as part of a remediation
programme, "in an open and transparent manner".  It said it had
made "significant progress" in resolving the vast majority of
cases.  "Where we have reached a final agreement with customers,
the cost of this has been covered by existing provisions as
extensively disclosed in our financial reports."

It told the Financial Review it had agreed to undertake a
complaints-led review of fixed interest TBLs, which fall outside
the scope of the regulator's review.  "This review encompasses new
walk-in and previously closed complaints."

But it declined to give specific details on TBLs, including the
total amount paid in provisions against TBLs to date, the number
of people repaid or how many are still in the queue.

What we do know was that at September 2015 -- when it was still
giving breakdowns -- it had raised total provisions for TBLs to
GBP238 million, of which GBP101 million had been utilised at that
time.

Its most recent interim results disclose provisions of GBP92
million for "customer redress and other provisions" which includes
provisions for TBLs.

NAB entered the UK market in 1987 and exited last year under the
direction of chief executive Andrew Thorburn.  It was time.  It
had burned money for shareholders and like many other British
banks it hadn't covered itself in glory when it came to the
treatment of some of its customers.

NAB might think it has finally washed its hands of its British
headache, but victims are coming out of the woodwork, not happy
with the remediation program.

They are readying themselves for action, and readying for a legal
battle with Clydesdale, which will also embroil NAB. [GN]


CONAGRA: Says Seesaw Week Proves Need for Ascertainability Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports late July 13, Conagra
filed a new brief at the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting an
irrefutable argument: If there was any doubt that federal
appellate courts continue to struggle with the issue of class
certification and identifying class members, resolved it.
According to Conagra, rulings in the last seven days from the 2nd
and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals make it all the more obvious
that the Supreme Court must tell the lower courts what to do about
class action ascertainability.

Conagra has asked the Supreme Court to review a 9th Circuit
decision that upheld certification of a class of Wesson Oil
purchasers who claim products were falsely labeled as all-natural.
The 9th Circuit rejected Conagra's defense that the class could
not be certified because purchasers could not be identified by an
objective and administratively feasible process. Following the
lead of the 7th Circuit -- and explicitly rejecting contrary
precedent from the 3rd Circuit -- the 9th Circuit held in Briseno
v. Conagra that sworn affidavits from plaintiffs are a perfectly
fine way to ascertain class membership.

When Conagra's Supreme Court lawyers from Jones Day first asked
for the justices' attention in April, they knew the court had
rejected two previous requests for review of the ascertainability
issue, including a petition in the 7th Circuit case that first
created a split among the federal appellate courts. So Conagra
emphasized the depth of the circuit split, arguing that three
other circuits -- the 2nd, 4th and 11th -- are aligned with the
3rd Circuit, while the 6th, 7th and 9th stand on the other side.
(The 8th Circuit's precedent, Conagra said, is ambiguous.) Class
certification in substantially identical cases, Conagra said, now
turns on where the case is filed.

The plaintiffs suing Conagra, as I've reported, countered that the
circuit split isn't as intractable as Conagra said and may simply
resolve itself in light of the Supreme Court's 2016 decision to
uphold certification of a class of meat-processing employees in
Tyson v. Bouaphakeo.

That argument seemed to gain credibility last July 14, when the
2nd Circuit issued its ruling in In re Petrobras Securities. The
2nd Circuit used the Petrobras securities class action opinion as
a vehicle to clarify its stance on class action ascertainability.
The court said it actually agreed with the 7th and 9th Circuits
that the federal class action rules do not implicitly require
plaintiffs to offer a failsafe means of identifying class members
in order to be certified. The 2nd Circuit explicitly disagreed
with the 3rd Circuit's heightened ascertainability standard,
citing a "growing consensus" in the circuits.

The plaintiffs suing Conagra, represented at the Supreme Court by
New York University professor Samuel Issacharoff, jumped on the
2nd Circuit's Petrobras holding in a supplemental brief to the
Supreme Court on July 11. "In light of what the 2nd Circuit terms
the 'growing consensus,' this is precisely an area where the law
should be permitted to percolate before premature, and perhaps
unnecessary, intervention from the court," the brief said. "There
will be time enough for review if conflict persists -- something
that appears to be an increasingly remote prospect."

But at almost the exact same time that plaintiffs filed that
supplemental Supreme Court brief, the 6th Circuit issued a
decision complicating its stance on ascertainability. The 6th
Circuit had been counted as an ally of the 7th and 9th Circuits'
position, by virtue of a decision in which it said it saw no
reason to adopt the 3rd Circuit's heightened ascertainability
test. Nevertheless, in its ruling on July 11 in Sandusky Wellness
Center v. ASD Specialty Healthcare d/b/a Besse Medical, the 6th
Circuit agreed that plaintiffs' affidavits in a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action were not an adequate means of
identifying class members.

That's a lot of ascertainability action in a week, and Conagra's
new brief attempts to synthesize it in a mere five pages of text.
Part of the filing is devoted to explaining why, in Conagra's
view, the plaintiffs overstated the significance of the 2nd
Circuit's Petrobras decision. When you put aside the opinion's
talk of a growing consensus against the 3rd Circuit standard,
Conagra said, the 2nd Circuit's actual holding requires plaintiffs
to provide an objective criteria for class membership. That
standard, Conagra said, cannot be squared with the 9th Circuit's
decision in the Wesson Oil case.

The brief spends far less time on the 6th Circuit's Sandusky
decision, but said it's also clearly at odds with the 7th Circuit
and the 9th Circuit. Regardless of how the circuits align, Conagra
said, it's obvious that the courts "remain deeply divided" about
the problem of unidentifiable class members.

Essentially, Conagra's brief suggests the real issue isn't whether
the federal rules include an implied ascertainability requirement
but the baseline question of whether courts should allow class
actions on behalf of unidentified -- and possibly unverifiable --
class members. The Supreme Court has danced around that question
but hasn't directly answered it. Conagra is arguing that it's now
time to decide.

"Any split in the all-important area of class certification
deserves this court's attention, let alone one as deep as
plaintiffs themselves recognize," the brief said. "Whatever the
circuits may say about the ascertainability label, they
fundamentally disagree where it counts: whether a class may be
certified without any clue as to how to efficiently identify
absent class members. This court should put an end to this
persistent, important dispute."

I've said before that the Conagra case is an important test of the
new court's willingness to look at fundamental class action
questions. This week's developments, as Conagra wrote, highlight
the very basic issue -- who's in the class? -- at the heart of the
ascertainability split. We'll know next fall whether the Supreme
Court is ready to answer the question. [GN]


CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Moves to Certify Class of Retirees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled BENNY FITZWATER, CLARENCE
BRIGHT, and TERRY PRATER, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC., CONSOLIDATION COAL CO.,
FOLA COAL CO., L.L.C., CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, and KURT SALVATORI,
Case No. 2:16-cv-09849 (S.D.W. Va.), move to certify a class of:

     all individuals who became eligible to receive retirement
     benefits (i.e. medical, prescription drug, dental, vision,
     and life insurance) because they, or a miner on whom they
     were dependent, had reached the age of fifty-five and had
     garnered over ten years of service with the Defendants --
     and whose eligibility for such benefits was thereafter
     denied by the Defendants.

The putative Class Members hold identical claims, based on facts
that are typical classwide, for identical remedies consisting of
the restoration of the retirement benefits for which they had
become eligible but which CONSOL Energy and its subsidiaries
("CONSOL") denied to them, for the restitution of plan assets that
were not returned to them or otherwise used for their benefit when
the plan was terminated, and for the cessation of discrimination
against class members who had inferior health status or who had a
longer claims experience, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to allow 120 days for class
discovery and to order notice of the action to proposed Class
Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j7oSgxex

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
          Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-3144
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3145
          E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org
                  bren@msjlaw.org


CROSSVILLE BNRV: Smith's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw entered an order in the lawsuit
styled RAYMOND L. SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated current and former employees v.
CROSSVILLE BNRV SALES, LLC, a/k/a FACTORY DIRECT MARINE & RV a/k/a
BOAT N RV SUPERCENTER, GA BNRV SALES, LLC and DERWOOD "DON"
LITTLEFIELD, Case No. 2:16-cv-00089 (M.D. Tenn.), ruling that:

   -- in light of the parties' Stipulation, the Plaintiff's
      motion for conditional certification is denied as moot; and

   -- the Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to
      the Motion is denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C5DbbIbE


DEJA VU: Settlement Appeal Delays Payment to Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------
Deb Hipp, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that even
though a federal judge granted approval of a $6.5 million
settlement in a labor violations class action involving Deja Vu
nightclubs, payment to class members will be delayed until the
appeal is resolved.

US District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III on June 19, 2017, granted
a motion for final approval of the preliminary settlement reached
in February of 2017 for the class action Jane Doe et al v. Deja Vu
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-10877, US District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan. However, two class members filed an appeal,
which will delay payments to class members, according to the Deja
Vu Nightclub settlement website.

The collective and class action was filed in 2012, involving an
employment dispute dating back nine years from the settlement
date. Dancers at Deja Vu filed an earlier employment class action
in 2008 that involved "nearly the same defendants, claims and
proposed settlement and many of the same class members," according
to the order approving the 2017 settlement.

After three years of highly contested litigation, those parties
reached a class settlement. Five years later, though, the 2012
class action was filed.

The 2012 lawsuit claimed that Deja Vu gentlemen's clubs
misclassified entertainers as non-employees and failed to pay them
minimum wage and other compensation legally owed. The class action
also alleged that the nightclubs confiscated entertainers' tips.

Members of the settlement class for the settlement approved in
June 2017 have the option of submitting a cash election form or
choosing rent credits or dance fee payments at the Deja Vu-
affiliated night club where they last performed.

According to the settlement website, class members who choose rent
credits and dance fee payments will receive $200, $1,000 or
$2,000, depending on the number of months they performed at a
qualifying Deja Vu nightclub. Class members who choose a one-time
cash payment will receive pro rate shares from a "cash pool" for a
currently unknown amount.

Former Deja Vu entertainers may have to wait a while to be paid,
though.

"The appeals process could last in excess of over a year,"
according to the settlement site. "Cash election payment and rent
credits will be delayed until the appeals have been resolved.
Please be patient." [GN]


DIBELLA CORP: Rojas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wage, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAI ROJAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. DIBELLA CORP. d/b/a LA VILLA PIZZERIA, GINO'S DE
POSITANO PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a LA VILLA PIZZERIA, ALLO
FOOD CORP. d/b/a LA VILLA PIZZERIA, ALFRED DISCIPIO and WILLIAM
RUBIN, Case No. 1:17-cv-04097 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2017), alleges,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid wages due to time
shaving, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants operate three restaurants under the common trade
name "La Villa Pizzeria" with addresses as follows:

   (a) 261-263 5th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11215;
   (b) 8207 153rd Avenue, Howard Beach, NY 11414; and
   (c) 6610 Avenue U, Brooklyn, NY 11234.

Alfred Discipio and William Rubin are owners and senior executive
officers of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


DIET WORKS: False Therapeutic Claims Alleged in "Greek" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Greek, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diet Works, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04738 (D. N.J., June 27, 2017), seeks compensatory,
consequential and special damages as well as punitive damages,
restitution including disgorgement of all profits and unjust
enrichment obtained by Defendant, attorneys' fees, expenses and
the costs of this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and all other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
fraud, breach of implied and express warranty and  violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Defendant advertises, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes
diet/weight-loss dietary supplements. Plaintiff alleges that their
products do not provide the represented amount of the active
ingredient, hydroxycitric acid. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Road
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

             - and -

      Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Email: jshub@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


DIRECTV LLC: Class Wins Certification in Telemarketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia federal
judge on July 12 certified a class action accusing DirecTV of
making illegal telemarketing calls to names on the National Do Not
Call Registry, saying the class has demonstrated common claims and
standing to bring them.

In an order, U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen held that
unsolicited telephone calls are an invasion of privacy under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act that constitute a concrete
injury necessary to demonstrate Article III standing, noting that
an injury can be intangible and still be considered "concrete."

"Just as a junk fax renders a fax machine temporarily unavailable,
a call placed in violation of the TCPA -- whether or not a person
has taken any affirmative steps to avoid it, like requesting
placement on a caller's [internal] DNC list -- deprives its
recipient of time, mental energy and privacy," the judge said.

The judge added that "in enacting the TCPA, Congress made specific
findings that 'unrestricted telemarketing can be an intrusive
invasion of privacy' and a 'nuisance,' and gave consumers a
private right of action to redress this harm even where they have
suffered no monetary loss."

Plaintiff Sebastian Cordoba, who said that he had never been a
DirecTV customer and never gave permission for the company to
contact him, sought to certify two classes in November: one for
926 people who were called even though they had registered with
the National Do Not Call Registry, and a second class of 16,870
people who were called while the service provider's authorized
vendor Telecel Marketing Solutions Inc. didn't maintain a do not
call list.

Cordoba claims the alleged telephone calls made by Telecel to
thousands of people, including those with off-limits numbers,
through autodialing systems violated the TCPA, which bars sellers
from making telephone solicitations if the telemarketer doesn't
keep a list of persons who have requested not to be called, which
Telecel does not, Cordoba argues.

Telecel is not named as a defendant in the action.

In coming to the holding that Cordoba's proposed action has
standing, Judge Cohen referenced the Supreme Court's Spokeo
decision, which says Article III standing requires a plaintiff to
allege a "concrete," consequential harm stemming from a statute
violation but recognized "concrete" is "not . . . necessarily
synonymous with 'tangible,'" and that "intangible injuries
can . . . be concrete."

Judge Cohen concluded Cordoba "has alleged a sufficiently
particularized and concrete injury in fact to confer Article III
standing on the IDNC class members."

The judge gave DirecTV leave to amend its defense.

Cordoba launched the proposed class action against DirecTV in
October 2015 after he said he received more than 24 telemarketing
calls from or on behalf of DirecTV since December 2014, despite
having expressly told the company not to call his cellphone, he
said.

The parties were not immediately reached for comment.

Cordoba is represented by Stephen A. Yaklin, Esq., Matthew M.
Wilkins, Esq., and G. Taylor Wilson, Esq., of King & Yaklin LLP,
Michael Joseph Boyle Jr., Esq., -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com  -- of
Meyer Wilson Co. LPA, Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq. --
dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- and Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. --
jselbin@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Jonathan David Grunberg, Esq. -- jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com --
Nicole Jennings Wade, Esq. -- njennings@linwoodlaw.com -- G.
Taylor Wilson, Esq. -- twilson@linwoodlaw.com -- and L. Lin Wood
Jr., Esq.-- lwood@linwoodlaw.com -- of L. Lin Wood PC and Matthew
R. Wilson, Esq., of David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA.

DirecTV is represented by Hans J. Germann, Esq. --
hgermann@meyerbrown.com -- John Muench, Esq. --
jmuench@meyerbrown.com -- and Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.--
ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP, Ava Conger, Esq.-
- aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and John P. Jett, Esq. --
jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
LLP and in-house counsel Kara Whei-juan Ong, Esq., of Cingular
Wireless, its parent company.

The case is Sebastian Cordoba v. DirecTV LLC et al., case number
1:15-cv-03755, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.


DRYSHIPS INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against DryShips Inc. ("DryShips" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:DRYS)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 17-cv-05368, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired DryShips securities, seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased DryShips securities between
June 8, 2016, and July 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until September 12, 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 the number of shares purchased.

DryShips Inc. owns and operates ocean going cargo vessels
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Drybulk and Offshore
Support. The Drybulk segment offers drybulk commodities
transportation services for the steel, electric utility,
construction, and agri-food industries. The Offshore Support
segment provides its services to the global offshore energy
industry.

In a series of transactions beginning on or around June 8, 2016,
DryShips raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital by
selling newly-issued shares directly to Kalani Investments Ltd.
("Kalani"), a British Virgin Islands firm, at a discount to the
stock-market price.  This influx of capital enabled DryShips to
roughly double the size of its fleet to 36 vessels.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants engaged in a
systemic stock-manipulation scheme to artificially inflate
DryShips' share price; (ii) DryShips' transactions with Kalani
were an illegal capital-raising scheme, due in part to Kalani's
failure to register as an underwriter with the SEC; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, DryShips' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "A Shipping Company's Bizarre Stock Maneuvers Create High
Seas Intrigue".  The article described in detail the various
transactions between DryShips and Kalani -- namely, how DryShips'
influxes of cash stoked investor interest in DryShips, enabling
the Company to issue still more shares, which it then continued to
sell to Kalani.  Kalani ultimately acquired securities convertible
to more than $626 million in DryShips common stock, roughly 100
times DryShips' stock market value as of early November 2016.
Meanwhile, to counter share-value dilution and avoid NASDAQ
delisting, DryShips executed a series of reverse stock splits.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, however, because Kalani
purchased DryShips stock with the intention of reselling, the
transactions between DryShips and Kalani essentially constituted
"pseudo-underwriting", with Kalani in the position of the
underwriter of a de facto public offering.  Kalani, however, never
registered as an underwriter with the SEC, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  Moreover, the issuance of tens of
millions of new DryShips shares significantly diluted shareholder
value, while the frequent and sharp spikes and drops in DryShip's
common share price, caused by DryShip's illegal capital-raising,
cost the Company's shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars.

Since November 2016, DryShips' share price has fallen
approximately 99.9%.

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. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


EQT CORP: "Adams" Asserts Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tejon Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EQT Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00853 (W.D. Pa., June 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

EQT Corporation is a natural gas producer in the Appalachian
Basin, maintaining its corporate headquarters at EQT Plaza, 625
Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Adams worked for
EQT as a Completions Consultant from approximately July 2014 until
February 2015. He allegedly was classified as an independent
contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

             - and -

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

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Lustig" Disputes Inaccurate Credit Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert S. Lustig, on behalf himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information Services LLC,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-02913 (E.D. Pa., June 28, 2017) seeks
actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees and litigation costs
as well as further relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax is a national consumer reporting agency. It prepares and
furnishes consumer reports. Equifax's credit report alleges that
Mr. Lustig had an outstanding civil judgment lodged against him in
the amount of $209,000.00 despite it being stricken almost two
years earlier by the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Soumilas, Esq.
      James A. Francis, Esq.
      Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, Suite 1902
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 735-8600
      Fax: (215) 940-8000
      Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Appeal on Dropped Class Suit in Fla. Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit initiated against ERBA
Diagnostics, Inc. has filed an initial appellate brief on June 29,
2017 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed on July 17,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company and certain of its current or former executive officers,
among others.  The original Complaint was replaced by an Amended
Complaint, which asserted claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought
damages in the amount that the class members allegedly lost on
account of the allegedly false and misleading statements.  The
Company, together with those of its current and former officers
and directors who were named as defendants and served, filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On February 16, 2017, the court heard oral argument on the motions
to dismiss.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ruled
from the bench:

   * granting the motions to dismiss;

   * denying the plaintiff's request for permission further to
     amend the Amended Complaint; and

   * dismissing the case.

On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On June 29, 2017, the plaintiff filed an initial appellate brief
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Naher" Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue A. Naher, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04812, (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2017),
seeks statutory, actual and punitive damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other
relief for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that prepares and
furnishes consumer reports that include tax liens that, despite
being listed in Cook County, Illinois public records.

Naher applied for a mortgage with Concord Mortgage Group. The
latter obtained a credit report provided by the Defendant that
erroneously reported that she had an outstanding tax lien in the
Office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds in the amount of
$11,853. Her mortgage application was denied based on tax lien
information provided by Defendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Soumilas, Esq.
      James A. Francis, Esq.
      Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, Suite 1902
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 735-8600
      Fax: (215) 940-8000
      Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com


FEDEX CORP: 20 Settlements in Cases vs. Unit Win Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on July 17,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2017, that the court has granted final
approval of all 20 settlements in lawsuits against subsidiary
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. after a series of orders and
judgments, the latest of which was on June 21, 2017.

FedEx Ground is involved in class-action lawsuits, individual
lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that
claim that the company's owner-operators under a contractor model
no longer in use should have been treated as employees, rather
than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.  employee).  In
sum, the court ruled on the Company's summary judgment motions and
entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of
the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as
class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states.  The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.  The
Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act.  The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors.  The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals.  The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit.  FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas.  On
July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members were employees, not independent
contractors.  Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other
19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting
a case management conference to address briefing and argument for
those cases.

During the second quarter of 2015, the Company established an
accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case.  In
the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and the
Company increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement.

During the third quarter of 2016, the Company reached agreements
in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the
multidistrict independent contractor litigation. The Company
recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized
insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other
pending independent-contractor-related proceedings of US$204
million.

The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation
court, and the other 19 cases remained at the Seventh Circuit;
however, approval proceedings were conducted primarily by the
multidistrict litigation court.  Plaintiffs filed motions for
preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on
August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued
orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the
Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose
of entering approval orders.  Upon the parties' joint motion, the
Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10,
2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders
preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016.
Fairness hearings were originally scheduled for January 23 and 24,
2017, but were held on March 13 and 14, 2017.  On March 15, 2017,
the court issued orders indicating that it would grant final
approval of each settlement if the Seventh Circuit remanded the
cases on appeal for the purpose of considering and granting final
approval.  In a series of orders and judgments issued on April 29,
May 1, and June 21, 2017, the court granted final approval of all
20 settlements.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits.  Seven
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval.

                         California Case

The case in California was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and
held that the plaintiffs in California were employees as a matter
of law and remanded the cases to the district court for further
proceedings.  In the first quarter of 2015, the Company recognized
an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in this case.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an
agreement to settle the matter for US$228 million, and in the
fourth quarter of 2015, the Company increased the accrual to that
amount.  The court entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and
two objectors to the settlement filed appeals with the Ninth
Circuit.  One objector has settled with plaintiffs' counsel, and
the appeal by the second objector was briefed in the fourth
quarter of 2017.  The court has indicated that it will schedule
argument on the objector's appeal for the second quarter of 2018.
The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been
resolved without affecting the court's approval of the settlement.

In addition, the Company are defending contractor-model cases that
are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation.
These cases are in varying stages of litigation. The Company does
not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it
is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these
lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx
Ground's owner-operators could be material.  In these cases, the
Company continues to evaluate what facts may arise in the course
of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how
these facts and rulings might impact the loss.  For a number of
reasons, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss in these cases.  The number and
identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they
are dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many
individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be
established.  In addition, the parties have conducted only very
limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which
could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be
dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which
has yet to be produced in the cases.  Further, the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx
Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues.  As a consequence of
these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases,
the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.  The Company does not believe that a
material loss is probable in these matters.

Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors could, among other things, entitle certain
owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain
expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in
employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx
Ground.

The Company said, "We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators
are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx
Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's
independent contractors."

FedEx Corporation provides a broad portfolio of transportation, e-
commerce and business services through companies competing
collectively, operating independently and managed collaboratively,
under the respected FedEx brand.  The Company's primary operating
companies are Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"), the
world's largest express transportation company; TNT Express B.V.
("TNT Express"), an international express, small-package ground
delivery and freight transportation company; FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American provider
of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc.
("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload
("LTL") freight services.


FELCOR LODGING: "Johnson" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Felcor Lodging Trust Incorporated, Thomas
J. Corcoran, Jr., Mark D. Rozells, Glenn A. Carlin, Robert F.
Cotter, Patricia L. Gibson, Dana K. Hamilton, Christopher J.
Hartung, Charles A. Ledsinger, Jr., Robert H. Lutz, Jr., Steven R.
Goldman, Felcor Lodging Limited Partnership, RLJ Lodging Trust,
RLJ Lodging Trust, L.P., Rangers Sub I, LLC, and Rangers Sub II,
LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01786 (D. Md., June 28, 2017),
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of FelCor Lodging Trust
Incorporated by RLJ Lodging Trust and its affiliates, awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.
The suit further seeks reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each outstanding share of common stock of FelCor will be converted
into the right to receive 0.362 common share of beneficial
interest of RLJ, and each share of $1.95 Series A cumulative
convertible preferred stock of FelCor will be converted into the
right to receive one share of newly created Series A cumulative
convertible preferred shares of RLJ.

The Merger Agreement provides for a termination fee payable by the
FelCor to RLJ if it terminates the deal, thus locking up control
in favor of RLJ and precluding other bidders from making
successful competing offers.  Plaintiffs further allege that the
intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the
offer.

FelCor is a Maryland corporation operating as a real estate
investment trust. Its core portfolio consists primarily of upper-
upscale and luxury hotels located in major markets and resort
locations that have dynamic demand generators and high barriers-
to-entry. FelCor sells, acquires, rebrands, and redevelops hotels
to increase its return on invested capital, improve overall
portfolio quality, enhance diversification and improve growth
rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Meyer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Meyer moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned SHARON MEYER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00963-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the 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
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YeVC3uZr

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


FORZA SAFETY: "Jones" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kenny Jones, an individual and on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated employees of Forza, Plaintiff,
v. Forza Safety, LLC and Albert Bernal, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-
cv-00064 (W.D. Tex., March 29, 2017), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
on June 27, 2017, under Case No. 5:17-cv-00141.

This is a representative action for unpaid wages and overtime
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and a claim for
retaliation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip R. Russ, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS
      2700 S. Western, Suite 1200
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Tel: (806) 358-9293
      Fax: (806) 358-9296

Defendant is represented by:

      Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
      BUSTOS LAW FIRM PC
      PO Box 1980
      Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
      Tel: (806) 780-3976
      Fax: (806) 780-3800
      Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wagner"
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's
motion to deny class certification and dismiss the case captioned
SEAN WAGNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant,
No. 16-CV-10961 (N.D. Ill.).

The Defendant is a large retailer of dietary supplements,
including Pro Performance L-Glutamine Powder 5000, Pro Performance
L-Glutamine 1500, Pro Performance RapidDrive Glutamine 2500 Power
Chew, and Pro Performance RapidDrive Glutamine 5000.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois citizen who purchased GNC's Pro
Performance L-Glutamine Powder 5000 dietary supplement for his own
use at a GNC retail store in Chicago for about $29.99.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the ingestion of GNC's Products does
absolutely nothing for the recovery from exercise, recovery of
muscle tissue or ability to decrease muscle wasting (anti-
catabolic).  He bases his claims regarding the ineffectiveness of
glutamine supplements on a number of studies, including a study
showed that glutamine failed to affect muscle protein kinetics of
the test subjects.

The Plaintiff claims that GNC's labeling of the Products was
misleading, that he was in fact misled by GNC's representations
regarding the efficacy of the Products, and that he would not have
purchased any of the Products had he known that they did not
provide the health benefits as advertised on the label.  He
further alleges that the lack of benefits provided to consumers by
the Products fully diminishes the actual value of the Products.

Judge St. Eve denied GNC's motion.  She rejected GNC's arguments
that the Plaintiff cannot rely on the studies because they do not
involve the Products, their specific dosages, and their methods of
ingestion.  The Plaintiff's allegations boil down to a claim that
glutamine in supplement form does not have the benefits listed on
the Products' labels.  The studies support the allegation that
glutamine supplements do not have the benefits claimed on the
Products' labels.  She also rejected GNC's argument that the
Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege how the
representations are fraudulent as the Plaintiff adequately alleges
the falsity of the Products' representations.  Additionally, the
Plaintiff adequately alleges that these representations misled him
and that he would not have purchased the GNC's glutamine
supplement if he had known the truth.  By including the relevant
labels in the CAC, alleging what the information on the labels
means, alleging the results of the various scientific studies, and
alleging how the information on the labels deceived him, the
Plaintiff has met his pleading burden.

As to GNC's motion to deny class certification on the pleadings,
Judge St. Eve held that it is premature to determine the propriety
of class certification at the motion-to-dismiss stage.  While GNC
points to some differences in state law, it does not show how
those differences necessarily preclude class certification so that
it is practicable to resolve the certification question at this
stage.  It does not explain how the differences in state law it
identifies are material based on the pleadings.  Whether to create
subclasses will likely be a central issue during class-
certification proceedings.  It is sensible to wait to conduct the
relevant analysis until the issues are fully briefed and the
record is fully developed.  Despite the denial of the current
motion, however, the Plaintiff should take care in defining his
proposed classes and subclasses in his motion for class
certification, Judge St. Eve added.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/Rb5DLm from Leagle.com.

Sean Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Loren Silverman --
msilverman@brunolawus.com -- The Bruno Firm.

Sean Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC.

General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul
Richard Berg -- PBerg@VocelleBerg.com -- Vocelle & Berg, Alexandra
Marie Mcgee, Vocelle & Berg & Ashley Felton Eckerly --
aeckerly@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.


GLOBAL TEL: Faces Federal Class Action Suit Over Prison Phone Scam
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clarion Ledger reports that a federal class action lawsuit was
filed on July 13 against former Mississippi Department of
Corrections Commissioner Christopher Epps and others accused in a
bribery scandal, WJTV reported.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Elizabeth R. Alexander, John P.
Alexander, Mary Sessums, Sandra Glassmire, Jai Gibson, Sharon
Joseph and others similarly situated. The defendants are Epps,
Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL), and businessman Sam Waggoner.
GTL provides inmate calling services.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a criminal
racketeering conspiracy through what the suit calls the
"Mississippi Prison Phone Scam."

The plaintiffs said GTL allegedly funneled bribes and kickbacks to
Epps through Waggoner. It states that GTL was allowed to keep the
inmate calling service contract without competitive bidding and
charge exorbitant fees far exceeding market rates. Those rates
were passed to the inmates and their families. Mississippi law
requires bidding on certain contracts.

Epps is accused of running one of the largest and longest criminal
conspiracies in state government history, taking at least $1.4
million in bribes and kickbacks over eight years to steer more
than $800 million worth of state prison contracts. Epps pleaded
guilty in February 2015 to bribery and filing a false income tax
return.

In January, Waggoner was sentenced to five years in prison with a
two-year supervised release.

In May, Epps, 56, was sentenced to just shy of 20 years in prison
and fined $100,000.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by Attorneys Wilson
Carroll, Esq., of Wilson Carroll, PLLC and Brad Clanton, Esq., of
the Clanton Law Firm, PLLC, both based in Jackson, WLBT reported.
[GN]


GROTON LONG POINT, CT: Tax Increases Not Excessive, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Florin, writing for TheDay, reports that a Superior Court
judge who listened to evidence in a class-action lawsuit brought
by residents of Groton Long Point has ruled that tax increases
levied by the town after a 2011 revaluation were not excessive.

Hartford Judge Ingrid L. Moll presided over a trial in the case in
October 2016, reviewed post-trial briefs from attorneys for both
sides and wrote in a July 5 decision that the formula the town
used to assess the properties was valid and that the tax on
approximately 600 properties in Groton Long Point reflects their
fair market value and was not "manifestly excessive."

The residents had sought reimbursement of the taxes they felt were
illegally levied along with interests, costs and attorneys' fees.
The judge's decision will save the town about $4 million,
according to Town Attorney Matthew E. Auger.

The plaintiffs have until July 25 to appeal Judge Moll's decision.
Their attorney, John F.X. Peloso Jr. of the Robinson & Cole law
firm, said it was his firm's policy not to comment on pending
litigation.  Participants in the lawsuit also declined to comment
when reached by phone on July 14.

Ten plaintiffs had originally filed the lawsuit following a
mandatory revaluation conducted in 2011.  In 2013, Judge Henry S.
Cohn granted class-action status allowing more than 600 property
owners in the subdivision to be part of the case unless they opted
out or filed an individual appeal.

The plaintiffs alleged that the average yearly tax increase from
improper assessment was $1,129 per property, or $5,645 over five
years, according to court documents. Properties are taxed based on
70 percent of their fair-market value.  They claimed the town
inflated property values, then arbitrarily added 35 percent to
buildings in Groton Long Point while not applying the increase to
the town's 12 other neighborhoods.

"The Town's primary goal in any revaluation is to approximate as
close as possible the fair market value for each piece of
property," Mr. Auger wrote in an email.  "This is important
because if all property is valued at or as close as possible to
fair market value, then all property owners will pay their fair
share of taxes.  The purpose is to equalize the tax burden amongst
all property owners."

Mr. Auger said that during the course of the 2011 revaluation, the
Town determined that the preliminary values for Groton Long Point
were well below the range of reasonable values compared to
comparable sales for Groton Long Point and the tax ratios for the
other Groton neighborhoods.

"It would have been unfair to all other Groton real property
owners had the Town not changed the GLP preliminary values,"
Mr. Auger said.  "The Town analyzed the GLP property values, made
authorized adjustments, and arrived at values that still placed
GLP property owners in the lower half of the 13 neighborhoods for
property assessment to sales ratio."

He said the town is pleased that Judge Moll listened carefully to
the presentation of evidence by both sides, understood the law and
reached an equitable result.

"Her decision denying GLP's class action claims resulted in a tax
cost savings to the Town of over $4,000,000, including GLP's
claims for interest, costs and attorney's fees," Mr. Auger wrote.
"As a Groton resident and attorney for the Town, I am pleased the
court reached a result that treats all Groton property owners
equally and fairly.  That is the Town's goal in each revaluation
and it was finally achieved for 2011." [GN]


GV WELDING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Salinas" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Salinas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. G.V. Welding, Inc., and
Gerardo Vega, Case No. 1:17-cv-04846 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2017),
seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law;
and for Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

G.V. Welding is an Illinois corporation.  Gerardo Vega is the
President of G.V. Welding, Inc.  The Defendants operate a metal
fabrication business called G.V. Welding located at 4849 W. Grand
Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 800-1017
          E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: 3 Securities Suits Consolidated in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class lawsuits filed against The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York have been
consolidated, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June
22, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The three complaints are:

   (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.;

   (2) Lynn v. the Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; and

   (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.

The three securities class action complaints were filed on August
17, 2016, in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Securities Complaints allege that the Company and certain of
its officers made materially false and misleading statements in
press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects and financial results.  The Securities Complaints were
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015 and August 15,
2016.

On October 17, 2016, six potential plaintiffs and their respective
law firms moved to serve as lead plaintiff and counsel.

On June 5, 2017, the Court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-
lead counsel.  Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and
Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products.  It sells its products
through specialty and natural food distributors, supermarkets,
natural food stores, mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food
service channels and clubs, and drug and convenience stores in
approximately 80 countries worldwide.  The Company was founded in
1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Silva" and "Barnes" Suits v. Directors Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.'s board of directors and certain of
its officers are facing legal actions for securities law breaches,
among other allegations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on June 22, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively.  Both the Silva Complaint and the
Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of
Directors and certain officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results.  The complaint also alleges that the Company
violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold an Annual
Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products.  It sells its products
through specialty and natural food distributors, supermarkets,
natural food stores, mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food
service channels and clubs, and drug and convenience stores in
approximately 80 countries worldwide.  The Company was founded in
1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.


HARDY ANIMAL: Faces Class Action Over Smelly Painesville Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Flynn Morgan, writing for WKYC, reports that neighbors
living near a plant in Painesville say the smell surrounding the
property is too much to bear. They've filed a class action lawsuit
against the company, seeking compensation for the nuisance.

Hardy Animal Nutrition makes animal feed from refined oils, grease
and fat that's left over from the restaurant industry. The plant
sits on 25 acres in Painesville. It employs about 50 people and
runs 24/7.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for the nuisance created by the
odors and any negative impact the smell has on property values. It
also urges the company to change operations to reduce or eliminate
the odor.

Residents who continue to smell the odor are urged to call Ohio's
EPA hotline at (440) 350-2543 and also contact the law firm behind
the suit, Liddle and Dubin, out of Detroit. [GN]


HONGLI CLEAN ENERGY: "Ellis" Sues Over Share Devaluation
--------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Ellis, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hongli Clean Energy Technologies Corp.,
Jianhua LV, Song LV and Zan Wu, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04762
(D.N.J., June 28, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs, and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Hongli is a vertically-integrated coal and coke producer based in
Henan Province, People's Republic of China. Its securities were
traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that it did not properly
record the impairment of its assets. On April 26, 2017, the
Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing that its
independent auditor had a disagreement with the company.  Trading
of Company's securities were suspended, thus rendering the shares
of the Company illiquid.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HP INC: Fights to Dismiss Cartridge Monopoly Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports HP Inc. urged a
California federal judge on July 14 to toss a consolidated
proposed class action alleging it attempted to monopolize the
printer ink market by using a firmware update to prevent HP
printers from accepting third-party ink cartridges, arguing that
it doesn't have a legal obligation to ensure its printers use
other companies' cartridges that infringe HP's intellectual
property rights.

HP attorney Rod Stone of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP told U.S.
District Judge Edward J. Davila that the March 2016 firmware
update only targeted ink cartridges that infringe HP's IP rights
and no legitimate third-party cartridges were impacted. HP took
the right steps to stop infringing products from being using with
its technology and to do so isn't a crime, Stone argued.

"This was a routine firmware update that was done with
permission," Stone said. "We don't think there's any computer
crime here."

Stone's comments came during a hearing on HP's bid to toss the
consolidated putative class action brought by six consumers who
allege HP's update violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
multiple state unfair competition statutes and common law.

The suit seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who own
certain models of HP's OfficeJet, OfficeJet Pro and OfficeJet Pro
X series.

During the hearing, Stone argued that the firmware updates are
standard and to criminalize them, by finding that they're hacks,
would be a very broad expansion of the federal computer abuse
statutes. The consumers also authorized changes to the printer by
accepting firmware updates, he argued.

Stone also explained that since the suits were filed, HP has
received complaints from customers about the firmware update. As a
result, HP issued a patch so that those customers can undo the
previous update and "proceed at their own peril," Stone said.

Stone added that although the patch might impact potential damages
that are recoverable in the suit, it's not really relevant to HP's
motion to dismiss and the patch was purely done as a customer
service measure.

In response, the consumers' attorney, Jordan S. Elias of Girard
Gibbs LLP, argued that the firmware update was HP's attempt at
crushing the competition. But if it wants to stop companies from
making rival ink cartridges that infringe its IP, it needs to "go
to the source," issue a cease and desist letter and seek a court-
ordered injunction against them, Elias said.

"It's much more efficient to go to the source of the infringement
and deal with it there," he argued.

HP disabled thousands of printers without disclosing that the
printers would no longer work with more affordable cartridges.
According to the consolidated complaint, ink cartridges are
generally priced at $13 to $75 per ounce, and the third-party
cartridges at issue typically run on the lower end of the
spectrum.

Elias said that after the firmware update, error messages appeared
on customers' computers, which were "positively baffling." The
messages said the ink cartridge was missing or damaged, and as a
result, many customers were confused and were forced to buy more
expensive HP cartridges, he said.

In one case, the customer thought that her ink cartridge was
broken, so she purchased another one. When her printer still
didn't work, she called HP for technical support and the customer
service representative told her that her printer was likely
broken, so she purchased a new one, Elias said.

Elias added that since the update, HP has apologized to customers,
but the company admitted it would do it again if it's necessary,
so a court-ordered injunction is necessary.

"This is a consumer protection case where there's a real harm," he
said.

Judge Davila took the arguments under submission.

HP was represented by Rod Stone, Esq. -- rstone@gibsondunn.com --
of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The consumers were represented by Jordan S. Elias, Esq. --
je@girardgibbs.com -- and Elizabeth Antonia Kramer, Esq. --
eak@girardgibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP.

The case is In re. HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation, case
number 5:16-cv-05820, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


IASIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Properly Pay Nurses, Reinhardt Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAJEL REINHARDT, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. IASIS HEALTHCARE, LLC D/B/A SOUTHWEST
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LP, Case No. 5:17-cv-00611 (W.D. Tex., July 10,
2017), implicates the alleged longstanding policy of Southwest
General Hospital of failing to properly compensate non-exempt
nurses for work performed during meal periods.

Employers are not required to pay employees for meal periods if
the employer can satisfy its burden of demonstrating the employee
received a bona fide meal period, which primarily benefited the
employee, Ms. Reinhardt asserts.  She alleges that the Defendant
does not provide bona fide meal periods for its nurses, who are
responsible for direct patient care -- in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Iasis Healthcare, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with is principal
place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.  The Defendant operates
a chain of hospitals, including Southwest General Hospital, that
provide healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com

               - and -

          Rose Molina, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: rmolina@kennedyhodges.com


INC RESEARCH: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that a class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of shareholders of INC Research Holdings Inc.
("INC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:INCR), alleging violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between INC and inVentiv
Health, Inc. ("inVentiv").

The complaint alleges that in order to convince INC shareholders
to vote in favor of the proposed merger, INC's Board of Directors
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Jason
D'Agnenica, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody, by email to
inc@ssbny.com, by telephone at 1-800-337-4983 x145, or by fax to
212-490-2022.

SS&B has litigated class actions for violations of securities laws
and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors
over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  SS&B has offices
in New York and Beverly Hills.  SS&B's website (www.ssbny.com) has
additional information about the firm.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.  This press release may be considered Attorney
Advertising in some jurisdictions under applicable laws and
ethical rules. [GN]


KIIP INC: Illegally Obtains Consumers Personal Info, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Admiral Insurance Company v. Kiip, Inc. and Jessica Vasil and
Christine Farag, Case No. 2017CH09256 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 5,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of accessing
consumers' personal information by tracking and intercepting
millions of users' electronic communications without their
knowledge or consent, even while those individuals' mobile devices
were not in use.

Kiip, Inc. is a mobile marketing company that displays
advertisements on mobile devices through mobile applications, or
"apps," installed on individuals' smartphones, including iPhones
and Android devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Paul T. Geske, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              pgeske@mcgpc.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Sued by Mattocks Over Scott(R) Products
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MATTOCKS, individually, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK
WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-01397-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2017), arises out of
the Defendants' alleged unlawful merchandising practices with
respect to their Scott(R) Naturals Flushable Cleansing Cloths,
Scott(R) Naturals Flushable Wipes, and Scott(R) Naturals with Aloe
Vera Flushable Wipes.

The Defendants' labeling, packaging, and advertising of the
Products as "natural" is false, misleading, and likely to deceive
reasonable consumers because the Products actually contain
numerous unnatural, synthetic, and artificial ingredients,
including phenoxyethanol, sodium benzoate, amodimethicone, sodium
lauryl glucose carboxylate, polysorbate 20, lauryl glucoside,
sorbic acid, malic acid, and propylene glycol, the Plaintiff
contends.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Neenah, Wisconsin.
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales,
LLC are Delaware corporations with principal offices located in
Irving, Texas.  Kimberly-Clark Worldwide and Kimberly-Clark Global
Sales are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Kimberly-Clark Corporation.
The Defendants manufacture, market, promote, advertise, and sell
numerous products under various brand names, including the
Scott(R) Naturals Products at issue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Naomi Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (310) 400-1051
          Facsimile: (858) 800-4277
          E-mail: cmoon@kamberlaw.com
                  nspector@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4120 Douglas Blvd., #306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888) 557-5115
          Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


KLLM TRANSPORT: "Jowers" Claims Misclassification, Seeks Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Brent Jowers, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
KLLM Transport Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00517
(S.D. Miss., June 28, 2017), seeks all overtime wages due,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
interest, costs and disbursements and such other and further
relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

KLLM Transport Services is a refrigerated trucking company with
principal place of business and headquarters in Jackson,
Mississippi. Plaintiff is a driver who claims he was misclassified
as an independent contractor and was compensated on his miles
driven. Vehicle maintenance and fuel was deducted from his pay and
Jowers was not paid for non-mileage related hours such as
inspection, standby time and pick-up/delivery. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Brad Pigott, Esq.
      PIGOTT LAW FIRM, PA.
      775 N Congress St.
      Jackson, MS 39202-3009
      Tel: (601) 354-2121
      Fax: (601) 354-7854
      Email: bpigott@pjlawyers.com

             - and -

      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
      HAFFNER LAW PC
      445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 514-5681
      Fax: (213) 514-5682
      Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             gl@haffnerlawyers.com


KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Renews Bid to Certify Class in Drywall MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Mitchell Co. Inc. v. Knauf
Gips KG, et al., Case No. 09-cv-4115 (E.D. La.), files with Court
their renewed motion for class certification against Taishan
Gypsum Co., Ltd.

The Mitchell Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, files the Builder Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
moving the Court to certify this Class:

     All persons and entities in the States of Alabama,
     Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, and Florida that
     used drywall manufactured by Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., for
     the construction, repair, or remodeling of any improvement
     to real property and who incurred any expenses associated
     with (1) repair or replacement of all or part of the
     defective drywall, and/or (2) repair or replacement of other
     property damaged by the defective drywall, and/or (3)
     attorneys' fees and costs in defense of claims by affected
     homeowners, and/or (4) other expenses that were or incurred
     as part of the remediation of the defective drywall,
     including, without limitation, the cost of investigation and
     expert analysis of the defect, and cost of relocating
     customers displaced by the presence of defective drywall.

Excluded from the proposed Class are any owners, landlords, or
residents of real properties located in the United States
containing defective Chinese drywall manufactured, sold,
distributed, supplied, marketed, inspected, imported, or delivered
by Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.; Defendant Taishan, its legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or
any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; the
judge to whom this action is assigned and members of the judge's
immediate family; claims for personal injury, wrongful death,
and/or emotional distress; and all persons or entities who
properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion from the
class.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation known as IN
RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p5vo3gJI

Plaintiff The Mitchell Company, Inc., and other Builder Plaintiffs
are represented by:

          Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
          Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
          E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O Keefe Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 566-8646
          Facsimile: (504) 585-6946
          E-mail: kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com


LENSCRAFTERS INC: Faces "Seegert" Suit Over False Lens-Price Tag
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Seegert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LensCrafters, Inc., Luxottica Retail North
America, Inc., Luxottica Group S.P.A., and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01372-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 5,
2017), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on the prescription lenses sold at
Lens Crafters' retail stores.

LensCrafters, Inc. is the nation's largest optical retailer, with
over 130 stores in California and over 880 stores nationwide.

Luxottica Group S.P.A. is the largest eyewear company in the
world, operating optical retail brands such as Lens Crafters,
Pearle Vision, and Sunglass Hut and eyewear brands such as Ray-
Ban, Oakley, and Oliver Peoples. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LONDON SCHOOL: Students to Sue Over Mouldy, Mice-Infested Flats
---------------------------------------------------------------
HITC reports that a group of students are preparing to take legal
action against a top university after alleging they became unwell
by living in mouldy and mice-infested accommodation.

Postgraduates at the London School of Economics claim widespread
black mould, rodent infestations and periods without ventilation
at Sidney Webb House, a block of halls near Borough Market,
resulted in a "health crises, distraction and distress".

The students have launched a crowdfunding page to raise money to
sue LSE for what they claim is a "breach of tenancy contract".

The page, which has so far raised GBP1,951 of its GBP5,000 target,
was put together by the Sidney Webb House Group Action, a group of
more than 200 postgraduates.  It urges people to help "students
seek justice and redress grievances".

It reads: "Entire blocks of en-suite rooms had non-functional
ventilation systems for 10 months, while bathrooms were severely
contaminated with mould.  Because of the extremely poor living
conditions, many students fell ill.  Some were diagnosed with
upper respiratory tract infections and one resident underwent an
open surgical procedure due to skin infection.  Many had allergic
reactions from the poor ventilation and mould exposure, in line
with those detailed by the WHO and UK building regulations."

The Russell Group University has a licence contract with the
students, but the crowdfunding page claims that the building is
owned by and managed by property company Unite Students.  Those at
the halls claimed repair of basic utilities, including heating and
hot water, were often delayed.

Students, who lived in the halls between September 2016 and June
2017, also complained of disruptive construction work, which took
place over a seven-week period, and affected students' ability to
prepare for their exams.

One student took to social media to express his frustration,
tweeting Unite Students in April 2017 to say: "Can't believe you
started a noisy construction at Sidney Webb House three weeks
before LSE exams.  Impossible to study here."

The Guardian heard from another student, Juergen, who said he had
lived in the accommodation from September 2016 until June 2017.

He said: "The ventilation in the en-suite bathroom did not work
during the whole time I lived there.  This made the room damp as I
had to dry my clothes there, the provided dryers were expensive
and did not manage to dry my clothes full.  Also, I had to shower
in the room and as the window could hardly be opened because of
security measures so the humidity was quite high at times."

Unite Students has said it "does not accept" the accommodation had
been the direct cause of any illness.

A spokesman for LSE told the Sunday Telegraph: "It is to be
refurbished over the summer. We are, however, aware of a number of
complaints about accommodation there this academic year.  We are
investigating each issue."

A spokesman from Unite Students said it took over ownership of
Sidney Webb House in 2015 to 2016 and was aware of issues during
the academic year.

The company said: "We are always sorry to hear that any student is
experiencing poor health.  Unite Students does not accept any
suggestion that the accommodation is the cause of any medical ill
health poor health."

"Any class action being prepared by a student against LSE is a
matter between those two parties and not for us to comment on."

The students aim to reach their target of GBP5,000 on fundraising
website CrowdJustice by August 5. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Decertification of Inmate Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned S. A. THOMAS; E. L. GIPSON, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 14-
56183, 15-55418 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decertification order,
its award of attorneys' fees and costs, its grant of qualified
immunity to Sheriff Leroy Baca, and its denial of various other
motions which the Plaintiffs filed throughout the pendency of this
10-year litigation.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants, both former inmates at the Los Angeles
County Men's Central Jail, filed this putative class action
against now-retired Los Angeles County Sheriff Baca and six former
members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in both
their official and individual capacities, alleging that at various
times between December 2002 and May 2005, they were forced to
sleep on mattresses placed on the floor while in custody at the
County jail.  They allege that this "mattress-floor-sleeping"
violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

After the district court certified the Plaintiff class, the
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The district
court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in part, ruling that the
County had an unconstitutional policy of requiring inmates to
sleep on the floor.  But it also granted Sheriff Baca qualified
immunity.  Then, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the district court granted Sheriff
Baca's motion to decertify the class.

The two named Plaintiffs went to trial on their individual claims
and were each awarded $10,000 by a jury.  The district court then
awarded them $384,275 in attorneys' fees and $45,994.99 in
litigation costs.  They timely appealed, challenging the district
court's decertification order, its award of attorneys' fees and
costs, its grant of qualified immunity to Sheriff Baca, and its
denial of various other motions which the plaintiffs filed
throughout the pendency of this 10-year litigation.

This Court affirmed the district court's decisions.  It held that
the district court did not abuse its discretion by decertifying
the Plaintiff class.  The district court reasonably concluded that
the putative class failed to meet the commonality requirement of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because the damages
suffered by individual class members were insufficiently similar
to be established through representative testimony about what it
was like to sleep on the floors at the County jail.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by awarding
the Plaintiffs attorneys' fees of $384,275 and costs of
$45,994.99.  Although the district court perhaps could have given
greater weight to the Plaintiffs' initial success on their class
certification motion, it nonetheless gave a concise but clear
explanation of its reasons for reducing the amounts claimed by the
Plaintiffs ($7,090,000 in fees and $84,463 in costs).  Nor did the
district court err by granting qualified immunity to Sherriff Baca
as it was not clearly established between December 2002 and May
2005 that forcing inmates to sleep on the floor with mattresses
violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Finally, this Court held that the district court's disposition of
the parties' other miscellaneous motions does not warrant
reversal.  First, the district court did not err by granting
judgment on the pleadings for the Los Angeles County supervisor
Defendants as to the Plaintiffs' official-capacity claims against
them, because those claims were duplicative of the Plaintiffs'
official-capacity claims against Sheriff Baca.  Second, although
the district court erred by substituting the County as the
Defendant when Sheriff Baca left office, this error did not affect
the parties' substantial rights and hence must be disregarded.
Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
without explanation two motions filed by the Plaintiffs which were
pending at the time of its final judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/W5jYIH from Leagle.com.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court Denies Bid to Shorten Time in "Gold"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANA GOLD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-05373-TEH (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (i) denied the Defendant's
administrative motion; and (ii) vacated the July 31, 2017 hearing
on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendant's
Daubert motion, and the Aug. 14, 2017 hearing on the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

On July 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint.  In this
motion, it seeks to dismiss non-California Plaintiffs under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Currently
before the Court is its administrative motion to shorten time for
consideration of its motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the
Defendant argues that because the issue of whether the Court has
personal jurisdiction over non-California Plaintiffs is
inextricably intertwined with the issues the Court will address at
the class certification and Daubert hearing, the Court should hear
oral arguments on its motion to dismiss at the July 31, 2017
hearing.

The Plaintiffs timely opposed the administrative motion, arguing
that the proposed shortening of time would prejudice them and the
Court, and that the Court should only hear their motion for class
certification and the Defendant's Daubert motion at the July 31,
2017 hearing because it is undisputed that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over the California Plaintiffs.

After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the Court
agrees with the Plaintiffs that expediting the briefing and
hearing schedule would prejudice them and the Court.  Indeed, were
the Court to accept the Defendant's proposed schedule, there would
be insufficient time to adequately prepare for the July 31
hearing.  Accordingly, the Defendant's administrative motion is
untimely and therefore denied by the Court.  The briefing schedule
on its motion to dismiss will continue to be governed under Civ.
L.R. 7.

Moreover, in light of the close proximity of Judge Henderson's
retirement, and given the fact that the outcome of Lumber
Liquidator's motion to dismiss could materially affect the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court believes it
would be improper to adjudicate the class certification motion
before addressing the motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, the July
31, 2017 hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and the Defendant's Daubert motion and the Aug. 14, 2017 hearing
on the Defendant's motion to dismiss are vacated.  The parties are
instructed to re-notice a hearing on their pending motions upon
reassignment of this case to a new judge.

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

Dana Gold, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell, Terrell
Marwill Law Group PLLC.

Dana Gold, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, S. Clinton Woods, Audet &
Partners, LLP., Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan LLP, Adrienne
McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro hac vice,
Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Sedran & Berman, Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary
Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Francis Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Rebecca Anne
Peterson, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. & Robert K. Shelquist,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Tammy Emery, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro
hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue
Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill
Law Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Rebecca Anne Peterson, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP. &
Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.

Russell Dornon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino,
Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie
PLLC, pro hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue
Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill
Law Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners,
LLP. & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.

John Triana, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro
hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Daniel Curtis Calvert, Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro hac
vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue Kuang,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners,
LLP. & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.

Laura Norris, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro
hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Daniel Curtis Calvert, Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro hac
vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue Kuang,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners,
LLP. & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.

Edwin Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro
hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC, pro
hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue
Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill
Law Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Rebecca Anne Peterson, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP. &
Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.

Donald Fursman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino,
Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie
PLLC, pro hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marwill Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling
Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell
Marwill Law Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Michael Francis Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Robert K. Shelquist,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods,
Audet & Partners, LLP. & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC.

John Foster, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marwill Daudt and Willie PLLC, pro
hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Jordan L. Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Ling Yue Kuang,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Mary Bondy Reiten, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, Matt J. Malone, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Francis
Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners,
LLP. & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC.


Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bethany Gayle
Lukitsch, McGuireWoods LLP, Christopher Edward Trible,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Diane Pulley Flannery,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Joan Shreffler Dinsmore,
McGuireWoods LLP & Robert Francis Redmond, Jr., McGuireWoods, LLP,
pro hac vice.


MARYLAND: #AFROMATION Protesters File Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Soderberg, writing for City Paper, reports that nine
Baltimore activists have filed a class action lawsuit against the
Baltimore Police Department and the state of Maryland related to
last year's #AFROMATION protest during Artscape.

That day, July 16, 2016, 65 protesters were arrested, including a
City Paper photo intern, Courtney Hawkins, when the large march,
dubbed #AFROMATION, began at Guilford Avenue and Chase Street,
moved through Artscape, and then onto I-83.

As City Paper reported last year, the group "proceeded onto the
highway, locking arms and briefly blocking traffic as they formed
a line stretching across one side of the interstate. Police asked
the group to move for an ambulance and protesters obliged, moving
to the shoulder, only to see two police vans pull up. There was no
ambulance. Police then told the group to move off of I-83, and
then they were arrested. Some activists said they were essentially
'trapped' on the ramp and, while not involved in blocking traffic,
they were not allowed to retreat once arrests began. Fifty-five
adults and 10 teenagers were arrested."

While protest has hardly stopped since the Baltimore Uprising,
#AFROMATION, co-organized by Makayla Gilliam-Price, alumna of City
College's activist group City Bloc, Baltimore Bloc, Showing Up For
Racial Justice (SURJ) Baltimore, and others, was a palpable return
to sizable in-the-streets protest.

The allegations include keeping arrestees in "harsh detention
conditions," holding them in police vans for hours, providing
"little to no access to water, food, toilets, or necessary
medication," handcuffing arrestees too tightly, sexual harassment,
the taunting and misgendering of a trans arrestee, and the arrest
of a legal observer, along with it being, generally, an
"unconstitutional and unlawful arrest."

The lawsuit also alleges what was said by many at the time of the
protest: That police did not give adequate time for the protesters
to disperse once they were on I-83, and that protesters were
deceived and told that if they dispersed they would not be
arrested. This was not the case.

Among those named in the suit is Commissioner Kevin Davis, and
Capt. Charles Thompson, who the suit says, "upon information and
belief...was responsible for ordering the mass arrest." CP
reported on Thompson back in 2015, when he threatened to arrest
myself and then-CP photo intern, current-CP reporter/photographer
Reginald Thomas II at a "Blue Lives Matter" demonstration the
paper was covering. Thompson also threatened CP freelancer Tedd
Henn, myself, and Baynard Woods with arrest at a protest just a
few weeks before #AFROMATION, tied to the shooting deaths of
Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. In 2016, CP gave Thompson a
Best Of Baltimore award for "Best Bucking The Trend."

The overarching goal of the class action lawsuit, which seeks more
than $75,000 in compensatory and  punitive damages, is to get the
Baltimore Police to change policies, the plaintiffs say. A press
release put out by Debra Gardner, Legal Director at the Public
Justice Center and attorney for the plaintiffs, said: "BPD's
targeting of protesters because they exercise their right to free
speech to call attention to police mistreatment is
unconstitutional, and bad policy besides, in a city where the need
for police reform is well-documented and acknowledged. The
treatment of those arrested during Afromation was unconscionable.
We hope that this case will help ensure that BPD respects
everyone's right to speak out against injustice." [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: Machado Sues Over Withheld Bonus for Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Machado & Herik Espinosa, on behalf of themselves and of
similarly situated individuals v. Deborah Goldberg, in her
official capacity as Treasurer & Receiver General, Case No. 17-
2056H (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 28, 2017), arises from
alleged withheld bonus from thousands of Massachusetts veterans.

The Massachusetts Legislature has long chosen to recognize the
virtues and sacrifices of those who serve in the armed forces by
providing to them special benefits, among them a Welcome Home
Bonus for returning post-9/11 servicemembers, who deployed to war.
However, the State Treasurer -- charged with administering the
Bonus program -- has violated that long tradition by unfairly and
unlawfully withholding the Bonus from thousands of Massachusetts
veterans, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs are disabled United States Army combat veterans,
who both served in Afghanistan.

Deborah B. Goldberg is the Treasurer and Receiver General of
Massachusetts.  In that capacity, she is responsible for the
operation and administration of the Department of the State
Treasurer and the Welcome Home Bonus Program throughout the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dana Montalto, Esq.
          Daniel L. Nagin, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 522-3003
          Facsimile: (617) 522-0715


MCDONALD'S USA: Faces "Deslandes" Suit in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------
Leinani Deslandes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, McDonald's Corporation, a Delaware corporation;
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04857 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2017), seeks treble, actual, general,
special, incidental, statutory, punitive and consequential
damages, restitution, equitable relief, including a judicial
determination of the rights and responsibilities of the parties,
permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing or
adhering to any existing agreement that unreasonably restricts
competition, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains into a constructive
trust, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further
relief for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Deslandes was an employee of Bam-B Enterprises of Central Florida,
Inc., a franchise McDonald's store located at 3114 South Semoran
Boulevard, Apopka, Florida.

McDonald's Corporation and their franchisees have agreed not to
recruit or hire each other's employees.

McDonald's is the world's leading global food service retailer
with over 36,000 locations in over 100 countries. More than 80% of
McDonald's restaurants worldwide are franchise businesses that are
independently owned and operated, and are separate and distinct
entities from McDonald's. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
      BRANDT LAW LLC
      P.O. Box 487
      Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
      Tel: (618) 307-6116
      Fax: (618) 307-6161
      Email: derek@brandtlawllc.com

             - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
      Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
      McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
      Ontario, California 91761
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
             mmv@mccunewright.com
             ejk@mccunewright.com

             - and -

      Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
      WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
      601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
      Tampa, Florida 33606-2786
      Tel: (813) 225-4000
      Fax: (813) 487-1007
      Email: Jason@wagnerlaw.com


MCDONALD'S USA: Faces "Disomma" Suit Over Tax on Bottled Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DISOMMA, THOMAS DEVITA, and JUSTIN STOUTAMIRE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MCDONALD'S USA,
LLC; COMMERCIAL FOODS, INC. D/B/A MCDONALD'S STORE #681, TERRY'S
FOODS, INC., D/B/A McDonald's Restaurant #2497; NCB, INC. D/B/A
McDonald's Store #19893; and UNKNOWN FRANCHISEES OF MCDONALD'S
FRANCHISES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. CACE-17-
012331 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 28, 2017), is brought
against McDonald's franchisees operating their franchises in the
state of Florida, who assessed a sales tax on their sale of
Florida tax-exempt bottled water to customers in Florida.

Franchisor McDonald's USA, LLC is registered as a foreign limited
liability company with the Florida Department of State, Division
of Corporations, with its principal address at One McDonald's
Plaza, in Oak Brook, Illinois.  McDonald's USA is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of its parent and predecessor, McDonald's Corporation.

McDonald's USA franchises the world's largest chain of hamburger
fast food restaurants, with approximately 781 locations in
Florida.  Each of the Defendant Franchisee operates various
numbers of franchises throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kirk J. Girrbach, Esq.
          GUARDIAN LAW GROUP OF FLORIDA, P.A.
          2787 East Oakland Park Blvd, Suite 411
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306-1653
          Telephone: (954) 566-6615
          Facsimile: (954) 678-4248
          E-mail: Kirk@GuardianLawFL.com

               - and -

          Richard Galex, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD GALEX
          370 Camino Gardens Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 391-3999
          Facsimile: (561) 391-1020
          E-mail: rgalex9050@aol.com

               - and -

          Marla L. Killmon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARLA L. KILLMON, P.A.
          4403 W. Tradewinds Avenue
          Lauderdale By The Sea, FL 33308-4412
          Telephone: (954) 975-3208
          Facsimile: (954) 782-1722
          E-mail: marla.killmon@att.net

               - and -

          Frank R. Brady, Esq.
          BRADY & BRADY, P.A.
          1200 N. Federal Hwy., Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 338-9256
          Facsimile: (561) 338-5824
          E-mail: Frank@bradylawfirm.biz


MDL 840: Human Rights Victims Lose Bid to Enforce $2-Bil. Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rey E. Requejo, writing for Manila Standard, reports that the
Court of Appeals has dismissed the petition filed by victims of
human rights violations during the Marcos administration seeking
the enforcement of the final judgment of a US court awarding them
$2 billion in damages.

In a 19-page decision, the CA's Twelfth Division through Associate
Justice Normandie Pizarro instead upheld the decision rendered by
the Makati City Regional Trial Court dismissing the complaint for
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment filed by Priscilla
Mijares, Loretta Ann Rosales, Hilda Narciso Sr., Mariani Dimaranan
and Joel Lamangan on behalf of the class plaintiffs in the US
class action consisting of about 10,000 human rights victims
during the dictator's regime.

The appellate court ruled that the final judgment rendered by the
Hawaii Court on Feb. 3, 1995 awarding a total of $1.964 billion in
damages to human rights victims during the Marcos administration
is not binding because the US court had no jurisdiction as the
right to due process of all the unnamed claimants, as well as the
respondent Marcos estate, had been violated.

"To our minds, the failure of the final judgment to meet the
standards of what a valid judgment is in our country compels us to
deny its enforcement," the CA said.

"Rules of comity should not be made to prevail over our
Constitution and we cannot allow foreign impositions to trample
upon our sovereignty," the appellate court added.

It explained that the Hawaii District Court certified MDL 840 as a
class suit, which should mean that the parties who file the case
both for themselves and those they seek to represent share a
common legal interest -- "that is, the subject of the suit over
which there exists a cause of action is common to all persons who
belong to the group."

However, the appellate court said that in the final judgment
issued by the Hawaii court and being sought to be enforced here,
the purported claimants were classified into three subclasses
according to the basis of their claims -- namely, torture, summary
execution and disappearance of victims.

According to the appellate court, such classification of the
claimants is an obvious recognition that "no common question of
law and fact exists between/among the claimants."

"In other words, each claimant in MDL 840 had a right, if any,
only to the damage that such individual may have suffered, and not
one of them had any right to or can claim any interest in the
damage or injury which another suffered," it ruled.  "Hence, MDL
840 was not and should not have been brought as a class suit."

The CA also ruled that the Hawaii Court failed to ensure that the
10 Filipino citizens who initiated MDL 840 -- Celsa Hilao,
Josefina Hilao Forcadilla, Arturo Revilla, Jr., Rodolfo Benosa,
Danila Fuente, Renato Pineda, Adora Faye de Vera, Domiciano
Amparo, Christopher Sorio, and Jose Duran -- were truly and
legally authorized by the other purported claimants.

It noted that Hilao, et al did not identify the other claimants
they purportedly represented and also failed to present any power
of attorney from any of them.

"In the absence, therefore, of such authority, the final judgment
rendered by said court is not binding because the right to due
process of all the unnamed claimants, as well as the herein
respondent estate, had been violated," the CA said.

The appellate court added that the final judgment failed to meet
the standards for a valid judgment considering that despite the
complaint in MDL 840 was filed under the Anti Tort Claim Act, the
said decision was, however rendered on the basis of a different
law, presumably the Torture Victim Protection Act.

ATCA is a law that grants jurisdiction to federal district courts
over all causes where an alien sues for any harm resulting from a
violation of international law, no matter where the harm occurred,
or who inflicted the harm, as long as the plaintiff serves process
in the US territory.

The CA said the final judgment in MDL 840 used procedures, such as
the classification of the purported claimants into subclasses,
which are not provided for under the ATCA.

Besides, the CA noted that the US Supreme Court had recently
issued a ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that abandons
previous rulings that the ATCA applies to claims involving human
rights abuses or other international law alleged to have occurred
in foreign countries.

"Given the foregoing recent development, it is our considered
opinion that the instant final judgment may not be enforced in
this jurisdiction as it is clear that even the US Supreme Court
has come to realize that American laws could not have jurisdiction
over sovereign countries," the CA pointed out.

"As things stand, therefore, the claimants in MDL 840 have lost
whatever right of action they may have under the ATS or the ATCA,"
the decision said.

Associate Justices Samuel Gaerlan and Jhosep Lopez concurred with
the ruling. [GN]


MDL 2081: Bid to Exclude Beyer Expert Reports Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: BLOOD REAGENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2081, Master File
No. 09-MD-2081 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Jan E. DuBois of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony and Reports of
John C. Beyer, Ph.D.

The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' initial Motion for
Class Certification on July 26, 2012.  Ortho's economics expert,
Dr. Peter Bronsteen, testified at the hearing.  The Plaintiffs'
economics expert, Dr. Beyer, was unable to attend the July 26th
hearing, but his testimony was presented to the Court by video,
recorded on Aug. 6, 2012.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs'
initial motion for class certification by Order dated Aug. 22,
2012.  Ortho petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit for leave to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f), and that petition was granted on Oct. 25, 2012.

The granting of the Plaintiffs' initial Motion for class
certification was based on the Third Circuit's class certification
opinion in Behrend v. Comcast Corporation, which was thereafter
reversed by the United States Supreme Court.  Based on that
reversal, the Third Circuit vacated this Court's class
certification opinion and directed this Court on remand to decide
in the first instance which of the Defendant's reliability
attacks, if any, challenge those aspects of the Plaintiffs' expert
testimony offered to satisfy Rule 23 and then, if necessary, to
conduct a Daubert inquiry before assessing whether the
requirements of Rule 23 have been met.

On June 26, 2015, the parties submitted post-remand briefing.  The
Court held a hearing on the post-remand class certification issues
on July 21, 2015.  After a lengthy and thorough inquiry of the
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Beyer, the Court rejected
Ortho's Daubert challenges to his testimony.  The class,
consisting of all individuals and entities who purchased
traditional blood reagents in the United States directly from
Defendants Immucor, Inc and Ortho at any time from Nov. 4, 2000
through the present, excluding the Defendants, and their
respective parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, as well as any
federal government entities, was recertified on Oct. 19, 2015.
Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 4 dated Jan. 26, 2016, Ortho
filed its Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony and Reports of
John C. Beyer, Ph. D., and its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge DuBois concluded that Dr. Beyer's use of the OCV and cost-
margin benchmarks and the Rho(D) yardstick and his opinion on the
2004 GPO contract cancellations are reliable and fit the facts of
this case as presented in the motion papers.  For these reasons,
he denied Ortho's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony and
Reports of John C. Beyer, Ph.D., without prejudice to its right to
object at trial to any question or other evidence deemed
inadmissible.

Any reliability or fit issues presented by the ruling on Ortho's
Motion for Summary Judgment may be addressed by motions in limine.
A telephone conference for the purpose of scheduling all further
proceedings, including the filing of motions in limine, will be
conducted in due course.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/0YSn0F from Leagle.com.


MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE: Sallard Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malaika Sallard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MedImpact Healthcare System, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-02234-DJH (D. Ariz., July 10, 2017), arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons all overtime pay
for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

MedImpact is a pharmacy benefit manager that offers services
related to working with health plans and pharmacies to provide
information regarding medicines to customers.  MedImpact owns and
operates telephone call centers in Tempe, Arizona and elsewhere
where telephone-dedicated hourly employees primarily handle phone
calls regarding Medicare issues and pharmacy claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400
          E-mail: Tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
          MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
          15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 889-8951
          E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Sprint Fidelis Putative Class Suit Still Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
on June 27, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2017, that pretrial
proceedings are still underway in the class suit related to Sprint
Fidelis.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads.

On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but
denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive
damages.  Pretrial proceedings are underway.

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

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP.  Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."

Medtronic plc manufactures and sells device-based medical
therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients
worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered
in Dublin, Ireland.


MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Still Pending in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
on June 27, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2017, that the consolidated
class action complaints of West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace
are still for further proceedings in the District Court.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged
in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product
during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit
Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

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

Medtronic plc manufactures and sells device-based medical
therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients
worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered
in Dublin, Ireland.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Still Awaits Court Ruling in "Merenstein" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company continues to await decision,
which is expected to be entered in 2017 by the Minnesota Supreme
Court, in the consolidated lawsuit filed by Lewis Merenstein and
Kenneth Steiner, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
June 27, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 28, 2017.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.  The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss.

On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued
its opinion.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law.

A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected in
calendar year 2017.

Medtronic plc manufactures and sells device-based medical
therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients
worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered
in Dublin, Ireland.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Lawsuit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit initiated by the St. Paul
Teachers' Retirement Fund Association against a Medtronic Public
Limited Company subsidiary is still pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April
28, 2017.

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against HeartWare International, Inc. on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January
11, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare
and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about, among other things, HeartWare's response to a
June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the
Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the
proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd.  The Complaint seeks
to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of
HeartWare's stock during the Class Period.

In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare.

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

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with the shareholder related matters,
because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable under U.S. GAAP.  Additionally, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result
from these matters."

Medtronic plc manufactures and sells device-based medical
therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients
worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered
in Dublin, Ireland.


METHODIST LE BONHEUR: Faces Class Actions Over Illegal Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two lawsuits seeking class-
action status allege several Tennessee hospitals routinely
overcharge patients through illegal billing practices.

The Commercial Appeal reported on July 15 that the lawsuits filed
in Shelby County Chancery Court name hospitals in the Methodist Le
Bonheur Healthcare system and Saint Francis Hospital as
defendants.  A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a parallel
filing, ruling administrative resolutions hadn't been exhausted.
The litigation was refiled in federal court.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jimmy Blount says the Memphis hospitals
engaged in practices called "substitute billing" or "balance
billing," in which hospitals continued trying to collect money
from patients after debts were legally extinguished through
payments from private insurance companies, TennCare and other
programs.

Methodist said in a statement that it believed the suits to be
baseless.  A spokesman for Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett
declined to comment. [GN]


MEZZECANTINA LLC: Violates FLSA and Wage and Hour Law, Marin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO RAMOS MARIN and ARTURO LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
MEZZECANTINA LLC and MICHAEL KRIKORIAN, individually, Case No.
3:17-cv-05020 (D.N.J., July 10, 2017), is a civil action for
damages and equitable relief based upon alleged willful violations
that the Defendants committed of the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed
to them by:

     (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

    (ii) the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour
         Law;

   (iii) the full payment provisions of the New Jersey Wage
         Payment Law;

    (iv) the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA;

     (v) the anti-retaliation provisions of the Conscientious
         Employee Protection Act; and

    (vi) New Jersey common law, as explained in Pierce v. Ortho
         Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980).

Mezzecantina LLC is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business located at 33 First Avenue, in Atlantic
Highlands, New Jersey.  Michael Krikorian is the owner of
Mezzecantina.  The Defendants operate Mezzecantina, a restaurant
and bar located in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey that specializes
in pub-style fare.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David D. Barnhom, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third A venue, Suite 182 l
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
          E-mail: ddb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Oom"
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul L. Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to strike class allegations in the case captioned DANIELLE
OOM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MICHAELS COMPANIES INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-257 (W.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs allege that they paid for custom-framing services
for 25 pieces of artwork from a Michaels Stores Inc. store in
Holland, Michigan, but received lesser-value framing that damaged
their art.  They bring an action in diversity under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) against the Defendants.  Thy raise the following
causes of action: (i) violations of state consumer protection
statutes; (ii) violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (as codified by state staututes); (iii) violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (iv) violations of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act; (v) fraud and misrepresentation; (vi)
unjust enrichment; (vii) negligence; (viii) breach of express
warranty; and (ix) breach of implied warranty.  The Plaintiffs
allege that they are part of a class of persons -- either in
Michigan ("Michigan class") or the United States ("Nationwide
Class") -- who purchased custom framing products, specifically
preservation mounting and/or archival tape mounting from the
Defendants' store locations and who did not receive preservation
mounting and/or archival tape mounting.

The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, a motion to strike class allegations, and Defendant TMCI
has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs have responded to each motion and the Defendants
have filed replies.

Upon careful review of the record, Judge Maloney has decided that
the motions can be resolved without oral argument.  In sum, he
held that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is a fail-safe class: it
includes only those customers that the Plaintiffs claim are
entitled to relief.  Although they have not yet moved for class
certification and no discovery has taken place, Judge Maloney sees
no way in which the proposed class can be modified to avoid this
problem.  Moreover, the proposed class also fails to satisfy the
typicality, commonality, and predominance requirements of Rule 23.
Given the individualized nature of the claims, he does not believe
that discovery will resolve these failures.  Thus, Judge Maloney
granted the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/715e1D from Leagle.com.

Danielle Oom, plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Alexander
Coulson, Liddle & Dubin PC.

Danielle Oom, plaintiff, represented by Jasper Dudley Ward, IV,
Jones Ward PLC & Laura Louise Sheets, Liddle & Dubin PC.

Zachary Spofford, plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Alexander
Coulson, Liddle & Dubin PC, Jasper Dudley Ward, IV, Jones Ward PLC
& Laura Louise Sheets, Liddle & Dubin PC.

The Michaels Companies Inc., defendant, represented by James P.
Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC & Krista L.
Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC.

Michaels Stores Inc., defendant, represented by James P. Feeney,
Dykema Gossett PLLC & Krista L. Lenart, Dykema Gossett PLLC.

Artistree, Inc., defendant, represented by James P. Feeney, Dykema
Gossett PLLC & Krista L. Lenart, Dykema Gossett PLLC.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Misleading Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
court on July 13 found Midland Credit Management can't escape a
putative class action alleging it engages in misleading debt
collection practices, rejecting Midland's argument that the
customer who filed suit hadn't sustained damages.

Midland had sought the dismissal of Daniel Hernandez's claims on
the grounds he had not sustained any financial harm from the
allegedly misleading debt collection letter Midland sent to him,
but District Court Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the allegation of a
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation was sufficient
grounds to bring suit.

"In the case at bar, the injury alleged is both particularized and
concrete," she said.

According to Hernandez, in October 2015 Midland violated the FDCPA
by sending him a debt collection letter claiming unspecified
charges and fees had accrued over and above the balance of his
debt despite the fact Midland was not authorized to collect fees
and could only apply for legal costs after a judgment had been
entered. He is seeking damages on behalf of all Illinois residents
who have received similar dunning letters from Midland.

Midland sought dismissal of the claim on the grounds Hernandez had
not sustained damages because he did not make any payments on the
debt in response to the letter.

"In fact, plaintiff took no action at all in reaction to the Oct.
5 letter, much less any action that would have harmed him in any
way," Midland said in its motion.

However, Judge Gottschall said the general risk of harm to
consumers posed by inaccurate dunning letters was sufficient basis
for the suit.

"As numerous cases make clear, an injury is adequately concrete as
long as there is some 'appreciable risk of harm' to the
plaintiff," she said.

Counsel for Hernandez and Midland did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on July 14.

In May, a Florida jury awarded a FDCPA statutory maximum of nearly
$50,000 to a class of about 34,000 Florida consumers who alleged
Texas-based LTD Financial Services LP improperly sent collection
letters offering to settle time-barred debts that did not inform
the recipients that making a partial payment could revive their
obligations under Florida law and open them to being sued for the
full amounts.

Hernandez is represented by Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. and John
Soumilas, Esq. -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- of Francis & Mailman
PC and Roger Zamparo Jr., Esq. -- info@zamparolaw.com -- of
Zamparo Lawgroup PC.

Midland is represented by Heather L. Kramer, Esq. and Theodore W.
Seitz, Esq. -- tseitz@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The case is Daniel Hernandez v. Midland Credit Management Inc.,
case number 1:15-cv-11179 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]


MINI JAKE: Anderson Sues Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MINI JAKE INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03879-BMC (E.D.N.Y.,
June 28, 2017), seeks to put an end to alleged systemic civil
rights violations committed by the Defendant against the blind in
New York State and across the United States.

The Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services MINI JAKE provides
to its non-disabled customers through http://www.minijake.com/,
Mr. Anderson alleges.

Mini Jake Inc. is an American for-profit corporation organized
under the laws of New York, with a physical location of business
located in Brooklyn, New York.  The Company owns and operates the
MINI JAKE store location, which is a place of public
accommodation.

Minijake.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, information, and other programs offered by MINI JAKE.
The MINI JAKE Store provides to the public important goods such as
baby furniture, clothing, decor, bedding, bath, health, gear, and
toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


MINNESOTA: St. Paul School District Faces Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 5 reports a class action lawsuit has been brought against the
St. Paul school district claiming illegal discrimination against
"foreign-born students who are just beginning to learn English."

The suit claims district policies deprive students of equal
opportunities covered by federal, state and city law.

The suit was filed on behalf of two students and their parents --
Mary Jane Sommerville and George Thawmoo -- as well as all English
language learning students.

According to court records, both students are Burmese refugees who
came to Minnesota from Thailand in 2012. One student was
identified as LLK, the other as LLHK. Both students knew little
English and were barely literate in their own language, making
them English language learners, according to court documents.

The lawsuit claims that school districts must take, "affirmative
steps to address language barriers for English language learners."
However, the St. Paul school district implemented policies that
require English language learners to attend mainstream classes.

The suit says that during the 2014-2015 school year, LLK was
reading at a second-grade level, but was taking eleventh-grade
English and social studies classes. The suit also claims the
policy denied the two students, and others in their situation, the
ability to learn in their language.

The class action suit also claims the district's practices,
"improperly consider students' national origin in determining
eligibility for special educational services or accommodations,
and fail to accommodate students with disabilities by refusing to
evaluate them."

According to the court documents, LLHK had not been screened for a
learning disability until Sommerville and Thawmoo received a
medical evaluation. The district, however, refused to conduct an
evaluation, even with a medical diagnosis.

The district later evaluated LLHK, but refused to recognize that
he qualified for special education services.

According to court records, the Minnesota Department of Education
found the district's English language learners program was not in
compliance in "numerous different ways."

The suit seeks injunctive relief for the two students and the
class of English language learners, calling for the school to
change its policies. [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Nearly 100 Concussion Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Larimore, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that a
wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of former Pittsburg
State University football player Zack Langston has been
consolidated with nearly 100 other cases that also deal with
concussion injuries, court filings show.

The federal class-action suit, which was filed by Charles Marcus
Langston, Zack's father, and Danae Young, the mother of Zack
Langston's child, on June 2 in the Eastern District of Kansas, was
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by an order of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 7.

The suit accuses the NCAA and Mid-America Intercollegiate
Athletics Association of negligence and wrongful death. It claims
Langston committed suicide because of neurological complications
he suffered as a result of "over 100 concussions" sustained while
playing outside linebacker for PSU from 2007 to 2010. Langston
died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest in 2014.

The suit says the NCAA and MIAA "recklessly ignored" the dangers
of head injuries, and "failed to institute any meaningful methods
of warning and/or protecting the student-athletes, including the
football players."

Pittsburg State is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. At the
time the suit was filed, Chris Kelly, associate vice president of
university marketing and communication, declined to comment on the
suit's allegations, including that PSU coaches "demanded" Langston
and other players "forgo their own self-interest and continue
playing despite sustaining head injuries."

Kelly said at the time he was unaware of any action or review in
the school's athletics department or football program the
allegations would trigger but offered to check with the athletics
staff. Reached by phone on July 12, Kelly said no update was
available.

Previous attempts to reach Dan Wilkes, associate athletics
director for communications, have not been successful.

The order transferring the case out of the Kansas court said the
suit filed by Langston's family has "questions of fact" that are
common to 93 other lawsuits that have been transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois and assigned to Judge John Lee, who
has created a consolidated class of suits filed against college
sports leagues and individual schools.

The class created by Lee includes suits filed against 21 college
sports leagues, including prominent Division I conferences such as
the Big 12, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference and PAC-12, as well
as four against Division II conferences, the same level of
competition in which the MIAA plays. The class also includes suits
against 14 individual schools, including Wake Forest, Stanford,
Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Vanderbilt, Penn State,
Syracuse and the University of Miami. No suits filed against MIAA
schools are included in the class.

Lee's class, though, does include another lawsuit that names the
MIAA as a defendant. Richard Walker, a football player from 1976
to 1979 at Missouri State University in Springfield, also has sued
the conference and the NCAA, alleging that both entities failed to
adequately protect him and other players from the dangers of
concussions and brain injuries while playing football. Walker, the
suit says, suffered brain injuries while playing football at MSU
and continues to suffer from the effects of those injuries. The
Springfield school was a member institution of the MIAA when
Walker played there. The suit does not specifically name MSU as a
defendant.

In Lee's order creating the class, he writes that the
consolidation of the cases does not mean any will be tried
together, and the individual claims are not being combined into
one suit.

The Joplin attorney representing Langston's family, Glenn Gulick
Jr., referred questions regarding the suit to Jeff Raizner, a
Houston attorney representing 49 plaintiffs in Lee's class,
including Langston and Young. Raizner did not respond to messages
seeking comment. Christopher McHugh, an attorney representing the
MIAA in both the Langston family and Walker cases, declined to
comment, citing a conference policy not to discuss pending
litigation.

Class action

The lawsuit filed by the family of the late Zack Langston said
members of the affected class include all Pittsburg State football
players who played between 1952 and 2010, and any of their
spouses, parents or dependents. The class, the suit says, could
include hundreds of individuals and could ask for more than $5
million in damages. [GN]


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Fraser" Seeks Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Fraser, Joseph Wucher, Irene Damsky, Kim Zaia, and Chris
Jackson as individuals and as representatives of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03702 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all
hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required
rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-
related expenses, unfair competition, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Nationwide is an insurance and financial service company where
Plaintiffs are current and former Risk Solutions Specialists. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven G. Zieff, Esq.
      Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
      William P. Mcelhinny, Esq.
      RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.
      351 California Street, Suite 700
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 434-9800
      Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
      Email: sgz@rezlaw.com
             cmm@rezlaw.com
             wpm@rezlaw.com


NICARAGUA: California Judge Dismisses Portion of Miskitu Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar who is presiding in United States
District Court in Northern California case of Robertson vs.
Nicaragua dismissing a portion of the lawsuit pending the
plaintiffs securing counsel.  The Court has ordered the Miskitu
government in exile to secure counsel before going forward with
their class action claims against the Republic of Nicaragua, et
al.

The plaintiffs have satisfactory pursued and self-represented
themselves in this lawsuit for the last five months without the
ability to secure counsel which now is both essential and crucial
for the Miskitu peoples to proceed with their complaint with less
than a week to be in compliance with Judge Tigar's order issued on
June 26th, 2017.

The United States District Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
exception that comes from the 2013 United States Supreme Court
decision in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, saying it was
presumed not to cover foreign conduct unless the claims
sufficiently "touch and concern" the US.  If the person or
plaintiffs are in the USA then the USA is "touched and concerned"
and they can file international claims against a foreign nation.
The Miskitu nation is seeking a team player lawyer with the
federal credentials to properly represent the indigenous peoples
of the Miskitu territories as well as those Miskitu descendants
that now live in the United States and welcome all inquiries. If
you are a lawyer and meet the criteria mentioned in this press
release please feel free to contact our Miskitu representative at
your earliest convenience.

If anyone is interested in helping the Miskitu people with this
federal complaint, or recommend a lawyer who will volunteer their
services please contact the Miskitu Government in Exile on their
website at http://www.miskitunation.orgor please contact Ercell
Fleurima-510-868-0658 at ercell@miskitunation.org. [GN]


NIKE RETAIL: Labor Law Suit to Remain in Calif. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that a
California labor lawsuit filed against Nike and other defendants
alleging the retail chain violated California labor law over an
alleged requirement by staff to purchase their own uniforms, will
remain in federal court after a federal judge in US Court denied a
motion to have the lawsuit returned to state court.

The California labor code lawsuit is Hamid v. Nike Retail Services
Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00600, in the US District Court for
the Central District of California. Plaintiff Omran Hamid, the
lead plaintiff in a proposed class action, asserts that a uniform
policy maintained by Nike required store employees to wear Nike-
branded attire during work hours. It is also alleged that
employees were required to wear, and maintain "up-to-date apparel
of each seasons' product line." The allegation is that employees
were required to pay for this attire, by way of deductions from
their wages.

According to California labor law, employers who require their
employees to wear specific uniforms while on the job are required
to provide, and maintain those uniforms. It is not to be the
responsibility of the employee, and employees are not to assume
the costs, according to language in California labor employment
law.

The California labor lawsuit cites various claims against Nike
Retail Services Inc. and a district director. Claims include
illegal terms of employment and unlawful collection or receipt of
wages due, amongst other alleged violations to the California
labor code.

It is unclear as to why the defendants felt they could circumvent
California labor laws, as they were alleged to have done with
regard to the uniform issue. While Nike operates several retail
outlets in the state, the company maintains headquarters and is
based in the state of Oregon.

Hamid worked at a Nike retail location in San Clemente from
October, 2015 until January of this year. He originally filed his
California labor code lawsuit in California Superior Court, Orange
County. Nike moved to remove the lawsuit to federal court in
April, but Hamid wanted the lawsuit returned to state jurisdiction
on grounds that, in his view most of the potential class members
live in California -- where the alleged harms are claimed to have
occurred -- and the district director named as a co-defendant in
the lawsuit is also a resident of California.

However, US District Court Judge David O. Carter denied the
remand, and has compelled the matter to remain in federal court.
Amongst his reasoning is the fact that Nike Retail Services Inc.
is based in Oregon, and the claims against the company are more
numerous and compelling than the claims leveled at the California-
based district manager.

Hamid had also referenced exceptions under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) in support of his bid to have his California
labor lawsuit moved back to state court. The plaintiff asserted
exceptions identifying "local controversy" and "home state" under
CAFA, applied to his case.

However, Judge Carter disagreed. "Plaintiff here is challenging a
statewide policy, which strongly indicates to the court that the
statewide management of Nike's operations forms the basis of the
allegations, and not the actions of any individual district
director alone," the order said, amongst other points supporting
an order to retain the California labor lawsuit in federal court.
[GN]


NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Timing Chain Noise
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Nissan
timing chain noise is what a class-action lawsuit is all about,
not safety hazards caused by those timing chains, at least
according to attorneys for Nissan arguing the case in a California
courtroom.

Owners say the Nissan timing chain systems are dangerous and
defective, while Nissan says the timing chain tensioners may be a
little noisy, but those systems haven't caused a single crash or
injury.

The class-action lawsuit includes California and Washington
purchasers or lessees of the following vehicles:

2004-2008 Nissan Maxima
2004-2009 Nissan Quest
2004-2006 Nissan Altima (VQ35 engine)
2005-2007 Nissan Pathfinder
2004-2007 Nissan Xterra
2005-2007 Nissan Frontier (VQ49 engine)

The timing chain tensioning system connects the engine's camshaft
to the crankshaft and controls the opening and closing of the
engine's valves.  The system must work accurately and precisely
for the engine to function properly.

A vehicle can experience numerous problems if the timing chain has
trouble, including causing the pistons and valves to smash into
one another, resulting in an inability to accelerate, maintain
speed and idle smoothly.

Finally, the engine can experience catastrophic failure while
driving, not to mention the extreme cost to fix the timing chain
problems.

The plaintiffs report paying up to $3,000 to repair problems that
Nissan allegedly has known about since 2004.

The lawsuit alleges each lead plaintiff heard whining, buzzing and
ticking sounds during the warranty periods, but didn't know they
were symptoms of timing chain problems.  In each case, the
plaintiffs had repairs performed after the warranties had expired.

Plaintiffs point to three technical service bulletins (TSBs)
issued by Nissan to its dealerships. One sent July 17, 2007,
instructed technicians to replace timing chain parts in the case
of whining or buzzing noises.

The lawsuit alleges the automaker knew about the timing chain
problems from early customer complaints, dealer input and from
internal data.  However, even with this knowledge, the plaintiffs
claim Nissan continued to install the defective triming chain
systems in the vehicles.

According to the lawsuit, Nissan redesigned one of the timing
chain tensioner components in 2006 and 2007, correcting the
alleged defect, but without informing consumers.

According to the plaintiffs, all affected Nissan vehicles use a
uniform timing chain system consisting of the same slack guide,
secondary chain and secondary tensioners.

Nissan allegedly tried to fix the timing chain problems but
everything the automaker tried allegedly ended up failing. The
plaintiffs say this is why the automaker finally redesigned the
systems.

According to the automaker, there has never been anything
defective about the timing chain systems and the most that owners
can show is that the timing chains make noise, not that the
systems are a safety risk.  Nissan says the plaintiffs admit no
crashes are attributed to the timing chains, even though the
majority of the vehicles have been in service more than 10 years.

In addition, the automaker says two of the plaintiffs admit they
didn't even have repairs made to their vehicles.  According to the
automaker, both those plaintiffs say the timing chains "whine,"
not that the systems are hazardous to them or anyone else.

The Nissan timing chain noise lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California --
Kobe Falco, et. al., v. Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan
Motor Company, LTD.

The plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd, P.C., Capstone Law
APC, and Strategic Legal Practices. [GN]


NOMURA HOLDINGS: Units Still Face Antitrust Class Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nomura Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on June 26,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, that subsidiary Nomura
International plc ("NIP") and other entities in the Nomura Group
are defending themselves against several class action suits in New
York related to alleged antitrust law breaches.

The Company said, "Various authorities continue to conduct
investigations concerning the activities of NIP, other entities in
the Nomura Group and other parties in respect of government,
supranational, sub-sovereign and agency bonds. NIP and other
entities in the Nomura Group are also defendants to several class
action complaints filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging violations of U.S.
antitrust law and common law related to the alleged manipulation
of the secondary trading market for supranational, sub-sovereign
and agency bonds."

Nomura Holdings, Inc. provides various financial services to
individuals, corporations, financial institutions, governments,
and governmental agencies worldwide.  It operates through three
segments: Retail, Asset Management, and Wholesale.  The Company
was formerly known as The Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. and changed
its name to Nomura Holdings, Inc. in October 2001.  Nomura
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tokyo,
Japan.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf disclosed  that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. ("Ocular" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:OCUL) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey,
is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ocular securities between May 5, 2017 and July
6, 2017 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Ocular securities during the class period, and
would like more information about the shareholder class action,
please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must file no later
than September 5, 2017.   A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of all class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the putative class may move to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that 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) Ocular was experiencing
significant manufacturing issues with respect to DEXTENZA,
including that more than 50% of lots manufactured by Ocular
Therapeutix contained bad product; (ii) such manufacturing issues
could imperil DEXTENZA's approval by the FDA; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Ocular's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 6, 2017, shortly before the end of the trading day, the
website Seeking Alpha published an article entitled "Ocular: A
Poke In The Eye," reporting, in part, that the Company's
management had misled Ocular investors regarding ongoing
manufacturing issues and downplayed the significance of U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") communications regarding these
issues.

On that same day, STAT published an article on the Company
asserting that DEXTENZA could be rejected by the FDA because of
product contamination, including aluminum, found by an FDA
inspector during a visit to Ocular's manufacturing facility.

Following this news, Ocular's share price fell $3.06 or over 30%
over two trading days, to close at $7.12 on July 7, 2017.

About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN]


OHIO STATE: Ex-Football Player Files Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCann, writing for Sports Illustrated, reports that in
the first player name, image and likeness lawsuit since Ed
O'Bannon's historic victory against the NCAA became final in 2016,
former NFL All-Pro and Ohio State linebacker Chris Spielman filed
a federal lawsuit on July 14 against his alma mater and IMG
College, the popular sports marketing company that negotiates on
behalf of Ohio State and many other colleges.  Mr. Spielman
contends that Ohio State and IMG College, along with co-
conspirators Honda and Nike, have unlawfully conspired under
federal antitrust law to deny payment to current and former Ohio
State football players.

Mr. Spielman's 35-page complaint details how Honda-sponsored
banners hung at Ohio Stadium -- where the Buckeyes play their home
games and which seats approximately 102,000 fans -- depict Mr.
Spielman and 63 other notable Buckeyes, such as Archie Griffin,
Jim Stillwagon, Bill Willis and Andy Katzenmoyer.  According to
Mr. Spielman, these players never agreed to appear on the banners
and weren't paid by OSU, Honda or anyone else for their
appearances.  Essentially, Mr. Spielman is asking, shouldn't both
Ohio State and the players be paid when those players appear on
banners?

Mr. Spielman's complaint also takes aim at OSU's license agreement
with Nike. OSU and Nike have a contractual relationship to produce
"Legends of the Scarlet and gray" vintage OSU jerseys, which
depict, without accompanying compensation, Mr. Spielman and other
former Buckeyes stars.  Mr. Spielman contends that these
businesses worked with OSU in an unlawful plot whereby they
refused to negotiate with OSU football players, thus setting the
value of those players' identity rights -- which are clearly
marketable since Honda and Nike paid for them -- at $0.

The 51-year-old Mr. Spielman, who is now a Fox NFL analyst,
demands the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
enjoin Ohio State and IMG College from continuing to use current
and former Buckeyes players' identities for profit without first
negotiating those rights with the players.  He also requests that
the court compel the defendants to pay monetary damages to former
players for past usage.  Mr. Spielman has told the Associated
Press that he would donate any money he receives from a victory or
settlement to the Ohio State athletic department. Just like Ed
O'Bannon in his lawsuit, Mr. Spielman would not personally profit
in any way should he succeed.  Messrs. O'Bannon and Spielman
brought their cases to change rules and raise awareness.

As explained below, Mr. Spielman's lawsuit is significant on at
least five levels.

I. Mr. O'Bannon's victory paved the way for Mr. Spielman's
lawsuit, but it doesn't guarantee that Mr. Spielman will also
succeed

Mr. Spielman's lawsuit is a direct effort to compel a university
to follow the O'Bannon ruling.

Mr. O'Bannon, the former UCLA basketball star, led a class action
lawsuit against the NCAA over the unauthorized use of his and
other players' names, images and likenesses in video games,
classic TV broadcasts, trading cards, apparel and other products
that generate substantial revenue for the NCAA and its members.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in his favor in 2014.
O'Bannon proved that the NCAA and its members unlawfully conspired
against current and former Division I men's basketball and
football players to deny them of the right to negotiate the use of
their identities.

In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled
that the NCAA and its members can comply with the O'Bannon
decision vis-a-vis current players so long as schools are
permitted to offer those current players the full cost of
attendance.  The Ninth Circuit left the door open for former and
prospective players -- neither of whom is eligible for the full
cost of attendance since neither consists of current college
students -- to file additional lawsuits for compensation.  The
Ninth Circuit's ruling became final in 2016, when the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review the case.

Mr. Spielman's complaint invokes O'Bannon's victory.  "Despite the
holdings in O'Bannon v. NCAA," Mr. Spielman's attorney,
Brian Duncan, writes, ". . . OSU has entered into various
licensing partnerships that unlawfully utilize the images of
Plaintiff and Class Members, by and through Defendant IMG College,
and as further detailed herein."

Mr. O'Bannon's victory is persuasive authority in Ohio, but it is
not binding precedent.  In other words, a federal court in Ohio
could decide that the O'Bannon ruling is wrong and rule against
Mr. Spielman.

Jurisdiction matters a great deal here.

Mr. O'Bannon won in the Ninth Circuit, which governs federal
districts in nine states and two U.S. Pacific Islands: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Colleges
located in those locations must adhere to the Ninth Circuit's 2015
ruling.  However, in other parts of the country, including Ohio,
colleges aren't obligated to follow the Ninth Circuit. Rulings by
different federal circuit courts govern those colleges.  The Sixth
Circuit, for example, governs federal districts in Kentucky,
Michigan, Tennessee and, of relevance to Spielman's lawsuit, Ohio.

II. Mr.  Spielman's lawsuit could be the first of many like it

Ohio State is obviously not the only college to "honor" former
players with banners and apparel.  Others have negotiated
licensing deals, without players' involvement, to depict those
players.  It would thus not be surprising to see "copycat"
lawsuits filed by other former college athletes -- whether they
played football, basketball or another sport -- against different
colleges across the country.  For many university legal counsels
and athletic department compliance officers, there may be some
busy days ahead.

III. More lawsuits like Mr. Spielman's means a greater chance the
U.S. Supreme Court will decide to weigh in

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the O'Bannon case in 2016.
This was not a major surprise.  The Supreme Court only agrees to
review about 1% of cases and regularly declines to hear cases that
many people and industries regard as important.  In order for the
Supreme Court to agree to hear a case, at least four justices must
vote to grant certiorari.

Still, some anticipated or at least hoped that the Supreme Court
would be interested in the O'Bannon case since it impacted
thousands of current athletes and former athletes, as well as many
colleges, conferences, video game publishers, television networks
and, of course, the NCAA itself.  While the Supreme Court doesn't
explain why it declined to hear a case, it's possible that the
justices did not see a meaningful conflict between U.S. courts of
appeals on the use of athletes' names, images and likenesses.
Indeed, O'Bannon's victory in the Ninth Circuit has not been
contradicted by a decision in a different federal circuit.

But play out the Spielman lawsuit for a moment.  Let's say he wins
at the district court level but then loses on appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Depending on the
reasoning offered by the Sixth Circuit in ruling against Mr.
Spielman, it's possible that the Sixth's ruling would conflict
with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in the O'Bannon decision.

Mr. Spielman would then likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which would be faced with a conflict of legal interpretations of
federal antitrust law between the Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.
Such a conflict wouldn't guarantee that the Supreme Court agrees
to hear Mr. Spielman's case, but it would position Mr. Spielman's
case to have better odds of Supreme Court review than O'Bannon's
case since there would be an actual conflict.

The same logic applies if other former athletes file similar
lawsuits to the one filed by Spielman.  The more federal circuits
disagree about how antitrust law ought to govern the licensing of
current and former college athletes' names, images and likenesses,
the more likely the Supreme Court will eventually feel compelled
to resolve the matter once and for all.

IV. Mr. Spielman's lawsuit is not yet a federal class action

When a person files a lawsuit on behalf of both himself/herself
and a group of other people, it is often reported as a "class
action lawsuit."  A more accurate description would be that is a
potential class action lawsuit. A court must approve a lawsuit as
a class action; it is not automatically one and doesn't become one
by declaration of the plaintiff.

In fact, it normally takes months, and sometimes years, for a
plaintiff to convince a federal judge that the lawsuit contains
enough common issues and other unifying features that would
authorize the judge to bind other persons into the class.  To
illustrate, four years and nearly four months passed between the
day O'Bannon filed his lawsuit and the day Judge Wilken certified
part of O'Bannon's putative class.  To be sure, O'Bannon's lawsuit
was more extensive than Spielman's in that it involved multiple
sports and tens of thousands players from numerous colleges.
Still, it might be some time before a court rules on whether Mr.
Spielman's lawsuit ought to be a class action.

To convince a federal court that he should represent a class of
former and current OSU football players, Mr. Spielman will
highlight that they all participated in the school's football
program and all have had their images sold or distributed by the
defendants.

To counter that point, OSU and IMG College might assert that Mr.
Spielman and other former OSU stars do not adequately represent
the interests of most OSU football players.  The vast majority of
OSU football players were far less marketable than Mr. Spielman, a
two-time All-American and winner of the 1987 Rotary Lombardi Award
as college football's top linebacker.  Most OSU football players
haven't been as extensively marketed as has Mr. Spielman, a well-
known public figure.

In response, Mr. Spielman might charge that everyone in his would-
be class saw their names, images, and likenesses used without
their consent.  It should be noted that O'Bannon, recipient of the
1995 John Wooden Award as college basketball's most outstanding
player and a far more recognizable public figure than almost
everyone else in his class, prevailed with such an argument in
seeing his case certified.

OSU might also invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity to assert
that the university is immune from Mr. Spielman's lawsuit. Under
this doctrine, citizens can only sue the government or a
government agency if it agrees to be sued.  In certain
circumstances, public universities can claim protection under
sovereignty immunity on the theory that they are "arms" of the
state government.  Whether sovereign immunity would immunize OSU
from athletes' identity rights claims is uncertain.

V. Ohio State might be more poised to settle with Mr. Spielman
than the NCAA was with O'Bannon

Many were surprised that the NCAA appeared uninterested in
reaching a settlement with O'Bannon, who settled other claims with
Electronic Arts.  By not settling with O'Bannon, the NCAA had to
comply with various pretrial discovery requests that led to
damaging revelations about the NCAA's business model.  NCAA
officials, including president Mark Emmert, also had to testify in
O'Bannon's trial.

At least part of the NCAA's unwillingness to engage in substantive
settlement talks reflected the high stakes of the O'Bannon case.
Although O'Bannon v. NCAA centered on only one part of
amateurism -- the use players' names, images and likenesses -- it
became perceived as a case where amateurism itself was on trial.
That dynamic may have made it difficult for the NCAA to conceive
of settlement terms that wouldn't have been portrayed as a system
loss.

For similar reasons, the NCAA may not wish to settle the ongoing
litigation brought by Martin Jenkins and other players.
Represented by Jeffrey Kessler and David Greenspan, Jenkins
contends that the NCAA and colleges agreeing to cap the value of
athletic scholarships to tuition, room, board, books and fees is
an unlawfully anti-competitive practice.  Mr. Jenkins demands that
colleges financially compete for recruits just like they
financially compete for coaches and financially compete in terms
of quality of stadia and training facilities.  In other words,
athletic scholarships for star recruits would reflect competition
between offers from top programs rather than fixed at a below-
market value price.  Judge Wilken, who ruled for O'Bannon, is the
judge assigned to the Jenkins case, which could go to trial as
soon as 2018.

Ohio State finds itself in an altogether different position from
the NCAA.  It doesn't have a system to defend and it doesn't have
a philosophy to protect. If accepting a proposed settlement with
Mr. Spielman makes more financial sense than litigating, and if
the proposed settlement doesn't cause Ohio State to breach NCAA
rules, Ohio State will agree to the settlement.  Similarly, IMG
College is a business that centers on licensing deals.  Whether
college players are paid in some form or another in a licensing
deal won't change the core function of IMG College.

For their part, although Nike and Honda aren't named defendants in
Mr. Spielman's lawsuit, they are listed as co-conspirators. Among
other things, this means they would be subject to pretrial
discovery requests in the event such requests are ordered. Nike
and Honda could also later be added as co-defendants. For those
reasons, Nike and Honda will probably encourage a settlement.
Presumably, these companies would be content to pay college
athletes so long as it makes business-sense and so long as it
doesn't jeopardize existing deals with the NCAA.

             No Financial Interest, Says Spielman

D.J. Byrnes, writing for Eleven Warriors, reports that in a
statement, Mr.  Spielman said, "I personally do not have a
financial interest in the outcome of the banner program as my
share in any recovery will be donated directly to the athletic
department of The Ohio State University.

"My concern is about the exploitation of all former players across
this nation who do not have the platform to stand up for
themselves while universities and corporations benefit financially
by selling their name and likenesses without their individual
consent.

"My hope is that this litigation will level the playing field for
those affected players, and that they too can benefit from the
dollars flowing into collegiate athletics."

During an appearance on 610 WTVN in Columbus, Spielman clarified
his position: "Ohio State is more than welcome to use my name and
image in any way they want to use it. The problem is when they
slap a corporate sponsor on it.

"What I'm actually doing is what I learned at Ohio State. To stand
up for the right thing and those who may not be able to do so."

Archie Griffin, who is not named in the suit, says he is in "full
support" of former athletes receiving compensation from
corporations and universities.

"Although I am not the named Plaintiff in the class action
litigation, I am in full support of the right of former athletes
to receive compensation from corporations and universities who
benefit from the unauthorized use of players names and likenesses.

"There is no greater supporter of collegiate athletics than me,
and I will be forever grateful for the opportunities provided to
me as a former student athlete. However, the recent landscape of
collegiate athletics has changed, and these institutions and
corporations have a duty to treat all former athletes fairly.

"As long as the players and universities partner together, this
will be a 'win-win' situation for all."

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith issued a statement late
July 14 afternoon:

"We immensely value our relationships with all of our former
student athletes. Ohio State is aware of the lawsuit that Chris
Spielman has filed, and we are in the process of reviewing it."
[GN]


OHIO STATE: Spielman Files Suit to Block Use of Player Images
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former Ohio State consensus All-American linebacker and current
FOX Sports college football analyst Chris Spielman filed a class
action lawsuit on July 14 against the university to block the
usage of player images for promotional purposes.

The suit alleges unfair usage images for financial gain. It also
names Nike, Honda, and the IMG Sports Radio Network.

"I personally do not have a financial interest in the outcome of
the banner program as my share in any recovery will be donated
directly to the athletic department of The Ohio State University,"
Spielman said in a statement.

"My concern is about the exploitation of all former players across
this nation who do not have the platform to stand up for
themselves while universities and corporations benefit financially
by selling their name and likenesses without their individual
consent.

"My hope is that this litigation will level the playing field for
those affected players, and that they too can benefit from the
dollars flowing into collegiate athletics."

Chris Spielman

During an appearance on 610 WTVN in Columbus, Spielman clarified
his position: "Ohio State is more than welcome to use my name and
image in any way they want to use it. The problem is when they
slap a corporate sponsor on it.

"What I'm actually doing is what I learned at Ohio State. To stand
up for the right thing and those who may not be able to do so."

Archie Griffin, who is not named in the suit, says he is in "full
support" of former athletes receiving compensation from
corporations and universities.

"Although I am not the named Plaintiff in the class action
litigation, I am in full support of the right of former athletes
to receive compensation from corporations and universities who
benefit from the unauthorized use of players names and likenesses.

"There is no greater supporter of collegiate athletics than me,
and I will be forever grateful for the opportunities provided to
me as a former student athlete. However, the recent landscape of
collegiate athletics has changed, and these institutions and
corporations have a duty to treat all former athletes fairly.

"As long as the players and universities partner together, this
will be a 'win-win' situation for all."

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith issued a statement late
July 14 afternoon:

"We immensely value our relationships with all of our former
student athletes. Ohio State is aware of the lawsuit that Chris
Spielman has filed, and we are in the process of reviewing it."
[GN]


ON DECK CAPITAL: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. ON DECK CAPITAL, INC.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00045 (W.D. Va., July 10, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff and other putative class members
automated telemarketing calls without prior express written
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On Deck Capital, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with a New York
headquarters that transacts business throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Hissam, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: mhissam@baileyglasser.com


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. continue to defend itself in a
consolidated class action in New York entitled In re Dental
Supplies Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on June 28, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2017.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc.  Although there were factual and
legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that
defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. was added as a defendant on
October 22, 2016.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on price.  The
consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest,
and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not specified a
damage amount in their complaint.

The Company said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action complaint is
without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada.  It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments.
The Company serves dentists, laboratories, institutions, other
healthcare professionals, veterinarians, other animal health
professionals, production animal operators, and animal health
product retailers.  It was formerly known as Patterson Dental
Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June
2004.  Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.


PELICAN POINT: Gross Moves for Certification of Laborers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DAVID GROSS, on his own behalf
and others similarly situated v. PELICAN POINT SEAFOOD of TARPON
SPRINGS, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01208-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), moves
for conditional certification and facilitation of court-authorized
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216.

The lawsuit is a proposed collective action to enforce the
overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
others similarly-situated alleging that he and the other hourly-
paid laborers at the Defendant's facility were deprived of proper
overtime wages and unpaid wages by virtue of the Defendant
requiring them to work but were not paid for all of the hours
worked to the full extent provided by law.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to all
hourly-paid laborers, who worked in the Defendant's facilities in
Pinellas County, Florida who: (1) worked more than 40 hours in any
given week; and (2) were not paid proper overtime compensation for
all of their hours worked, including those hours worked over 40.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com

               - and -

          W. John Gadd, Esg.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


PELLA CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Opalka" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned STANISLAV OPALKA, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly situated v. PELLA CORPORATION,
an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-05184 (N.D. Ill.), asks the
Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of:

     all person and entities who own structures containing Pella
     Architect series windows ("Windows") as described more fully
     in the Complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          17W220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (331) 225-2123
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq.
          KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES
          1056 Gage St., # 200
          Winnetka, IL 60093
          Telephone: (847) 446-2430


PERPETUAL: May Face Huge Legal Bill from Brickworks-Patt Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that the multi-million-dollar legal bill
from Perpetual's failed attempt to break up a cross-shareholding
between Brickworks and Washington H Soul Pattinson could end up as
a hit on the returns to unit-holders in a series of funds managed
by the $33bn company.

Performance figures and fees for the funds will be hit unless the
listed fund manager decides to pay the costs on behalf of the
investors.

Institutional mandates that account for $11.7bn of funds under
management at Perpetual could escape the cost of the case, based
on a previous ruling that paved the way for the two-week court
case.

At the end of a seven-year battle, Justice Jayne Jagot in the
Federal Court found against Perpetual's claim for oppression of
minorities in Brickworks and Soul Patts, and ordered the fund
manager to pay costs.

Costs for the court case have been estimated at $10m-$15m, with a
final figure to be revealed after the parties return to court by
July 24 to argue their case.

A standard costs award would see Perpetual pay 60-65 per cent of
the costs of both Brickworks and Soul Patts, which had their own
barristers and legal teams.

But it could rise to 95 per cent if Soul Patts and Brickworks
decided to seek indemnity costs, which are awarded in actions that
had no real prospect of success, or where an offer or compromise
was rejected.

The case has been closely watched by fund managers because of what
it could mean for the use of investor funds to defend court
actions.  But it has also been seen as a test case for corporates
such as BHP and Ardent Leisure that are caught up defending
themselves against activist shareholders and class action
litigation.

"This may encourage more companies to call the bluff of the
activities and the class action lawyers and ask: are we going to
win this case or are we going to settle and keep paying out tens
of millions of dollars every time?" said Steve Johnson, founder
and chief investment officer of Forager Funds Management.

Mr Johnson said funds usually had the ability to spend money in
pursuit of improved returns, including for legal action.

"If we have to do it in the interests of the investors there is a
straightforward right of recovery," Mr Johnson said.

But he said the institutional mandates may have precluded them
from recovering these costs or required specific approvals that
could have complicated the allocation of costs to them.

Perpetual said the costs issue would be finalised once the court
had ruled on the issue.

But a previous court ruling used by the fund manager to justify
its action shows that retail funds are in line to pick up the
bill.

The Supreme Court of NSW ruling by Justice Robb shows Perpetual
sought permission to defend a claim from Brickworks and launch its
own cross-claim against the company because it was required as
trustee for the funds.

But the funds for which it was the responsible entity did not
account for all of the holdings.

Three funds it managed held 8.95 per cent of Brickworks and seven
funds that held 6.95 per cent of Soul Patts.

Perpetual held another 3.79 per cent of Brickworks and 4.025 per
cent of Soul Patts in investment mandates outside its capacity as
responsible entity for the managed funds.

In the 2014 judgment Justice Robb accepted the costs to be borne
out of the assets of the fund should be calculated on the basis of
the percentage of the total shareholding held by each fund.

But he said the court orders would only apply on "an interim
basis, so that the issue can be reconsidered at the same time as
Perpetual applies for further judicial advice in relation to its
justification for continuing to pursue the litigation."

Perpetual chief executive Geoff Lloyd said that the fund manager
had "received direction from the court that pursuing the action
was justified".

Mr Johnson said the loss of the case would "absolutely" hit the
performance of the funds. [GN]


PIONEER NATURAL: "Barrett" Seeks 401(K) Plan Restoration
--------------------------------------------------------
William M. Barrett, Individually and as the representative of a
class consisting of the participants and beneficiaries of the
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan,
Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.; The Pioneer
Natural Resources USA Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan Committee,
Theresa A. Fairbrook, Todd C. Abbott, W. Paul McDonald, Margaret
M. Montemayor, Thomas J. Murphy, Christopher M. Paulsen, Kerry D.
Scott, Susan A. Spratlen, Larry N. Paulsen, Mark Kleinman and
Richard P. Dealy, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01579 (D. Colo.,
June 28, 2017), seeks the restoration of the Plaintiff's 401(K)
and Matching Plan, calculation of the Plan losses including an
accounting, equitable or remedial relief, and an award of
attorney's fees and costs for breach of fiduciary duty under the
provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

William Barrett is a participant in the Pioneer Natural Resources
USA, Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan, an employer-sponsored defined
contribution retirement plan that enables employees to make tax-
deferred contributions from their salaries to the plan. Defendants
chose Vanguard Group Inc. to serve as the Plan record-keeper and
investment platform. The plan sponsor, Pioneer Natural Resources
USA, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pioneer Natural
Resources, Inc. a large, independent publicly traded oil and gas
exploration and production company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Irving, Texas. Pioneer does business in Colorado,
where it is the largest oil and gas operator in the Raton Basin in
southeastern Colorado with approximately 198,000 gross acres and
2,300 wells.

The complaint says despite the availability of far lower-cost
collective trust target date funds from the exact same investment
manager Vanguard, the Defendants continue to offer the higher-cost
Investor class mutual funds to Plan participants. Vanguard also
allegedly charges excessive record-keeping fees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
      H. Zachary Balkin, Esq.
      Paul R. Wood, Esq.
      FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      14426 East Evans Avenue
      Aurora, CO 80014
      Telephone: (303) 757-3300
      Facsimile: (303) 757-3206
      Email: azarf@fdazar.com
             balkinz@fdazar.com
             woodp@fdzar.com


PLANET FITNESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over FCRA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Carla Solis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Planet Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Planet Fitness and Planet
Fitness Equipment, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-61324-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
July 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the  Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by issuing an
electronically printed receipt to individuals at the point of
sale, immediately upon receipt of credit card payment that bear
the full expiration date, along with the last four digits of
consumers card number.

The Defendants are "one of the largest and fastest-growing
franchisors and operators of fitness centers in the United States
by number of members and locations" with more than 8.9 million
members and 1,300 total locations worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
              seth@pathtojustice.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

PRO-MASTERS AUTO: Accused by Otterson of Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN OTTERSON, and HEATHER FETTERS v. PRO-MASTERS AUTO HAIL
CENTER, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; PRO-MASTERS
AUTO COLLISION CENTER, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company; and DOUGLAS NARDINI, individually, and in his official
corporate capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-01671 (D. Colo., July 10,
2017), accuses the Defendants of unlawful failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pro-Masters Auto Hail Center LLC is a Colorado corporation.  Pro-
Masters Auto Hail owned and operated as Pro-Masters Auto Hail
Center, an automobile dent repair company in Pueblo, Pueblo
County, Colorado.  Pro-Masters Auto Collision Center LLC is a
Colorado corporation.  Pro-Masters Auto Collision owned and
operated as Pro-Masters Auto Collision Center, an automobile
collision and dent repair company in Pueblo.  Douglas Nardini is
an owner of Pro-Masters Auto.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


QUADGEN WIRELESS: "Pham" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Pham, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Quadgen Wireless Solutions Inc.,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-02894 (E.D. Pa., June 27, 2017), seeks
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorney'
fees, and litigation costs in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Defendant provides telecommunication equipment installation and
integration to cellular telephone companies where Pham worked as a
field technician. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, L.L.C.
      1101 Kings Highway N. Ste 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 865-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      Email: jswidler@swartz-legal.com


RENT-A-CENTER: Arbitration Bid Hearing Continued to Sept. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, AND
FALECHIA A. HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted
the parties' stipulation that (i) the hearing on the Defendants'
Motion to Partially Compel Arbitration, Strike Class Action
Claims, and Stay Proceedings is continued to Sep. 7, 2017, at 8:00
a.m.; and (ii) the Case Management Conference is continued to
Sept. 7, 2017, at 8:00 a.m.

The hearing on Defendants' Motion is presently on calendar for
Aug. 17, 2017, at 8:00 a.m.

The Court recently scheduled a Case Management Conference for Aug.
17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.

The attorney who will argue the Motion on behalf of the Plaintiffs
will be out of state on a long-planned family vacation on Aug. 17,
2017.  For that reason, the Plaintiffs' counsel has requested that
the Defendants' counsel agree to continue the hearing date for the
Motion.

In consideration of the schedule of the attorney who will argue
the Motion on behalf of Defendants, and in view of the Court's
calendar, the parties have agreed that a three-week continuance of
the hearing date for the Motion and for the Case Management
Conference would be appropriate, such that both events would be
scheduled for Sept. 7, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/4XPQaG from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Jim.Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart -
- ZDostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric Prince
Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP &
Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com --
Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --
rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice,
Vickie E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson
Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory
G. Iskander, Littler Mendelson, P.C.


RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed  in United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against Rightside
Group, Ltd. ("Rightside" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NAME) for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed
sale of the Company to Donuts Inc. ("Donuts").  Such investors are
encouraged to learn more about this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/name.

The complaint alleges that on June 13, 2017, Rightside's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused
Rightside to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the
"Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Donuts commenced a tender offer, set to expire on July 26, 2017,
and stockholders of Rightside will receive $10.60 per share in
cash. On June 27, 2017, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Proposed
Transaction. The Complaint alleges the Solicitation Statement
omits material information about the Proposed Transaction.

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

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


RUBY CORP: Reaches Settlement in Ashley Madison Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Corp. and Ruby Life Inc. (ruby), and a proposed class of
plaintiffs, co-led by Dowd & Dowd, P.C., The Driscoll Firm, P.C.,
and Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, have reached a proposed
settlement agreement resolving the class action lawsuits that were
filed beginning July 2015 following a data breach of ruby's
computer network and subsequent release of certain personal
information of customers of Ashley Madison, an online dating
website owned and operated by Ruby Life Inc. (formerly Avid Dating
Life Inc.)  The lawsuits, alleging inadequate data security
practices and misrepresentations regarding Ashley Madison, have
been consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

If the proposed settlement agreement is approved by the Court,
ruby will contribute a total of $11.2 million USD to a settlement
fund, which will provide, among other things, payments to
settlement class members who submit valid claims for alleged
losses resulting from the data breach and alleged
misrepresentations as described further in the proposed settlement
agreement.  Since July 2015, ruby also has implemented numerous
remedial measures to enhance the security of its customers' data.

While ruby denies any wrongdoing, the parties have agreed to the
proposed settlement in order to avoid the uncertainty, expense,
and inconvenience associated with continued litigation, and
believe that the proposed settlement agreement is in the best
interest of ruby and its customers.  In 2015, hackers gained
access to ruby's computer networks and published certain personal
information contained in Ashley Madison accounts.  Account
credentials were not verified for accuracy during this timeframe
and accounts may have been created using other individuals'
information.  Therefore, ruby wishes to clarify that merely
because a person's name or other information appears to have been
released in the data breach does not mean that person actually was
a member of Ashley Madison.

The plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint alleges that
the defendants misrepresented that they had taken reasonable steps
to ensure AshleyMadison.com was secure and that the data breach
resulted in the public release of certain personal information
contained in AshleyMadison.com accounts and included account
information of some users who had paid a fee to delete their
information from the AshleyMadison.com website.

Further information regarding the settlement and the claims
process will be made available if and when the settlement
agreement is approved by the Court. [GN]


SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over $300 Trash Pickup Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that a
property owner suing Scranton over its annual $300 trash pickup
fee recently filed a motion aimed at getting the lawsuit declared
a class action.

If a judge certifies it as such, any of the thousands of people
who paid the trash fee in recent years may "opt in" as co-
plaintiffs and potentially be eligible for unspecified refunds,
according to the motion filed June 30 in Lackawanna County Court
by lead plaintiff Adam Guiffrida.

An owner of several rental properties in the city, Mr. Guiffrida
sued in December challenging the annual $300 trash fee as
arbitrary and excessive.  The lawsuit says the garbage fee should
only cover the cost of providing the service and should not
generate extra revenue for city coffers.

However, the city set the annual trash at a too-high $300 since
2014, to generate extra cash for the budget, the lawsuit claims.
The former mayor and council raised the annual trash fee from $178
to $300, and the current mayor and council maintained it at $300.

As a result, the lawsuit contends the city "netted profits" from
the trash fee as follows: $935,498 in 2013; $1.26 million in 2014;
$1.82 million in 2015; and a projected $1.54 million in 2016, the
lawsuit contends.

"As part of these fees, the city capitalized on delinquency
charges and interest for any delay in a resident's payment of the
inflated refuse fee," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Guiffrida said he thinks the city's former $178 annual garbage
fee also was probably too high, and suing the city for an
accounting is the only way to find out.

In denying that the trash fee is arbitrary and excessive, city
Solicitor Jessica Boyles and Assistant Solicitor Joseph Price say
in a pleading in the case that, "the plaintiff fails to account
for expenses from healthcare, worker's compensation, pension and
Social Security, etc."

If certified as a class-action, the lawsuit then would go to an
opt-in phase, in which fee payers could choose to join the
lawsuit. If they win the lawsuit, class members "will be entitled
to a pro rata refund of the overpayment," the lawsuit says.

The trash-fee lawsuit follows the strategy in a different class-
action lawsuit filed in 2015, by Mr. Guiffrida challenging the
city's rental registration fees as arbitrary and excessive.  The
rental registration lawsuit, which also remains pending in
Lackawanna County Court, was certified as a class action in 2016.
This year, several hundred rental owners filed legal papers to
join that class to try to recoup fee overpayments.

Though unresolved, the rental registration lawsuit already forced
the city to make changes.  Last year, the city lowered rental
registration fees and scrapped inspections. [GN]


SEATTLE, WA: Nov. 1 Fairness Hearing on "Reynoldson" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the Parties' Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned CONRAD REYNOLDSON, STUART PIXLEY, and DAVID WHEDBEE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a public entity, Defendant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01608-BJR (W.D. Wash.).

On May 2, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulated Motion
for Class Certification, certifying a class for declaratory and
injunctive relief.  The Settlement Class definition in the Decree
is identical to that of the certified Class and therefore does not
expand the class membership or legal claims that the Court has
previously certified.  It is therefore appropriate for class
certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2).

The Court preliminarily approved the Decree, and as to form and
content, the proposed Notice, attached it.  The Parties will
submit declarations to the Court as part of their Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Action Settlement confirming compliance with
the notice provisions of the Decree.

A hearing on final approval of the Decree ("Fairness Hearing")
will be held before the Court on Nov. 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. to
determine all necessary matters concerning the Decree, and whether
the Decree should receive final approval by the Court, as well as
to rule on the Class Counsel's motion requesting an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

Objections by Class Members may be submitted to Class Counsel no
later than 45 calendar days after notice by newspaper publication
has begun.  Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to
the proposed Decree must be filed no later than 45 calendar days
after notice by newspaper publication has begun (the "Objection
Deadline").  Any Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed
Decree may also present objections at the Fairness Hearing.

The Class Counsel will provide copies of any objections to the
Defendant's counsel within two court days of receipt.  The Class
Counsel will also file any objections with the Court no less than
10 days before the Fairness Hearing.

Pending the Fairness Hearing, all proceedings in this Action,
other than proceedings necessary to carry out and enforce the
terms and conditions of the Decree and this Order, are stayed.
Additionally, the Court enjoins all Settlement Class Members from
asserting or maintaining any claims to be released by the Decree
until the date of the Fairness Hearing.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court adopts the following
schedule:

          a. Within 10 days after entry of the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval, Notice to the Decree will be mailed via U.S.
mail and/or email to all organizations identified.

          b. Within 20 days after entry of the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval, Notice to the Decree will be posted on a
case-specific Web site established by Class Counsel, and the City
of Seattle's official Web site, and will remain posted for four
consecutive weeks.

          c. Commencing within 30 days after entry of the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval, Notice to the Decree will be
published in the The Seattle Times in English, El Mundo in
Spanish, Seattle Chinese Post in Chinese, and Northwest Vietnamese
News in Vietnamese, for four consecutive weeks.

          d. Each Class Member will be given a full opportunity to
object to the proposed Settlement and Class Counsel's request for
an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, and
to participate at the Fairness Hearing.  Any Class Member seeking
to object to the proposed Settlement may submit an objection to
Class Counsel in writing, via regular or electronic mail, or by
leaving a message with their objection via telephone, TTY and/or
Video Relay Service on any toll free number established by Class
Counsel, or may appear at the Fairness Hearing to make the
objection, as set forth.

          e. Fourteen days prior to the objection deadline, the
Plaintiffs will file a Motion for an Award of Reasonable
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs.  The hearing on that Motion
will be concurrent with the Fairness Hearing.

          f. The Parties will file a Joint Motion for Final
Approval and respond to objections, if any, no later than five
days prior to the Fairness Hearing.  All parties will file
statements of compliance with notice requirements.

          g. The Fairness hearing will be held on Nov. 1, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16106 of the Court.

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

Conrad Reynoldson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Lee --
alee@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac
vice.

Conrad Reynoldson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Carlson,
DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Emily Cooper, DISABILITY RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, Linda M. Dardarian -- ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com --
GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice, Raymond A. Wendell
-- rwendell@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro
hac vice, Stacie Berger Siebrecht, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON &
Timothy P. Fox, CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro
hac vice.

David Whedbee, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Lee, GOLDSTEIN
BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice, David R. Carlson, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Emily Cooper, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON,
Linda M. Dardarian, GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice,
Raymond A. Wendell, GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice,
Stacie Berger Siebrecht, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON & Timothy P.
Fox, CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice.

Stuart Pixley, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Lee, GOLDSTEIN
BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice, David R. Carlson, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Emily Cooper, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON,
Linda M. Dardarian, GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice,
Raymond A. Wendell, GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, pro hac vice,
Stacie Berger Siebrecht, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON & Timothy P.
Fox, CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice.

City of Seattle, Defendant, represented by Kymberly K. Evanson --
kymberly.evanson@pacificalawgroup.com -- PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP,
Lorraine Lewis Phillips, SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & Paul J.
Lawrence -- paul.lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com -- PACIFICA LAW
GROUP LLP.


SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Arias Seeks to Certify Class of Agents
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ROILANDIS ARIAS and ALEXANDER
PETRILLO, For Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v.
SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC, GRAEME BAGG, and LANCE SCHNITTMAN, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60853-KMM (S.D. Fla.), ask the Court to enter an
order:

   A. granting conditional certification of a Collective Action
      under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
      the proposed Putative Class defined as:

      All persons who are currently, or who were, employed by
      Selective Healthcare, LLC, Graeme Bagg, and Lance
      Schnittman from May 1, 2014 to the present as a health
      insurance agent, as a commissioned insurance agent, or
      other similarly titled positions, either directly by
      Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or
      affiliated companies;

   B. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      Collective/Class;

   C. expediting production by the Defendants of a complete list
      of each person, who worked as a health insurance agent, as
      a commissioned insurance agent, or other similarly titled
      positions for the Defendants at any time between May 1,
      2014, and the present;

   D. requiring the Defendants to format and produce a list of
      each such person listed alphabetically, and with each
      person's last known home address, telephone number, fax
      number, and e-mail addresses in a separate field
      corresponding with each name to facilitate the preparation
      and sending of notice;

   E. permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all such persons about
      their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a
      Consent to Join Lawsuit and to call to ensure that they
      received the forms;

   F. permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Reminder Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all Putative
      Class members and to call to ensure that they received the
      Reminder Notice; and

   G. requiring the Defendants to post notice in their break room
      for the entire notice period and to provide a copy of the
      Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members in the
      next paycheck/pay stub provided to Defendants' current
      employees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YBe11r63

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicole Waal, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 383-9200
          Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: Nicole.wall@csklegal.com


SKM RECYCLING: Class Action Mulled Over Coolaroo Plant Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Cunningham, writing for The Age, reports that a class
action lawsuit is looming after hundreds of residents in
Melbourne's north were exposed to toxic fumes from a fire at a
recycling plant that burned out of control.

More than 115 homes in the northern suburb of Dallas were ordered
to evacuate on July 13, as the fire at the SKM Recycling plant in
Coolaroo raged in strong winds, sending acrid smoke into the air
and across Melbourne's suburbs.

Emergency services issued an evacuation warning for parts of
Dallas at 8.11pm, after very poor air quality levels were detected
by the Environment Protection Authority.  Firefighters had earlier
called the smoke "toxic".

There were also reports of children vomiting while others were
treated by paramedics for smoke inhalation.

Five people, including a girl aged four, were hospitalised for
smoke-induced conditions, as Ambulance Victoria activated a code
orange, their second-highest emergency alert.

Paramedics also treated eight people at a relief centre for
evacuated residents in Broadmeadows.

Firefighters say the massive fire that caused hundreds of
thousands of dollars in damage at the rubbish recycling factory
started because of a mechanical fault.

Further investigations would continue into whether the business
had complied with operational standards.

A Victorian law firm has encouraged anyone affected by the fire to
come forward.

Maddens Lawyers said they have commenced an investigation into SKM
Recycling, the owner and operator of the Coolaroo Recycling Plant,
and expect the consequences of the fire to give rise to a claim
for compensation against the owner and operator of the plant.

Brendan Pendergast, principal of the law firm, said it was
particularly concerning that there had been numerous previous
incidences of fire at the recycling plant, including in February
and June this year.

"The frequency of fires at the plant is a red flag," he said.  "It
indicates that fire risk management and control measures may not
be adequate and that further investigation should be undertaken."

Minister for Emergency Services James Merlino has previously
denied there had been a delay in evacuating residents, but the
government has since launched a joint taskforce to audit
Victoria's recycling facilities to identify sites that require
action to make them safer.

A public meeting for residents to discuss their potential for
compensation and how class action will work was held on July 20 at
6.30pm at the Coolaroo Hotel. [GN]


SNAP INC: Faces "Gupta" Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHINU GUPTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNAP INC., EVAN SPIEGEL, ANDREW VOLLERO, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS, & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, BTIG, LLC, C.L.
KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CONNAUGHT
(UK) LIMITED, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, EVERCORE GROUP, LLC,
JEFFERIES LLC, JMP SECURITIES LLC, LIONTREE ADVISORS LLC, LUMA
SECURITIES LLC, MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO.,
INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & CO., INC.,
STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., THE
WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., UBS SECURITIES LLC, and WILLIAM
BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 2:17-cv-05054 (C.D. Cal., July
10, 2017), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of a class consisting of:

     all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     Snap common stock: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Snap's
     false and misleading Registration Statement, issued in
     connection with the Company's initial public offering on or
     about March 2, 2017 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or
     (2) on the open market between March 2, 2017 and June 6,
     2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
     recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
     Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Snap Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at in Venice, California.  Snap is a camera
company whose principal product is Snapchat, a free mobile
chatting application.  Snap generates revenue from Snapchat by
delivering advertisements to Snapchat users.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  The other defendants are Underwriter Defendants, which
acted as underwriters of the IPO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          Sherief Morsy, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  smorsy@faruqilaw.com


SPOTIFY: Royalty Dispute with Songwriters to Hamper IPO Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Atkinson and Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, report
that Spotify's long-running spat with songwriters isn't going away
-- and that could complicate plans to take the company public.

The Swedish music-streaming service -- which for years has tangled
over business terms with big-name artists like Taylor Swift -- is
getting fresh static from music publishers and the songwriters
they represent over unpaid royalties, sources told The Post.

Among their demands: a chunk of Spotify's equity when it takes
itself public either this fall or next spring in a deal that could
value the company as high as $13 billion, according to sources
close to the situation and documents reviewed by The Post.

"Whether and how equity has been considered within the royalty
rate calculation . . . is an issue that has been important to
publishers for years," Danielle Aguirre, general counsel of the
National Music Publishers Association, or NMPA, wrote in a letter
to Spotify's chief lawyer that was obtained by The Post.

Aguirre added in her July 12 letter that interest in the issue
"has been raised more recently by the news of Spotify's impending
equity offering."

That's despite high-profile royalty settlements Spotify lately has
cut with publishers -- most recently last month, when it agreed to
shell out $43.4 million to head off a class-action suit that
claimed Spotify had illegally skimped on payments since the
service launched in 2008.

Spotify's general counsel, Horacio Gutierrez, ripped into the
publisher group in a June 14 letter, accusing the NMPA of trying
to grab more than what the settlement called for.

But in its letter, the NMPA dismissed what it called Spotify's
"diversionary accusations" as it demanded, in addition to equity
in the soon-to-be-public streaming giant, guarantees that
songwriters will be paid what they're owed in the future.

Spotify has long claimed that it has streamed music without paying
licensing fees to songwriters because it lacked the data to tell
which publishers had claims to individual songs.

That's hogwash, the NMPA's Aguirre countered, saying the
publishing group found "many instances" in which Spotify hadn't
paid songwriters "despite the musical work -- with contact
information -- [being] clearly available in the records of the
copyright office."

With Spotify still dragging its feet on paying what it owes, the
NMPA may soon threaten a lawsuit, according to a source familiar
with the matter.

Talks could boil over this week, when Spotify is set to meet with
NMPA President David Israelite in Washington, DC.

Although Spotify boasts 50 million paying subscribers -- nearly
twice what Apple Music claims -- it isn't rolling in cash, as
record labels take about 85 percent of the total.  Last month,
Spotify said its 2016 revenue rose more than 50 percent to $3.3
billion, but its losses more than doubled to $600 million.

Still, one broker who trades in Spotify shares in the secondary
market said investors remain bullish despite the ongoing disputes,
recently paying an all-time-high price of $3,300 a share. [GN]


SPOTIFY USA: Judge Says Davis Wright Attys Misled Him
-----------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that U.S. District
Judge William Alsup said at a hearing on July 13 that Spotify's
attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP misled him in their bid
to end a putative class action over auto-renewals, saying that the
lawyers tricked him into believing the lead plaintiff had
"admitted the case away" in his deposition when he hadn't.

Spotify USA Inc.'s attorney Stephen Michael Rummage of Davis
Wright argued that lead plaintiff Gregory Ingalls testified that
he didn't bother to read Spotify's disclosures when he signed up
for a free trial and therefore he doesn't have standing to allege
that Spotify violated the California's Automatic Purchase Renewal
Law. But after Judge Alsup asked the parties to read excerpts from
Ingalls' deposition, the judge said Rummage's argument was
misleading.

"You say he had admitted the case away in the deposition," Judge
Alsup said. "That was a trick. You misled me."

The judge's comments came during a hearing on a motion for class
certification and Spotify's motion for summary judgment that
sought to end the June 2016 putative class action filed by Ingalls
and another Spotify customer, Tony Hong. The suit, which Judge
Alsup refused to send to arbitration in November, claims that the
Swedish music services company fails to inform users that it will
automatically renew their subscriptions at the full price once
their trial periods end, and that it never receives consent from
customers to renew those services, in violation of California's
APRL.

During the hearing, Rummage apologized to the judge and said he
obviously didn't want to mislead him. However, Rummage argued,
Ingalls admitted in his deposition that he "might have skimmed
over" Spotify's disclosures and nothing in the record "whatsoever"
indicates that Ingalls was injured by the alleged APRL violation.
Rummage also argued that Ingalls doesn't have standing to seek an
injunction blocking Spotify from continuing its auto-renewal
practices because he already received his free trial and can't get
another one or claim he will be injured again.

But Judge Alsup took issue with Rummage's arguments for being
misleading. The judge reasoned that if Spotify's renewal notice
were clearly marked on its website, as state law requires, then
maybe Ingalls would have read it.

"That's the whole point of the statute," the judge said.

Judge Alsup also said he was "bothered" by Spotify's legal theory
as to the injunction. Based on Spotify's argument, no one would be
able to bring claims against Spotify for violating the statute,
because under its theory, anyone who signs up for the free trial
can only sign up once, the judge said.

Attorneys for the Spotify users added that it is unclear if users
can sign up for more than one free trial. The users' attorneys
also challenged Spotify's no-injury defense, pointing to the $30
that Spotify charged over three months for a premium service
subscription.

At the end of the hearing, the judge said he would take all of the
arguments under submission, but he ordered Spotify to find out the
exact number of users who signed up for the free trial, were later
charged for the service and never used it. Rummage said Spotify
doesn't have that number on hand, but the judge told Rummage to
"do whatever you've got to do" to find out the answer to his
question by July 12. Judge Alsup added that he wouldn't keep that
particular number under seal.

"This is a public court," the judge said. "We are not a wholly
owned subsidiary of Spotify."

The Spotify users are represented by Derek J Meyer, Esq. --
dmeyer@leonardmeyerllp.com -- of Leonard Meyer LLP, and by Sara
Dawn Avila, Esq. -- savila@mjfwlaw.com -- of Milstein Jackson
Fairchild & Wade LLP.

Spotify was represented by Stephen Michael Rummage, Esq. --
steverummage@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Gregory Ingalls et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., case
number 3:16-cv-03533, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


STATOIL USA: Oil & Gas Royalty Litigation Continues in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Burt, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Royalty class action litigation continues to move forward in
federal courts in Pennsylvania. Currently pending cases have
challenged different kinds of royalty clauses, different kinds of
marketing relationships, and different aspects of the royalty
calculation on a variety of legal theories, including breach of
express contract, breach of implied covenants, and good faith and
fair dealing claims, among others. Recently, the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued two opinions
relating to motions to dismiss filed by a lessee and its
affiliated-buyer of natural gas in Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore
Properties, Civil Action No. 3:16-0085, (M.D.Pa. March 22, 2017),
where lessors filed a putative class action challenging the
calculation of royalties, as well as the relationship between the
lessee and its affiliated buyer, on a number of different bases.
The district court's ruling on the motions to dismiss and its
subsequent ruling on the lessor's motion for reconsideration made
very clear that the specific language in the oil and gas lease is
a dispositive factor in resolving these disputes.

Specifically, the royalty provision in lessor Canfield's oil and
gas lease provided that, among other things, royalties are to be
paid on a percentage of the "amount realized from the sale of gas
at the well." The lease expressly stated that this meant that
post-production costs could be deducted from the royalty payment.
However, an addendum to the lease modified the royalty provision,
limiting the deduction of post-production costs unless those costs
make the oil or natural gas produced "ready for sale or use."

Canfield alleged that the lessee, Statoil breached the terms of
the royalty provision and addendum by paying royalties based on an
index price instead of an actual market price for natural gas and
engaging in an affiliate sale to different Statoil entity, which
allegedly did not constitute an arm's-length transaction. Canfield
also alleged several other claims, including breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, civil conspiracy and an
accounting.

The district court largely sustained Statoil's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district
court dismissed both of Canfield's claims based on alleged breach
of the express terms of the lease. The district court specifically
held that Statoil's method of calculating royalties using an index
price complied with the express terms of the Canfield royalty
provision and that Statoil was not required to use an alleged
"market price/downstream sale theory" as argued by Canfield. In
support of this holding, the court explained that the lease
language was unambiguous, that the phrase "amount realized" in the
Canfield lease had a technical meaning that was "synonymous with
proceeds," and that there is nothing in the lease to require a
downstream sale rather than a sale at the well. The district court
also explained there was no language in the lease prohibiting
Statoil from selling the gas at an index price and basing the
calculation of royalties on the index price. As to the affiliate
sale issue, the district court held there were no express
provisions in the lease requiring Statoil to "make royalties based
on an arms-length sale or a sale to a nonaffiliate." Accordingly,
the district court made the straight-forward ruling that Statoil
did not breach the lease by selling gas to an affiliated entity.
Canfield filed a motion for reconsideration of portions of the
district court's holding, which the district court denied in
separate opinion, again reiterating its holding that Statoil's
conduct was permitted under the terms of the Canfield lease.

The district court's opinion addresses several important royalty-
related issues that have appeared in a number of royalty class
action litigations pending in Pennsylvania, including the use of
index prices, affiliate sales and deductions of post-production
costs. While the district court's opinion was closely tied to the
specific language in the royalty provision at issue, its reasoning
on affiliate sales and use of index pricing by a lessee is likely
to have persuasive implications on other pending and potential
putative class actions challenging royalty calculations and
royalty payments under oil and gas leases. The district court
permitted certain implied covenant claims to proceed against
Statoil and further rulings in this case will likely provide more
guidance on these repeat issues in royalty class action
litigation. [GN]


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Certify McKinsty's Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned Rafael McKinsty v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
01317-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.).

In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks to certify this class:

     All California based current and former truck drivers
     employed by Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC who
     worked for at least four consecutive hours in California,
     and who were compensated via a piece-rate compensation
     system, at any time during the period from April 16, 2011
     through the conclusion of this action (the "Class Period").

The Defendant is a trucking company, incorporated under the laws
of Delaware, doing business in California, and headquartered in
Arizona.  The Plaintiff states that he worked for the Defendant as
a truck driver based out of Fontana, California, from February
2014 until January 2015.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its drivers
for time spent taking 10-minute rest breaks mandated by California
law.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges he was paid 25 cents per
mile initially, which was increased eventually to 35.5 cents per
mile, and he and the other putative class members took 20 to 30
minutes of rest breaks in California each day.  Although the
Defendant authorized and permitted these rest breaks, the
Defendant allegedly failed to pay him and the other putative class
members for their time spent taking rest breaks, the Plaintiff
contends.

In the order, Judge Phillips ruled that the Court finds individual
issues predominate the determination of whether each putative
class member suffered damages from the Defendant's actions.
Hence, the Plaintiff's claims do not satisfy the predominance
requirement.  Further, the Plaintiff has only moved for class
certification of his claims for failure to issue accurate itemized
wage statements, statutory penalties, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition on the basis that they are derivative of his
rest break claims.

Accordingly, Judge Phillips opines, given the extent of the
"likely difficulties in managing" this putative class action, the
Court finds a class action would not be the superior method of
adjudicating the putative class's claims.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dizRMVV1


TAKATA CORP: "Krmpotic" Sues Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------
Branko Krmpotic and Susan Knapp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Takata Corporation, TK
Holdings, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04771 (D. N.J., June 28, 2017), seeks
compensatory, exemplary, and punitive remedies and damages and
statutory penalties, including interest, reimbursement of the
reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, for damages and for
reasonable attorney fees resulting from fraudulent concealment,
breach of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and
negligence and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Michigan
Consumer Protection Act.

Krmpotic owns a 2012 Mercedes-Benz C300 while Knapp purchased an
E550. After receiving the recall letter in February 2017 about the
airbag inflator defect, Plaintiffs contacted Mercedes about the
airbag replacement and was told that there was no current plan
to begin installing replacement airbags.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags.

Mercedes-Benz designs, manufacturers, markets, distributes and
sell Mercedes automobiles in New Jersey, Iowa, Florida and
throughout the United States.

Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-
WÅrttemberg, Germany and is engaged in the business of designing,
engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling
and distributing motor vehicles in the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
     Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq.
     John Gravante, Esq.
     Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     West Flagler Street, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 358-2800
     Fax: (305) 358-2382
     Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
            apodhurst@podhurst.com
            srosenthal@podhurst.com
            jgravante@podhurst.com
            mweinshall@podhurst.com

            - and -

     Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
     275 Battery St., Suite 3000
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Tel: (415) 956-1000
     Email: ecabraser@lchb.com

            - and -

     David Stellings, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     NY, NY 10012
     Tel: (212) 355-9500
     Email: dstellings@lchb.com

            - and -

     David Boies, Esq.
     Motty Shuhnan, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     333 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Tel: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (914) 749-8300
     Email: dboies@bsfllp.com
            mshulman@bsfllp.com

            - and -

     Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
     Mark J. Heise, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2800
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 539-8400
     Fax: (305) 539-1307
     Email: szack@bsfllp.com
            mheise@bsfllp.com

            - and -

     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     David Fernandes, Esq.
     Mark Pifko, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, PC
     15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Tel: (818) 839-2333
     Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
            dfernandes@bardonbudd.com
            mpifko@baronbudd.com

            - and -

     Todd A. Smith, Esq.
     POWER ROGERS & SMITH, P.C.
     70 West Madison St., 55th Floor
     Chicago, IL 6060
     Tel: (312) 236-9381
     Email: tsmith@prslaw.com


TAQUERIA LP: "Mora" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mora individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. Taqueria Limited Partnership
(d/b/a De Cero) and Angela Lee, individually, Defendants, Case
1:17-cv-04796 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2017) seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant known as "De Cero" located at 812-
816 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois where Plaintiff worked
as a line cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Direct: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


TECHPRECISION CORP: No Trial Date Set for Class Suit vs. Ranor
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set yet in the class action lawsuit against
TechPrecision Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary related to
forfeited personal time off that some of its former employees had
earned in April 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
June 29, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees
("Plaintiffs") of Ranor, Inc. filed a complaint in the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester County, against former and
current executive officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract and conversion.
Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time
off ("PTO") policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit
earned PTO.  Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf
of a class of all current and former employees of Ranor who were
affected by the modification to Ranor's PTO policy.  The pre-trial
discovery phase ended on June 21, 2017.  No trial date has been
set.

TechPrecision Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures
and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and machined metal
components and systems in the United States and the People's
Republic of China.  The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


TIAA-CREF: Del. Ct. Won't Disturb Class Action Coverage Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a Delaware judge
has left intact a verdict that placed two insurers on the hook for
retirement services giant TIAA's costs to defend against and
settle a pair of class actions alleging intentional and costly
fund-transfer delays, and that found a TIAA excess insurer did not
receive proper notice.

In a ruling made public on July 13, Delaware Superior Court Judge
Jan R. Jurden rejected a slew of post-trial motions lodged by
TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services LLC, Illinois
National Insurance Co. and Arch Insurance Co.

TIAA had challenged the jury's finding that excess insurer Zurich
American Insurance Co. could invoke its policy's notice and
consent conditions to deny coverage. Illinois National, meanwhile,
contested the jury's determination that TIAA's defense costs in
one of the underlying actions were reasonable. And Arch said the
verdict was contrary to the evidence. But Judge Jurden rebuffed
all three parties' motions, saying the evidence supported the
jury's conclusions on all points.

According to court documents, TIAA had settled the underlying
suits for tens of millions of dollars and incurred millions more
in defense costs. The suits alleged TIAA delayed processing
account holders' requests, and sought the difference in the value
of TIAA clients' accounts between the date a transfer or
withdrawal was requested and the date it was actually processed.

Following a five-day trial in December, a Delaware jury found that
TIAA proved Arch had effectively waived the requirement to get its
consent for two of the settlements and that it "appeared to be
futile" for TIAA to approach Arch for its consent. The jury also
found that TIAA's $9.31 million in defense costs for the two suits
was fully reasonable, a point the insurers had disputed.

However, the jury cleared Zurich, saying that TIAA did not provide
the excess insurer with proper notice regarding one of the
actions.

In its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, TIAA
argued that no reasonable jury could have found that Zurich had
not waived its notice and consent defenses. Judge Jurden
disagreed, pointing out that TIAA did not ask Zurich for coverage
of one of the class actions, the "Bauer-Ramazani" action, until
four months after that case was already settled. In fact, the
judge said, the first time Zurich received notice of the claim was
when it was named in the current coverage suit.

"The court finds that the evidence at trial and all reasonable
inferences that can be drawn therefrom could justify a jury
verdict in favor of Zurich on its notice and consent defenses,"
Judge Jurden wrote.

Illinois National had argued in its own motion that TIAA did not
carry its burden to show that the $7.5 million in defense costs
the retirement services company racked up in the Bauer-Ramazani
action were reasonable. In that case, TIAA had retained then-
O'Melveny & Myers LLP lawyer Theresa Gee, an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act expert with experience at the U.S. Department
of Labor.

According to Illinois National, TIAA should not have prevailed on
the reasonableness issue, because the firm did not present
evidence that anyone reviewed all the defense bills, among other
things. Judge Jurden was unconvinced, saying the insurer was
attempting to impose a burden on TIAA "that it did not have." The
judge noted that TIAA's expert on the issue, former U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Leif Clark, testified that the bills he reviewed
were consistent with the level of expertise required on a wide-
ranging class action involving ERISA issues.

Finally, Arch had challenged the jury's finding that TIAA did not
need to obtain Arch's consent for the two underlying settlements.
Judge Jurden shot down the insurer's arguments, citing evidence
supporting the jury's conclusion that it would have been futile
for TIAA to try to seek Arch's consent. The insurer's
"boilerplate" letters reserving its rights to contest coverage did
not preclude the jurors from considering evidence of Arch's other
conduct in reaching their conclusion, the judge said.

The nonprofit TIAA provides retirement accounts, annuities, and
life and other insurance to teachers and other employees of
nonprofit colleges, universities and research institutions. TIAA
had multi-tiered professional liability insurance coverage
"towers" in place for periods spanning from 2007 to 2008 and 2009
to 2010, with Illinois National providing a primary layer of
coverage in each period and Arch, Zurich, St. Paul Mercury
Insurance Co. and Ace American Insurance Co. providing various
layers of excess coverage.

Beginning in 2007, TIAA was hit with three class complaints
claiming it excessively delayed processing account holders'
requests for transfers or withdrawals of funds. The plaintiffs in
each suit sought the difference in the value of their accounts
between the date a transfer or withdrawal was requested and the
date on which the transaction was actually processed.

TIAA ultimately settled the suits without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing, then pursued the firm's insurers for coverage,
according to court documents.

An attorney for TIAA declined to comment, while counsel for the
insurers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TIAA is represented by Robin Cohen, Adam Ziffer, Esq. --
aziffer@mckoolsmith.com -- Robert Manley, Esq. --
rmanley@mckoolsmith.com -- Meredith Elkins, Esq. --
melkins@mckoolsmith.com -- and Michelle Migdon, Esq. --
mmigdon@mckoolsmith.com -- of McKool Smith PC and Jennifer Wasson,
Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- of Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP.

Illinois National is represented by Lawrence Bistany, Esq. --
bistanyl@whiteandwilliams.com -- Timothy Martin, Esq. --
martint@whiteandwilliams.com -- and Celestine Montague, Esq. --
montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White & Williams LLP. Arch is
represented by Michael Zigelman, Esq. -- zigelmanm@kdvlaw.com --
and Daniel Brody, Esq. dbrody@kdvlaw.com -- of Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck LLP and Chase Brockstedt, Esq. -- chase@bmbde.com -- of
Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC. Zurich is represented by Ronald
Schiller, Esq. -- rschiller@hangley.com -- and Daniel Layden, Esq.
-- dlayden@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller and Bruce McCullough of Bodell Bove LLC.

The case is TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services LLC et
al. v. Illinois National Insurance Co. et al., case number N14C-
05-178 JRJ CCLD, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.
[GN]


TIME WARNER: "Sims" FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARKIA SIMS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-947 ( N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara
Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to transfer and
denied it in all other respects.

On May 4, 2017, Sims filed her complaint against the Defendants
alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") due
to failure to pay overtime.  The next day, she filed her first
amended complaint ("FAC"), asserting a collective action under the
FLSA, as well as a Rule 23 class action, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated.

The FAC gave no indication that on Nov. 29, 2016, a virtually
identical lawsuit had been filed by Daylon Howard and Tracy Dewald
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
("OHSD"), and that, on the same day, Sims had opted in to that
collective action.  Over time, in fact, all but one of the
Plaintiffs who have opted in to the instant case also initially
opted in to the OHSD case.

On Jan. 6, 2017, the Defendants in the OHSD case filed a motion to
dismiss and to compel arbitration, asserting that Plaintiff Howard
had an arbitration clause in his contract with them.  On Feb. 1,
2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification,
but the OHSD court stayed briefing on that motion, and all
discovery, until the motion to dismiss was first resolved.  They
unsuccessfully sought to lift the stay on briefing, and the motion
to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration has yet to be decided.  In
addition, on April 7, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment against Plaintiff Dewald, arguing that she was an
exempt employee.  That motion is also yet to be decided.

Apparently in response to the two dispositive motions, the
Plaintiffs sought leave in OHSD to file an amended complaint to
remove the opt-in Plaintiffs who are parties to the instant,
second-filed, lawsuit.  Then, between May 4, 2017 (when the
instant case was filed) and May 26, 2017, all but one of the
Plaintiffs in this case (that one not being a party in the OHSD
case) opted out of the OHSD case and in to this case.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss, to transfer
the case to the Southern District of Ohio, or to stay, and for
sanctions.  The Plaintiff has filed an opposition brief and the
Defendants have filed a reply.

The Court is particularly troubled by the appearance of both the
forum-shopping and an intent to avoid earlier rulings by another
court.  The proceedings in the Southern District are not so far
advanced that these Plaintiffs could not pursue their claims in
conjunction with the case management schedule established in the
OHSD case.  Further, to the extent the Plaintiffs attempted to
distinguish their individual situations from Howard and/or Dewald,
any differences can be addressed by way of sub-classes and/or
substitution of the Plaintiffs, should Howard and/or Dewald be
eliminated on motion.  The Court is concerned that the Defendants
not be subjected to possible conflicting rulings and, equally
important, that they not be required to defend identical claims in
different jurisdictions.  The Plaintiffs, except for Amber
Moultry, were all originally part of the OHSD case and, therefore,
cannot properly argue any sort of inconvenience of forum.
Further, given that collective actions are representative and
rarely require personal attendance by any opt-in Plaintiff,
transfer of this case will neither cause hardship for Moultry nor
in any way deprive her of her day in court.

The Court concluded that, although it could dismiss this case
outright, the interests of justice would be better served through
transfer.  Therefore, to the extent the Defendants' motion seeks
transfer, the Court granted it.  The case is transferred to the
OHSD as being related to Case No. 2:16-cv-1129.  It is within the
purview of that court to assign this transferred case to a
judicial officer as it sees fit.  Although the Court does not
condone the inappropriate conduct of the Plaintiff and her counsel
here, sanctions will not be awarded.  To that extent, therefore,
the Defendants' motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/YGbuT0 from Leagle.com.

Markia Sims, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy,
Lazzaro Law Firm.

Markia Sims, Plaintiff, represented by Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro
Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro, Lazzaro Law Firm.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura McRoberts
Jordan -- LJordan@ThompsonCoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn, Roy N.

Williams, Jr. -- rwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn &
James E. Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller.

Charter Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura
McRoberts Jordan, Thompson Coburn, Roy N. Williams, Jr., Thompson
Coburn & James E. Davidson, Ice Miller.

TWC Administration LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura McRoberts
Jordan, Thompson Coburn, Roy N. Williams, Jr., Thompson Coburn &
James E. Davidson, Ice Miller.


TJX COMPANIES: Dates in "Chester" Suit Vacated Over Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, vacates dates and deadlines in the
lawsuit entitled STACI CHESTER, et al. v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.,
et al.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01437-
ODW-DTB (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the parties' notice of settlement, the Court vacates
all dates and deadlines.  The pending motions for summary judgment
and class certification are dismissed as moot.

Judge Wright directs the parties to either file a motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement, or in the alternative, a
status report regarding the progress of settlement negotiations on
or before September 1, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KtE9SO8E


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on July 13 ordered to arbitration a putative class action
alleging Toyota Motor Credit Corp. applies illegal fees when
repossessing leased vehicles, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments
that a class waiver within Toyota's arbitration clause is
unenforceable in light of the California Supreme Court's McGill
opinion.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones issued a written
tentative decision granting Toyota's motion to compel arbitration
prior to July 13's hearing, which she made the final order of the
court after hearing oral arguments. In it, she found that the
class action waiver within the arbitration clause of plaintiff
Gregory Thomas' lease agreement was enforceable. Having decided
thus, she left all other matters up to the arbitrator, including
the validity of the arbitration clause itself.

"Pursuant to the delegation clause, it is now up to the arbitrator
to decide the validity of the entire arbitration provision," the
judge wrote.

Thomas' suit alleges that Toyota Motor Credit, when it repossesses
a leased vehicle, charges the customer for "overdue" lease
payments that were not due at the time of repossession, fails to
fully credit customers for refundable security deposits, and adds
additional auction and storage charges without proper disclosure.
The suit alleges violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks both injunctive relief
and damages.

The case was stayed by the trial court based on the question of
the enforceability of the class action waiver, pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in McGill v. Citibank, a
putative class action claiming Citibank's marketing and
administration of its "credit protector" insurance plan violated
California's consumer protection laws. In April, the California
high court found that an arbitration agreement that waives the
right to public injunctive relief is contrary to California public
policy and is therefore unenforceable under California law.

In her written ruling issued on July 13, Judge Jones noted that in
McGill, there was an agreement barring the plaintiff from seeking
public injunctive relief in any forum --  but that's not the case
for Thomas.

"Instead, the class action waiver prohibits plaintiff from
'participating in a . . . private attorney general action in
court,'" the judge said, adding, "In addition, public injunctive
relief appears to be available in arbitration."

So, the McGill ruling doesn't help Thomas' case, she said.

Thomas had also argued that the California Supreme Court's prior
holdings in two cases, Broughton and Cruz, remained controlling
precedents. The two cases established that agreements to arbitrate
claims for public injunctive relief under the California Legal
Remedies Act, the state's unfair competition law or its false
advertising law are not enforceable.

But the judge found in her ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court's
2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, preempting state
rules subjecting arbitration agreements to more stringent
standards of enforceability, "abrogated the Broughton-Cruz rule."
And so finding, she granted Toyota's motion to compel arbitration.

Representatives for Toyota declined a request for comment. Thomas'
attorney was not reachable on July 14.

In November 2015, a prior judge on the case, Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Jane L. Johnson, issued a tentative ruling siding with
Toyota's motion to compel arbitration, but later stayed the action
to wait on McGill.

Back at that November 2015 hearing, Michael Vachon of Vachon Law
Firm, representing Thomas, urged Judge Johnson to reverse her
tentative ruling, arguing that Toyota had not, in fact, presented
evidence that Thomas had agreed to the arbitration clause, as it
hadn't actually proven that the lease agreement it had shown to
the court was the one signed by his client. Vachon said that while
Thomas testified that he did sign a lease agreement when he got
his car and was given paperwork containing the details of that
agreement, Toyota has still not proven that the arbitration clause
was contained in the agreement Thomas actually signed.

"Having a conclusory declaration saying 'This is is the
arbitration agreement he signed' doesn't cut it," Vachon said.
"There has to be some evidence that this is actually his
signature . . . the fact that my client signed something is not
evidence he signed that agreement."

Judge Johnson, however, was skeptical that Thomas signed something
besides the standard lease agreement provided by Toyota,
especially given that after a year, he returned to sign a new
lease agreement.

Thomas is represented by Michael R. Vachon, Esq. of Vachon Law
Firm.

Toyota is represented by Donna L. Wilson, Esq. --
dlwilson@manatt.com -- and Diana Iorlano, Esq. --
diorlano@manatt.com --  of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.

The case is Gregory Thomas v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,
case number BC584530, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles. [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Defends 33 Economic Loss Class Lawsuits at June 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation continues to defend itself against 33
economic loss class suits related to airbag inflators made by
Takata, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June 23,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Toyota has been named as a defendant in 33
economic loss class action lawsuits in the United States, which,
together with similar lawsuits against Takata and other
automakers, have been made part of a multi-district litigation
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, arising out of allegations that airbag
inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. Toyota has reached
a settlement with the plaintiffs in the United States economic
loss class actions. Court approval is being sought for the
settlement. Toyota and other automakers have also been named in
certain class actions filed in Mexico and Canada, as well as some
other actions by states or territories of the United States. Those
actions have not been settled and are being litigated."

Toyota Motor Corporation designs, manufactures, assembles, and
sells passenger vehicles, minivans and commercial vehicles, and
related parts and accessories.  The Company operates through
Automotive, Financial Services, and All Other segments.  The
Company operates in Japan, North America, Europe, Asia, Central
and South America, Oceania, Africa, and the Middle East.  Toyota
Motor Corporation was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in
Toyota City, Japan.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Nygaard Wants to End Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA NYGAARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC.; a California Corporation;
and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00934 (E.D. Wisc., July 10, 2017), seeks to end the alleged
illegal practices of the Defendant who, inter alia, used false,
deceptive, and misleading practices, and other illegal practices,
in connection with its attempts to collect an alleged debt from
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers.

Ms. Nygaard alleges that the Defendant's collection practices
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Transworld Systems is a for-profit corporation existing pursuant
to the laws of the state of California.  The Company maintains its
principal business address in Horsham, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania.  The Doe Defendants are sued under fictitious names
as their true names and capacities are yet unknown to the
Plaintiff.

Transworld collects, and attempts to collect, defaulted debts
incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for personal, family,
or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail,
telephone, and Internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Shareholder Sues to Prevent Sale to Sinclare
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Zumbach, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
Tribune Media shareholder has filed a class-action lawsuit seeking
to halt the company's sale to Sinclair Broadcast Group.

The shareholder, Sean McEntire, is seeking class-action status in
the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago on July 13.

McEntire accuses Chicago-based Tribune Media of giving
stockholders incomplete and misleading information about the deal,
including failing to provide portions of the companies' financial
projections, the value of another bid for Tribune Media and other
details of the process leading to the merger agreement, according
to court records.

The deal, valued at $3.9 billion, was announced in May, pending
approval from stockholders, the Federal Communications Commission
and federal antitrust regulators.

Sinclair, already the largest station owner in the country, would
pick up Tribune Media's 42 television stations, ending local
ownership of Chicago's WGN TV and radio stations.

The combined company would own and operate 233 television stations
in 108 markets, unless the FCC requires divestitures.

McEntire is asking the court to block Sinclair's purchase until
Tribune Media shares the information he claims was withheld, or
award damages if the deal goes through before the information is
disclosed.

The lawsuit names Tribune Media and members of its board of
directors as defendants.

A Tribune Media spokesman declined to comment. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Gives CA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Farrik, writing for Legal Reader, reports disgruntled Uber
drivers won a tentative victory in their quest to be classified as
company employees rather than independent contractors.

A federal court in North Carolina gave a conditional green light
for litigation to proceed as a class action lawsuit under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The New York Times reports that as many as 18,000 current and
former drivers who opted out of an arbitration agreement might be
eligible to join the legal battle. If successful, the outcome
could impact the 600,000 drivers Uber has plying roadways across
the country.

"The ruling today is going to allow drivers across the country to
band together to challenge Uber's misclassification of them," said
attorney for the plaintiffs, Paul B. Maslo. "They are employees
and should be getting minimum wage and overtime as required by
law."

Uber's lawyers declined to comment on the case.

The company issued a statement, recapped in The New York Times,
saying they were "disappointed with this decision, particularly
because a Federal District Court recently denied conditional
certification in another case" in Florida.

Ever since the Uber app became a transportation mainstay on
smartphones around the United States, a subset of its drivers have
been vocal about what they consider poor treatment on the part of
the company.

Some Uber contractors claim that they've been misclassified,
considering they're more or less behooved to abide by a handful of
non-negotiable policies. Since they don't set their own fares, are
monitored by in-app rating system, and can be fired if their
performance falls too low, drivers argue that they're best
considered employees rather than independent contractors.

Ever since the first classification controversy arose, Uber has
been steadfast in maintaining its position.

A 2015 article from The New Yorker discussed the ups and downs of
reclassifying Uber drivers as full- or part-time employees rather
than independent contractors.

While some 40-hour-per-week drivers might benefit from a minimum
wage, the repercussion sent down by Uber Corporate would likely
include a work-force reduction as well as tighter regulations and
set hours for drivers. Fewer cars would be available and the share
of fares provided to drivers could be slashed as Uber seeks to
make up the loss incurred by having to shell more out-of-pocket.

Despite the success begotten by the North Carolina drivers'
conditional certification, aspiring Uber driver-employees still
have a long road ahead of them -- even the plaintiffs' lawyer
admitted that the "the bar is not super-duper high."

Uber, predictably, pledged to fight tooth-and-nail to ensure the
class is decertified and cannot transform into a true class action
case.

The brunt of Uber drivers around the country wouldn't be able to
participate in the case even if it does proceed past the discovery
phase of litigation, considering that many waived their right to
challenge the company in court while signing their contracts. [GN]


ULTA SALON: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Free Gifts
-------------------------------------------------------
Zachary van Brakle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Case No. CV-
17-882631 (Ohio Cmm. Pleas, July 7, 2017), alleges that Ulta is
engaged in a pattern and practice of systematically deceiving its
customers, breaching its sale agreements, and violating Ohio
consumers' right to the truth about the transactions they enter
into with Ulta, specifically by charging its customers for items
that it advertises as "free" and "free gift[s]."

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. operates and owns many
beauty retail locations in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Myers, Esq.
      Samantha A. Vajskop, Esq.
      MYERS LAW, LLC
      600 East Granger Road, 2nd Floor
      Cleveland, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 236-8202
      Facsimile: (216) 674-1696
      E-mail: SVajskop@MyersLawLLC.com
              DMyers@MyersLawLLC.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Zuckerman Spaeder Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and Psych-Appeal, Inc., filed a class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and
its Oxford subsidiaries ("UnitedHealth") have systematically
violated the legal duties owed to plan participants by imposing
arbitrary reimbursement penalties on psychotherapy rendered by
psychologists and master's level counselors.

The complaint was filed by Zuckerman Spaeder partners D. Brian
Hufford, Jason Cowart, and Carlos Angulo, along with co-counsel
Meiram Bendat from Psych-Appeal, Inc., on behalf of an individual
insured by UnitedHealth ("the plaintiff") and a class of claimants
who have similarly been subject to arbitrary reimbursement
penalties. This case is part of Zuckerman Spaeder's ongoing effort
to defend the rights of behavioral health patients from improper
denials and discrimination by health insurers.

The dispute in this lawsuit concerns the amount UnitedHealth would
pay for plaintiff's covered treatment for her eating disorder,
which included individual and family counseling from a
psychologist with 17 years' experience and a Licensed Clinical
Social Worker (LCSW) with post-graduate training. These providers
are considered out-of-network, and therefore benefits are
determined based on an "allowed amount," which is the maximum
amount eligible for reimbursement.

The plaintiff in this case alleges that UnitedHealth has a policy
in place that reduces the "allowed amount" of covered charges by
25 percent when provided by a psychologist and 35 percent when
provided by a master's level counselor (i.e., an LCSW). As a
result, anyone receiving psychotherapy services from a
psychologist or social worker is subject to reduced
reimbursements. The plaintiff argues that these arbitrary
reimbursement penalties violate the Federal Parity Act, the
Affordable Care Act and Timothy's Law (the New York Parity Act) by
discriminating against certain behavioral health providers and
patients.

"We believe it is clear that UnitedHealth violated its duty to
plan holders by imposing arbitrary reimbursement penalties," said
lead counsel for the plaintiff, D. Brian Hufford. "Through these
penalties, UnitedHealth is devaluing psychotherapy and is
ultimately limiting access to an essential health benefit."

"We also believe that this is another example of private insurance
companies taking steps to systematically deny mental health
benefits to plan holders," said Cowart, co-counsel for the
plaintiff. "The purpose of this lawsuit is to continue our efforts
to hold insurers accountable for this type of discriminatory
behavior."

Zuckerman Spaeder has developed a national practice representing
patients and health care providers such as doctors, hospitals, and
medical equipment companies in disputes with health insurance
companies. Their groundbreaking application of ERISA and other
related federal and state laws has resulted in numerous precedent-
setting wins, including two of the largest recoveries ever
obtained in health insurance class actions.

Psych-Appeal, Inc. is a Los Angeles-based law firm exclusively
dedicated to mental health insurance claims, advocating on behalf
of patients, clinicians, and treatment facilities. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Asylum Seeks Sue Customs Officers in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Morrissey, writing for the San Diego Union Tribune, reports
that Customs and Border Protection officers have been illegally
turning away asylum seekers who ask for help at the U.S.-Mexico
border for more than a year, according to a lawsuit filed on July
12 in Los Angeles by several immigrant rights organizations.

Five of the six plaintiffs listed in the federal class action
lawsuit said they were turned away at one of San Diego's two ports
of entry, Otay Mesa and San Ysidro. The lawsuit -- brought by Al
Otro Lado, American Immigration Council and the Center for
Constitutional Rights -- alleges that officials lied to asylum
seekers, and in some cases even coerced them, to keep them from
being able to formally apply for asylum.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in San Diego
said on July 12 the agency could not comment on pending
litigation. The agency has previously defended its handling of
asylum seekers, saying the U.S. is following the law.

The cases have been documented since the summer of 2016, well
before President Donald Trump took office, according to the
lawsuit.

Erika Pinheiro, policy director for Al Otro Lado, a pro bono
immigration legal services group, said the frequency of reported
cases has increased since Trump's inauguration.

One asylum seeker reported being told, "Donald Trump just signed
new laws saying there is no asylum for anyone," according to the
lawsuit.

Asylum seekers must show that they have suffered persecution or
fear that they will because of their race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
Under both U.S. and international law, officials at the border
must allow asylum seekers to make those claims to an asylum
officer or immigration judge.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were not put into any asylum
process, said Melissa Crow, legal director for the American
Immigration Council. They were rejected, she said, by people who
do not have the authority to reject them.

This is not the first time allegations of asylum seekers being
sent away at the border have surfaced. Several organizations filed
an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland
Security in January asking for an investigation into asylum
procedures.

When that complaint was filed, CBP spokesman Carlos Diaz said,
"The United States has long adhered to international laws and
conventions allowing people to seek asylum on grounds that they
are being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality,
political beliefs or other factors. The applicant does not have to
specifically request asylum, they simply must express fear of
being returned to their country.

"CBP has coordinated and continues to work with Mexican
authorities in regards to border security and humanitarian
causes," Diaz added. "In this case, CBP has collaborated with the
Mexican authorities to improve the processing and humanitarian
assistance of those individuals with no legal status to enter the
U.S. This is being done to temporarily house the individuals in a
more comfortable location and out of the elements. Prior to
establishing this orderly process there were hundreds of people on
the streets of Tijuana for days at a time."

Crow said that she thinks officers turning away asylum seekers are
not acting on their own.

"The prevalence and persistence of this practice leaves no doubt
that there are orders coming from above," Crow said in a
conference call with reporters on July 12.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order border officials to
follow laws regarding asylum seekers and to create a monitoring
system.

Lawyers will also be filing temporary restraining order requests
on behalf of each plaintiff asking that they be allowed into the
U.S. to pursue their asylum claims. All six are currently in
Mexico and still fear for their lives in their current situations,
according to the lawsuit.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at Center for
Immigration Studies, an organization that has supported Trump's
immigration agenda, called the lawsuit "absurd."

"The idea that CBP officers are saying we don't accept asylum
claims anymore is pretty unbelievable," Vaughan said. "No trained
CBP officer would say something like that. Of course we offer
asylum. I think it's more likely that the CBP officer said, 'Our
policies for considering asylum claims have changed, and you are
not necessarily going to be allowed into the United States to make
this claim.'"

When asylum seekers are taken from ports of entry to immigration
detention to await credible fear interviews, they're not
technically thought of as in the U.S. from a legal standpoint.

"It looks like CBP is applying the law and telling the people
applying for asylum they're going to be detained," Vaughan said.

If an officer did make the kinds of statements that the lawsuit
alleges, Vaughan said, that officer would need to be retrained,
but she still disagreed with allowing the affected asylum seeker
into the U.S. to live and work while pursuing a claim in
immigration court.

"What it boils down to is they're asserting that anyone should be
allowed to show up at our border and be allowed into the country
based on claiming persecution in their country," Vaughan said. "If
we did allow that, we would have an unsustainable and unmanageable
number of people doing just that."

Crow said that the number of cases that have reported similar
statements and actions by CBP officers suggests that there is
truth in the allegations.

"There is clearly a very disturbing trend going on here," Crow
said in a phone interview.

All of the asylum seekers listed in the lawsuit were given
pseudonyms because they are afraid to expose themselves to their
persecutors.

The asylum seekers who were turned away in San Diego are all women
who were traveling with children. Three of the women are from
Mexico, and two are from Honduras. All of them fled gang violence
and some also fled domestic violence, according to the lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs fled Central Mexico with her two young
children when her husband disappeared in May after he refused to
allow a drug cartel to use his tractor-trailer to transport drugs.
When she reported her husband's disappearance to Mexican
authorities, cartel members abducted her and threatened to kill
her if she investigated his disappearance any further, according
to the lawsuit.

Border officials told her that she did not qualify for asylum,
according to the lawsuit. They threatened to take her children
away and told her that only the Mexican government could help her,
the lawsuit says.

Another plaintiff fled Honduras with her then-17-year-old daughter
after they were held captive and repeatedly raped in front of each
other by MS-13 gang members, according to the lawsuit. They
claimed they have also been threatened by MS-13 gang members in
Mexico.

Border officials at Otay Mesa allegedly told her that there is no
asylum in the U.S. for Central Americans and that if she and her
daughter returned to the port of entry, they would be sent to
Honduras. When she tried again, they told her she would have to
leave her daughter behind, according to the lawsuit. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Rulings in H2-B Class Action Motion Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Mora, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports rulings on
motions for preliminary injunction and discovery in the lawsuit
filed by a dozen local businesses over are expected around Aug. 1,
attorney Jennifer Davis said today.

The original lawsuit, filed in October 2016, alleged U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services had inappropriately changed
its policy, leading to near-complete denial of Guam H-2B visa
applications.

The lawsuit sought to have the alleged change declared unlawful
and requested a preliminary injunction to provide immediate relief
by granting pending visa applications.

In January, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion
is still pending.

At a lawsuit status hearing, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge
Joaquin V.E. Manibusan Jr. approved a motion to continue
dispositive motions.

"If there is a motion filed that can dismiss the case, like a
motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss, there is a
deadline," Davis said. "The judge's ruling here pushes that
deadline back."

Manibusan also delayed ruling on class-action certification until
Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood can review the motion.

The next status hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 24 at 8:30
a.m. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Halts Deportation of 1,400 Iraqis
------------------------------------------------------
Judy M., writing for Care2, reports that a federal judge in
Michigan has temporarily halted the deportation of around 1,400
Iraqi nationals, giving time for the courts to review orders to
remove them from the U.S.

Many of these Iraqis are Chaldean Christians, members of a group
of Catholics indigenous to Iraq, who fear they will be persecuted
for their religion in their homeland.

The controversy broke out one weekend in early June when the
federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rounded up 114
Iraqis in the Detroit area.

According to the government these people are being deported
because they committed crimes in the U.S., although plenty of
reports attest to ICE arresting immigrants who have no criminal
record or who have committed minor, nonviolent offenses.

In total, around 1,400 Iraqis face deportation from the U.S., but
the majority are not being held in custody. Previously they were
allowed to stay in the U.S. because Iraq refused to issue travel
documents for them.

However, this all changed in March, when Iraq was removed from
Trump's revised Muslim ban, and in exchange the country agreed to
accept nationals who were being deported from the U.S.

This decision did not take into account the conditions for
Chaldean Christians in Iraq.

"Equivalent To A Death Sentence"

"There are laws that pertain to deportation, but there also laws
that pertain to human rights," Martin Manna, president of the
Chaldean Community Foundation, told ThinkProgress.  "The
conditions in Iraq have worsened, they have not improved,
especially for Christians."

Mr. Manna added "I think [deporting them back to Iraq] is
equivalent to a death sentence."

That's when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in
and filed a class-action lawsuit to stop the deportations.

So far, the ACLU has achieved this temporary reprieve.

Judge Mark Goldsmith of the Eastern District of Michigan wrote his
opinion, in which he disagreed with the federal government that
district courts don't have the authority to rule on such a case:

"This Court concludes that to enforce the Congressional mandate
that district courts lack jurisdiction -- despite the compelling
context of this case -- would expose Petitioners to the
substantiated risk of death, torture, or other grave persecution
before their legal claims can be tested in a court," wrote
Goldsmith.

Given that Trump's campaign platform included promising to protect
Christians in other countries from persecution, we can hope that
the ACLU will ultimately succeed.

What is the Trump administration's record on deportations and
arrests of immigrants so far?

Fewer Deportations, Increased Arrests

According to ICE, 57,735 undocumented immigrants were deported
between January 20 and April 29, 2017.  In the same period in
2016, there was a total of 66,484 deportations, meaning a 13
percent decrease since last year.

However, ICE also announced that in that same time period under
Trump, they arrested 38 percent more undocumented immigrants than
in 2016 under Obama: 41,318 people compared to around 30,028 in
2016.

Thus, many more people are being held in detention facilities,
waiting for their cases to make their way through the court
system.  According to The Washington Post, this system has over
530,000 immigration cases pending, and hearings are being
scheduled for up to six years down the road.

A new report from The Daily Beast suggests that not all those
detainees will make it out alive.

Many people are also alarmed by ICE tactics.  Earlier this year,
Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said the president wanted to
"take the shackles off" ICE agents, so that they could make more
arrests.  Now agents are arresting immigrants whether or not they
are guilty of any crime, and in especially cruel ways: a
Salvadoran woman was removed from a hospital where she was
undergoing treatment for a brain tumor; ICE has arrested numerous
immigrants who checked in for scheduled green card appointments;
distraught children grow up alone with parents deported.

Iraqi Christians should not be forced to return to a situation
where they fear for their lives, and the same holds true for all
immigrants who have fled their country in a desperate attempt to
reach safety.

What happened to the compassionate U.S., a country which used to
be a leader in the cause of human rights? [GN]


UNITED STATES: Syphilis Study Victims' Families Seek Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that descendants of hundreds of black
men who were left untreated for syphilis during an infamous
government study want a judge to award them any money remaining
from a $9 million legal settlement over the program.

The head of an organization for descendants of those who underwent
the testing, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, said the money could
help pay for college scholarships, and members want to develop a
memorial garden.

Some money could also go to a county-owned museum in Tuskegee that
has separately requested the funds, but the decision should be up
to the descendants, said Lillie Tyson Head, the president of the
Voices of our Fathers Legacy Foundation.

"It was meant to go to the descendants in the first place,"
Ms. Head, who lives in Virginia, said in an interview on July 14.

The group has sent a letter to Federal District Judge Myron H.
Thompson asking him to withhold a decision on the money until the
organization has time to hire a lawyer and file documents in the
long-running class action lawsuit over the study.

Fred Gray, a lawyer who heads the museum and represented study
participants in the lawsuit, said he had not seen the Voice
group's letter, and declined to comment on its request.  Mr. Gray
has requested the money for the museum, the Tuskegee Human and
Civil Rights Multicultural Center, which includes an exhibit about
the syphilis study and a memorial to the men.

Beginning in 1932 in the impoverished, segregated South,
government medical workers in rural Alabama withheld treatment
from unsuspecting black men who had syphilis so that doctors could
track the disease and dissect the men's bodies afterward. The
study was revealed by The Associated Press in 1972, and was ended.
The surviving men sued, resulting in the settlement.

More than 6,000 heirs of the roughly 600 men involved in the study
received settlement payments through the decades, court officials
say, but an undisclosed amount remains in court-controlled
accounts.  Court officials say they cannot find additional
descendants, if any exist.  All of the men who participated in the
study are now dead.

The sum of money at stake has not been made public, but court
documents describe it as "relatively small" interest earnings.

The Trump administration has filed documents saying that any
unclaimed settlement money should revert to the government under
the terms of the original settlement, reached in 1975. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Claims vs. SSA Commissioner in "Nassiri" Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MOHAMMAD NASSIRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Social
Security Administration; SSA AGENT NICK; SSA-AGENT 2; MARY HAGAR;
DUKE DUC TRAN; and STATE and/or LOCAL AGENTS CDI DOES 21-40,
Defendants, (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted the
motion filed by Defendant Berryhill to dismiss as moot all claims
against her.

On March 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing
a Class Action Complaint.  On May 12, 2015, they filed the First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  On Dec. 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs
filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC").  On Aug.
18, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W.
Colvin's motion to dismiss the SAC.  The Court denied the motion
to dismiss as to the sixth Equal Protection, eleventh First
Amendment, and thirteenth Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment causes
of action filed by Plaintiffs Anh Van Thai, Diep Thi Nguyen,
Huynh, Trai Chau, and Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VHCH, and granted the
motion to dismiss as to all other claims.

On Sept. 2, 2016, Defendants Colvin and the United States filed a
motion to dismiss claims against them as moot.  On Oct. 21, 2016,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and
for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").  On Dec. 21,
2016, the Court issued an order granting in part the motion for
leave to amend the complaint.  It ordered that the Plaintiffs may
file a TAC, naming only the remaining Defendants Colvin, Nicholas
Pilcher, Sundeep Patel, William Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, Duke
Tran and Mary Hagar -- and only including the sixth Equal
Protection, eleventh First Amendment, and thirteenth Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment causes of action alleged in their Proposed
TAC.

On Jan. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the TAC, alleging they have
been the subject of a campaign of intimidation by agents and
employees of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") after
filing an earlier action in this district.  They allege that
Defendant SSA has acted in a bad faith and in a discriminatory
manner against the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs who had filed
affidavits against SSA in the Phan action were singled out for
illegal searches and seizures and explicit threats of (i) criminal
prosecution for filing fraudulent applications; and (ii) losing
benefits whereas other applicants not filing affidavits or not
suing SSA were not searched and seized, interrogated, or
threatened with losing benefits.  This case is brought as a class
action to obtain a declaratory judgment that SSA and other unknown
state and/or local agents have been violating the Plaintiffs'
federal and state constitutional rights.  On Jan. 13, 2017, the
Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants Colvin and the United States as moot.

On Jan. 24, 2017, Defendant Berryhill filed the motion to dismiss
as moot all claims against her.  On Feb. 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition.  On Feb. 17, 2017, the Defendant
Berryhill filed a reply.

The Court concluded that, despite the heavy burden of
demonstrating mootness, Defendant Berryhill has demonstrated that
there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective
relief can be granted as to the claims remaining against her.
There are, however, four major exceptions to the mootness
doctrine, for (i) collateral legal consequences; (ii) wrongs
capable of repetition yet evading review; (iii) voluntary
cessation; and (iv) class actions where the named party ceases to
represent the class.  Under the capable of repetition prong of the
exception to the mootness doctrine, the Plaintiffs have the burden
of showing that there is a reasonable expectation that they will
once again be subjected to the challenged activity.  However, the
Court held, there are no facts in the record to demonstrate a
reasonable expectation that SSA will engage in the same action
alleged in the TAC such that the Plaintiffs will be subject to the
same action again.  Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
ex parte motion for one-day extension and granted Defendant
Berryhill's motion to dismiss as moot all claims.

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

Mohammad Nassiri, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck,
Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Diep Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck,
Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Anh Van Thai, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Duc Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Trai Chau, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T.
Manbeck, Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

Roes 1-100, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra T. Manbeck, Law
Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Daniel Everett
Butcher, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California &
Valerie Torres, U.S. Attorney's Office.

William Villasenor, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar
Swiss -- cswiss@ccmslaw.com -- Collins Collins Muir and Stewart
LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres -- tguterres@ccmslaw.com -- Collins
Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber -- mlieber@ccmslaw.com --
Collins Collins Muir Stewart.

Dulce Sanchez, Defendant, represented by Christie Bodnar Swiss,
Collins Collins Muir and Stewart LLP, Tomas Antonio Guterres,
Collins Collins Muir & Stewart & Megan K. Lieber, Collins Collins
Muir Stewart.


UPS OF AMERICA: "Cervantes" Sues Over Autodialled Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Ana Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02410, (N.D. Ga., June 28, 2017),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies against Defendant for negligently and/or
intentionally contacting Plaintiff on her cellular phone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff entered into a business relationship with Defendant when
she opened an account for her company, Collagen Distributor, which
was located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Subsequently thereafter,
Plaintiff never went through with her company and closed the UPS
account. However, Defendant still keeps on contacting Plaintiff on
her phone using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Berry, Esq.
      Adam Klein, Esq.
      BERRY AND ASSOCIATES
      2751 Buford Highway, Suite 600
      Atlanta, GA 30324
      Tel: (404) 235-3305
      Fax: (404) 235-3333
      Email: matt@mattberry.com
             aklein@mattberry.com


VORNADO REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Vornado Realty L.P. and Vornado Realty Trust, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05031 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, thus
denying full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction
with its physical locations.

The Defendants own and operate numerous retail shopping malls in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing on Class Cert. Bid to End by Aug. 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 29, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2017, that the briefing on
the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a securities
class action in Illinois is scheduled to be completed by August
25, 2017.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff.  Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015.

Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on
December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the
motion on February 5, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  Defendants
filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016
and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 21,
2017.  Briefing on the motion is scheduled to be completed by
August 25, 2017.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Plaintiffs in M.D. Pa. Lawsuit Seek to Lift Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is awaiting Court ruling to the
plaintiffs' request to lift the stay in a purported class action
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania over the proposed merger with Rite Aid Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 29, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2017.

As of May 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative class
action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against
Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots Alliance and
Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of the
transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement (prior
to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions, the
"Rite Aid Transactions").

One action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and
one action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an
unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices
that preclude other bidders from making successful competing
offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly
material information concerning the proposed merger, and also
alleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions.

The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder
vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions.  That motion was
denied, and the Rite Aid shareholders approved the Rite Aid
Transactions at a special meeting on February 4, 2016.

In the federal action, plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation
until after the Rite Aid Transactions have closed, but on March
17, 2017, moved to lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.  The Company filed a response opposing this
motion, and the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of this motion
on April 14, 2017.

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

The Company was also named as a defendant in eight putative class
action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware actions").  Those actions were
consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote
relating to the Rite Aid Transactions.  That motion was denied and
the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to settle this
matter for an immaterial amount.  The Delaware actions all have
been dismissed.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.


WARBY PARKER: Young Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. WARBY PARKER RETAIL, INC. and JAND, INC.,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:17-cv-04892-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June
28, 2017), asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities
Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights
Law and New York State Civil Rights Law.

Mr. Young brings the civil rights action against the Defendants
for their alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their Web site http://www.warbyparker.comto be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Warby Parker Retail, Inc., is a Foreign Business Corporation
organized under Delaware law and registered to do business in the
state of New York with its principal executive offices located in
New York City.  Warby Parker operates Warby Parker retail eyeglass
and sunglass stores, as well as the Web site and advertises,
markets, distributes, and sells eyeglasses and sunglasses in the
state of New York and throughout the United States.

JAND, Inc. is a Foreign Business Corporation organized under
Delaware law and registered to do business in the state of New
York with its principal executive offices located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


WASHINGTON: Settlement in SSC Treatment Suit Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted final approval of the
parties' Settlement Agreement, and class counsel fees and costs in
the case captioned R.R.; G.J.; R.G.; all others similarly
situated; and DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs, v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES;
PATRICIA LASHWAY, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of
the Department of Social and Health Services; SPECIAL COMMITMENT
CENTER; WILLIAM VAN HOOK, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of Special Commitment Center, Defendants, No.
3:17-CV-05080-BHS (W.D. Wash.).

The parties have reached a settlement that provides for
comprehensive reform to the treatment provided to Special
Commitment Center (SCC) residents with serious mental illness,
intellectual or developmental disabilities, traumatic brain
injuries, and other cognitive conditions.  The Settlement
Agreement establishes that class members will be provided with
individualized and appropriate treatment at the SCC.  It directs
that class members be provided with adequate medical, psychiatric,
nursing, and rehabilitative care in a therapeutic milieu similar
to that in the habilitative mental health units at the state
psychiatric hospitals.  Such individualized treatment includes the
use of positive behavioral support plans and discharge planning.
The Settlement Agreement also directs that the SCC will strictly
limit the use of restraint and seclusion, as well as other
behavioral restrictions.

The Settlement Agreement also establishes a three-expert panel to
provide technical assistance and evaluate compliance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.  It further establishes
quarterly data reporting and meetings between class counsel and
Defendants, as well as ongoing monitoring by class counsel.

The agreement also provides the Defendants will pay class counsel
attorneys' fees in the amount of $245,827.43, as well as
monitoring costs in the amount of $42,000 per year.  No class
members will be responsible for the payment of attorneys' fees or
costs. No class member objected to the amount of the fees or
costs.  The agreement also releases the Defendants from any and
all claims for injunctive or declaratory relief related to the
facts and claims raised in the complaint.

The Court's Order granting preliminary approval and approval of
class notice required the parties to complete class notice as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The class counsel submitted a
declaration, certifying the class counsel's notification process
on April 14, 2017.  The Defendants submitted a declaration
regarding class notification on April 21, 2017.

Three written comments were received by class counsel in advance
of the fairness hearing; none of those comments objected to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.  15. At a May 2, 2017 fairness
hearing eight residents offered comments.  In response to those
comments, counsel for the parties met with residents to discuss
their concerns, outlining those conversations in a joint report to
the Court.

On June 22, 2017 the parties appeared before the Court and
executed a Supplemental Agreement, which amended Section
II(d)(1)(d) of the Settlement Agreement; the parties completed an
additional class notice process on these new provisions.

On July 12, 2017 the Court conducted a final hearing via video
conference, with counsel for the parties and SCC residents in
attendance.

The Court granted final approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement.  It ordered that upon
the occurrence of the conditions set forth in Section I (B) of the
Settlement Agreement, and within 90 days from entry of the Order
if no appeal is taken, the Defendants will pay the award of
attorneys' fees and costs to the class counsel.  The Court will
retain jurisdiction over this matter until the agreement is
terminated, pursuant to Section II (D) of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/KpJl0V from Leagle.com.

R. R., Plaintiff, represented by Anna Catherine Guy, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON.

R. R., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Carlson, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Rachael E. Seevers, DISABILITY RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, Christopher Robert Carney --
christopher.carney@cgilaw.com -- CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP,
Kenan Lee Isitt -- kenan.isitt@cgilaw.com -- CARNEY GILLESPIE
ISITT PLLP & Sean P. Gillespie --  sean.gillespie@cgilaw.com --
CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP.

G. J., Plaintiff, represented by Anna Catherine Guy, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, David R. Carlson, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON,
Rachael E. Seevers, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Christopher
Robert Carney, CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP, Kenan Lee Isitt,
CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP & Sean P. Gillespie, CARNEY GILLESPIE
ISITT PLLP.

R.G., Plaintiff, represented by Anna Catherine Guy, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, David R. Carlson, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON,
Rachael E. Seevers, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Christopher
Robert Carney, CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP, Kenan Lee Isitt,
CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP & Sean P. Gillespie, CARNEY GILLESPIE
ISITT PLLP.

Disability Rights Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Anna
Catherine Guy, DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, David R. Carlson,
DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Rachael E. Seevers, DISABILITY
RIGHTS WASHINGTON, Christopher Robert Carney, CARNEY GILLESPIE
ISITT PLLP, Kenan Lee Isitt, CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP & Sean P.
Gillespie, CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP.

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services,
Defendant, represented by Craig B. Mingay, WASHINGTON STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua P. Weir, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Patricia Lashway, Defendant, represented by Craig B. Mingay,
WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua P. Weir, ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Special Commitment Center, Defendant, represented by Craig B.
Mingay, WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua P. Weir,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

William Van Hook, Defendant, represented by Craig B. Mingay,
WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua P. Weir, ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.


WASHINGTON STATE: Faces "Sheth" Suit in Wis. Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abhi Sheth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Washington State University, Case No. 3:17-cv-05511
(W.D. Wis., July 5, 2017), arises from the Data Breach that
occurred when an 85-pound safe was stolen from a storage locker at
the Defendant's facility in Olympia, Washington, which compromised
the personal information of approximately one million people,
including personal identifying information ("PII") such as names,
Social Security numbers, and personal health information ("PHI"),
some of which may not have been encrypted.

Washington State University is a state public research university,
with its main office located within this District at 1155 College
Avenue, Pullman, Washington 99164-2114. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

         - and -

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loveland moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled PETER LOVELAND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELTMAN,
WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 2:17-cv-00961-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the 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
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

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

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

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


WEST CORPORATION: "Bushansky" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. West Corporation, Thomas B. Barker, Lee
Adrean, Donald M. Casey, Jr., Anthony J. Dinovi, Paul R. Garcia,
Laura A. Grattan, Jeanette A. Horan, Michael A. Huber, Diane E.
Offereins and Gregory T. Sloma, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
03083, (D. Neb., June 28, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of West Corporation by Mount Olympus Holdings, Inc.
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Olympus Merger Sub, Inc.,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to Plaintiff in the event defendants consummate the merger.

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

The merger statement failed to include West's financial
projections, relied upon by West's financial advisor, Centerview
Partners LLC, valuation analyses prepared by Centerview in
connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion including
potential conflicts of interest. Such information is needed to
cast a fully-informed vote or make an appraisal decision in
connection with the acquisition, asserts the complaint.

Company insiders stand to reap a substantial financial windfall
for securing the deal with Apollo, Mount Olympus' parent company,
the Plaintiff notes. Pursuant to the merger agreement, each
option, stock unit award and restricted stock award will be
converted into the right to receive cash payments for the
executive officers in connection with their vested and unvested
equity awards.

West is a global provider of communication and network
infrastructure services through a diverse portfolio of solutions
that include unified communications services, safety services,
interactive services such as automated notifications, specialized
agent services and telecom services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Rowe, Esq.
      KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP
      3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 100
      Lincoln, NE 68502
      Telephone: (402) 434-9050
      Facsimile: (402) 438-1654
      Email: drowe@krbklaw.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


WESTWOOD VILLAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Association Management
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Rothstein, Larry Helm, Glynne Morgan, Jacqueline Aguiluz,
and Cuong Tran, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Westwood Village Townhomes Maintenance Association,
Inc., Triquest Management Services, Inc. f/k/a Triquest Management
Services, LLC, Carl Campbell, and Erin Moye, Case No. 2017-44396
(Tex. Dist. Ct., July 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act, breach of fiduciary duties, and failure to comply
with reporting and access required in the Texas Property code,
specifically by refusing to call a special meeting of the
Association as required by the by-laws, spending any association
funds on any purpose other than those operating and maintenance
expenses which are immediately necessary or customary for the
operation of Westwood Village, and taking affirmative act that
would harm the financial interests of the Association and its
members.

Westwood Village Townhomes Maintenance Association, Inc. operates
a hometown community located in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua A. Verde, Esq.
      THE VERDE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      4600 Highway 6 N, Suite 320
      Houston, TX 77084
      Telephone: (713) 909-4347
      Facsimile: (713) 588-2431
      E-mail: josh@verde-law.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: US$16.0MM Settlement for "Epstein" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
June 29, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 that the parties in the Edna
Epstein Putative Class Action has reached an agreement in
principle on June 7, 2017 to settle the case. The agreement, which
is subject to formal documentation and court approval, includes a
settlement payment of US$16 million to the class.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative
Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,
2013 and March 12, 2014.

Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and
several other motions have been filed in the proceedings.  The
complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made
false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other
public statements in violation of federal securities laws
preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13,
2014 that it had received above-referenced CID from the CFPB (ii)
the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because
of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its
accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings
and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things,
the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and
Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015.

The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.  The
Company denied that the claims had any merit and opposed
certification of the proposed class.

On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein
Putative Class Action.  The settlement will resolve the claims
asserted against all defendants in the action.  The terms agreed
upon by the parties contemplate a settlement payment to the class
of US$16 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's
directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers.  The
settlement is subject to formal documentation and court approval.

The Company said, "Neither the Company nor any of its present or
former officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the settlement."

World Acceptance Corporation engages in small-loan consumer
finance business.  It serves individuals with limited access to
other sources of consumer credit, including banks, credit unions,
other consumer finance businesses, and credit card lenders.  The
Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Greenville,
South Carolina.


YOURMECHANIC INC: Faces Class Suit for Misclassifying Mechanics
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Yourmechanic, Inc. on
behalf of the company's Mobile Mechanics alleging that the auto
repair and maintenace company illegally classified their Mobile
Mechanics as independent contractors in order to avoid paying
their share of payroll taxes, overtime wages, and other business
related expenses. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in
the San Diego County Superior Court as Case No. 37-2016-00024056-
CU-OE-CTL.

The class action lawsuit filed by the San Diego labor attorneys
alleges that Yourmechanic hires workers to provide mobile car
repair services at customers' homes and businesses, but alleges
that the auto repair company classifies the Mobile Mechanics as
independent contractors (instead of as employees) in order to
avoid paying proper wages and business related expenses.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Yourmechanic exercises
substantial control over the work performed and the manner and
means in which the Mobile Mechanics perform the repair and
maintenance services.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that because the Mobile
Mechanics were classified as independent contractors, these
workers were allegedly not reimbursed for business expenses
including money spent on gas, personal cell phone use and the
expenses incurred to purchase the tools necessary to complete
their job tasks as Mobile Mechanics.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik represents many California
employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors.
With labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, the labor law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping
employees throughout California protect and enforce their rights
against some of the world's largest corporations.

If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent
contractor and want to collect your unpaid wages, call Nicholas De
Blouw, an experienced San Diego employment lawyer at (800) 568-
8020. [GN]


YOUTUBE: Faces Class Action Over Extreme Content Censorship
-----------------------------------------------------------
VideoInk reports that Google-owned YouTube is getting hit with one
PR crisis after another this year.  The latest -- a class-action
lawsuit led by YouTuber ZombieGoBoom, filed on July 13th claiming
that "YouTube intentionally caused Adpocalypse to occur, in an
effort to appease its advertising partners, at the expense of its
content providers."

The recent Adpocalypse was sparked by YouTube's response to
advertiser concerns about brand safety and a revenue hit in the
multi-millions after brands like Johnson & Johnson, Verizon and
AT&T pulled ads from the platform.

But since then, YouTubers have seen a much strict approach to
ensuring brand safety for advertisers, including erroneous take-
downs and flags as well as censorship of videos.

"YouTube took one of my videos down recently that had already had
millions of views after two days," said one top-tier creator who
has a few million subscribers.  "I had to reach high up at YouTube
to get anyone to pay attention to my video being improperly
flagged, and then it was too late, I probably lost thousands of
dollars over that next couple days."

This is the argument made by ZombieGoBoom co-operaters James Sweet
and Chuck Mere, who claim that their channel gets 6 to 10 million
views per month, "roughly equivalent to the number of views that a
popular television show on cable would receive."

"YouTube tried to knock down views for channels that it seemed
were not as advertiser friendly as other ones, which means not
family friendly," said Mr. Mere in a video.  "I think [YouTube]
mixes up advertiser friendly and family friendly, because you can
be advertiser friendly and not family friendly if your production
values are high."

After YouTube instated a new algorithm to net potentially brand
unsafe content, Messrs. Sweet and Mere, whose videos are a self-
proclaimed as a "Mythbusters" meets "The Walking Dead" series, saw
a 90% decrease in viewership and revenue and 6 of their top 10
videos were demonitized amongst dozens of others.

And when the lifeblood of your business relies on ad dollars and
rev splits from YouTube, every day counts, especially within the
first week of release.

"We have always worked hard to provide creators with the
opportunity to earn revenue on our platform," said a YouTube
spokesperson about the suit.

But as Mr. Mere sees it YouTube's approach is unlawful.  "They are
using the bots to fix the problem that the bots messed up in the
first place," he says.  "This is a form of censorship. If people
cannot make money producing high quality videos because of certain
things, it makes it so that they have to produce something else or
nothing at all."

At the beginning of the summer, YouTube attempted to address the
issue by providing more information on the changes via blog post.
While it's too early to assess how many other creators will ban
together with Messrs. Mere and Sweet, the structure of the suit is
class action, implying the goal is to have disgruntled creators
join them to increase the magnitude of the suit to strong arm
YouTube.

YouTube's unexpected changes to its algorithm have long been a
recurring gripe from creators and it's usually been the stance of
the streaming platform that its Terms of Service indicate it may
make changes as the expense of the users of its platform.  This
could be YouTube's main argument in this suit as well.

"YouTube is already working to make the right changes," added the
anonymous creator.  "And the changes look promising but it's too
early to tell if they are going to do right by us." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Power Plant Valves Gave Man Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that counsel for a man
with mesothelioma told a South Carolina jury during opening
statements that the man got his terminal illness from the
thousands of asbestos-containing valves in the power plants where
he worked, saying the valve-makers must be held responsible.

Simona Farrise of The Farrise Law Firm, representing husband-and-
wife plaintiffs Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Jolly told the
Spartanburg jury that there likely isn't going to be much dispute
in the case that Dale Jolly is dying of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stubblefield Couple Sue St. Louis Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that
two people are suing multiple corporations, some of which are
based in the St. Louis area, citing alleged failure to protect and
failure to warn individuals of the harmful effects of asbestos.

Carrol Stubblefield and Ruth Stubblefield filed a complaint in the
St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against AGCO Corp., Borg-
Warner Corp., BW/IP International, et al. alleging the defendants
failed in their duty to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the safety of its employees and others working with or around the
products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
1960 and 1970, Carrol Stubblefied was a laborer at several
companies and claims he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
of the defendants. Carroll Stubblefied first became aware that he
had developed lung cancer on June 1, 2016.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how to avoid inhaling asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment for
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and for costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as the
court deems appropriate. They are represented by Benjamin R.
Schmickle of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Outlines Next Steps in STL Asbestos Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Rivas, writing for The St. Louis American, reported that
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an order on July 20
stating that Paul McKee Jr.'s Northside Regeneration LLC has to
clean up any of the asbestos-containing material that got out into
the neighborhoods as a result of the fire at the historic Clemens
Mansion on July 12.

EPA officials reported that they had found asbestos in the debris
samples they collected around the mansion, located at 1849 Cass
Ave.

At a neighborhood association meeting, EPA officials announced
their clean-up order and told residents that McKee, the owner of
the mansion, has "agreed verbally" to clean up the contamination.

However, some residents expressed concern that McKee would not
actually follow through. The Clemens Mansion was among many
properties he owns in North St. Louis city that he's allowed to
deteriorate for a decade or more, they said.

"He has not kept a single promise ever," said community organizer
Jessica Payne. "It doesn't seem to matter what we do or what we
give him, he's never been held accountable. So I don't trust that
he's going to follow these orders. How do you ensure these
actions?"

John Frey, an on-scene coordinator with the EPA, responded that if
McKee doesn't follow the EPA's legal order, then the federal
agency has the authority to step in and do it on his behalf. And
then they would charge him for it.

"We don't want to spend taxpayers' dollars on something that this
corporation did," Frey said. "We expect him to do it and they do
it under our supervision -- knowing that at any moment, we could
say that we don't like what you're doing and we can take over the
work and then charge him for that. No one wants that because the
federal government is not cheap."

One woman asked who was going to pay for the clean-up. EPA
officials said that most often it's the responsible party, or
Northside Regeneration in this case. However, they are just
beginning those negotiations.

"There are different formulas, and it gets complicated at times,"
David Bryan, EPA spokesman, told the residents.

He later told the American that the city would never have to pay
for the remediation. Payment is negotiated between the EPA and
McKee, he said.

Residents also asked about the timeline for the remediation.

Frey said they just started negotiations with McKee. NorthSide
Regeneration has to submit a work plan that the EPA will review,
and they are hoping to receive that by the weekend.

Frey said they will "fast track" their review, and hopefully the
work will begin next week. EPA will review his contractors to make
sure they are capable of doing the work, he said. McKee has to
submit a quality assurance plan, which ensures that all samplings
are done correctly. He also has to have a health and safety plan
for his workers.

What to do before the clean-up starts?

Some residents were concerned that the air could be contaminated
with the fire's remains. The EPA has set up nine air-monitoring
stations, which detect asbestos fibers in the air. In their first
day of testing, they found no airborne particles. They will
continue monitoring.

Frey said that he worked at numerous disaster sites -- from the
Joplin, Mo. tornado to hurricanes.

"There's only been one time out of thousands of air samples that
we've ever found an asbestos fiber," Frey said. "This could prove
me wrong, but right now I feel pretty good about what's going on
out there."

Thomas Zink, senior medical advisor to the health department and
the mayor, said that the EPA's preliminary results should give the
people some "peace of mind."

"The chances of you having any exposure of any significance, in my
medial opinion, is negligible," Zink said.

Zink said the most important thing is not to touch the debris.

"If you have a bunch of this debris and it's in your backyard, and
you want your kids and dogs to go outside, we'll put you at the
top of the list for clean up," Zink said. "But don't clean it up
yourself. Leave it alone."

Bryan said that if residents have already used a vacuum or broom
to clear out the dust inside, then they should put the broom and
the vacuum filter in a bag and seal it. The clean-up crew will
dispose of them.

If there is dust inside the house, Bryan said the easiest way to
get rid of it is with a damp paper towel. The towels should again
be put it in a sealed bag.

One resident asked if mowing the lawn would stir stuff asbestos
and lead to long-term exposure. Frey said that if residents mowed,
they probably did break up those fibers that are in the grass.

"Whether they are going to jump out and get you, I can't tell you
that," Frey said. "So far the sampling has shown we haven't found
any fibers. Right now, we know that you are living your life and
we're not seeing anything at the moment."

Frey said the clean-up crew is going to pick up all the visible
asbestos, vacuum surfaces and wipe down things. Then when they
think that they have it clean, they're going to come in and do
activity based sampling.

"We're going to put people and workers in suits and make them and
run around and mow the grass with a filter attached to their
body," Frey said. "They are going to do things that mimic everyday
life. They are going to see if they find fibers. If they do, then
we know we still have an issue."

Apologies

Melba Moore, the head of the city's health department, addressed
one of the group's concerns about the department's initial
response. She heard that a resident called city health department
and the health official indicated that there was "nothing that we
could do."

"That was a miscommunication," she said. "I take personal
responsibility for that. I apologize for that. It shouldn't have
happened and it won't happen again."

She said that on July 12, one of their investigators went to the
site.

"That person reported to his manager and said, 'We've got to do
something about this,'" Moore said. "The manager immediately
reached out partners at the state and EPA. In the absence of
technical assistance and expertise and resources, that's what we
do."

At the meeting, the health department was handing out surveys to
residents. Moore said they will soon have a number listed on their
website where residents can call with questions.

"We are not leaving, and we are going to continue to work with the
EPA," Moore said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsfield Man Fined for Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Andy McKeever, writing for iBerkshires.com, reported that the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has fined a
city man for illegally removing asbestos from a home on Circular
Avenue.

The DEP fined Robert Clum $27,100 for removing the material from
65 Circular Avenue in August of last year. The work, removing and
disposing of asbestos pipe insulation, potentially exposed the
residents to asbestos fibers, DEP says. Clum does not have a
contractor's license to the work nor did he notify the state
regarding it.

DEP says Clum was hired by the homeowner to remove the insulation
from the basement of the two-family home. He did the work without
techniques to prevent the air-borne release of asbestos, DEP said.
Following the work, a proper abatement was done by a licensed
contractor with DEP's oversight.

"In this case, an elderly resident was clearly taken advantage of
by an individual unqualified to remove asbestos material," said
Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield.

"It is essential that asbestos abatement be performed by a
licensed contractor to ensure that there is no risk to human
health and safety or the environment."

Property owners and contractors are asked to contact DEP with any
questions about the materials, notification requirements, proper
removal, handling, packaging, storage, and disposal procedures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-related Tumor Treatment Misses Key Goal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that Germany's Bayer said a cancer treatment for
patients with a type of tumor often caused by asbestos had failed
to meet its main goal in a clinical trial.

The compound, known as anetumab ravtansine, "did not meet its
primary endpoint of progression-free survival" for patients with
mesothelioma, Bayer said, adding it was disappointed by the
results.

"Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a very difficult-to-treat
tumor, and we had hoped for a better outcome for patients," said
Robert LaCaze, executive vice president and head of the oncology
strategic business unit at Bayer.

He said Bayer would continue to study the usefulness and safety of
the compound for other tumor types.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Health Risk Despite Asbestos Tests
------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rabbitts, writing for Limerick Leader, reported that Limerick
City and County Council has moved to reassure fears after it
engaged specialists to carry out asbestos testing on houses in
Moyross.

The local authority has engaged industry experts to carry out
surveys on some 30 homes in College Avenue in the estate, ahead of
upgrades to some of its housing stock.

It comes after Councillor James Collins raised concerns about
tests of the material in Moyross -- and claimed residents were not
made aware they had asbestos in their homes.

"If asbestos is disturbed, it is highly dangerous to human health.
Has the Health and Safety authority been informed," he asked.

He also questioned how long the local authority had been aware of
asbestos in some homes in the estate, and why local residents were
not told.

"Why were the residents not informed? The occupants of the houses
were not warned by the local authority they were living with
asbestos, and were unaware that this dangerous material was in
their homes," he said.

"The local authority is planning the removal of the asbestos in
the coming weeks. Disturbing asbestos can lead to increased
contamination and poses further risks to human health. The removal
process must be carefully managed."

In response, a council spokesperson reassured householders there
"the risk to public health is minimal provided that the works are
carried out to appropriate standards and overseen by specialist
asbestos contractors".

They added if the current tests show no issues arise from the
testing, the council will carry out further works to remove the
last remaining asbestos which is common in houses built prior to
the year 2000.

"A specialist asbestos survey carried out in 2016 confirmed, as
anticipated, the presence of asbestos in the homes, with a
recommendation that any potential risk material should be removed
or managed when refurbishment works are being carried out," the
spokesperson stated.

The local authority added: "Householders are being engaged with
prior to any works on their homes and we will continue to keep
residents advised as to the contracts progress."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Limits Take-Home Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa R. Badgett, Esq., at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, in an
article for Lexology.com, reported that a California appellate
court has sided with the defendants in an alleged take-home
asbestos exposure case. Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (July 5,
2017, B245027) -- Cal.App.5th -- presents many strong arguments
for defendants, including what is required to show that an
asbestos product was a substantial factor in causing asbestos
disease.

Plaintiffs Joseph and Marline Petitpas alleged that Joseph
Petitpas' work at a gas station owned by Exxon and at various
construction sites brought home asbestos which injured Ms.
Petitpas.

I. Take Home Exposures -- Duty Not Extended

While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court issued
its opinion in Kesner v. Sup. Ct. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132. Kesner
allowed take home cases to be brought in California. However, it
limited those cases to household members, reasoning that "persons
who live with the worker and are thus foreseeably in close and
sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of
time" are protected. (Id. at 1154-1155.) In Kesner, the injured
person was the nephew of a worker who lived for periods of time
with his uncle, who manufactured brake linings. In Petipas,
Plaintiffs conceded that the parties did not live together when
Mr. Petitpas worked at the Exxon station (they were married
later). The court in Petipas declined Plaintiffs' invitation to
extend the duty in take home cases to non-household members.
"Inviting a trial to determine whether a non-household member's
contact with the employee was 'similar to the status of a
household member' appears to be exactly what the Supreme Court was
attempting to avoid with this bright-line rule."

II. Substantial Factor -- Probable vs. Possible

To meet their burden in an asbestos case, plaintiffs must show
that there is exposure to a defendant's product that was "in
reasonable medical probability" a substantial factor in bringing
about the injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16
Cal.4th 953, 982.) Many factors are considered to determine if the
exposures are substantial factors, including frequency, proximity
and duration of the exposures. The evidence in this case merely
suggested it was possible that Mr. Petitpas brought asbestos dust
home on his clothing from his inspection of construction jobs. He
only did this for an hour a day and returned to his office for the
remainder. Neither Plaintiff testified that Ms. Petitpas shook out
his clothes when washing them. Further, it was merely possible she
was exposed when visiting the construction sites, because there
was no active construction occurring and there was no visible
dust. Mere presence of asbestos at a site was simply not
sufficient to show that asbestos-containing products used at these
sites was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Petitpas'
mesothelioma.

III. Replacement Parts Doctrine -- Applies to Defect as Well as
Failure to Warn Claims

Ford submitted a jury instruction which stated that it was not
liable for exposure to replacement brakes, clutches and gaskets on
Ford vehicles that were manufactured by parties other than Ford.
This instruction was based upon O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53
Cal.4th 335. The O'Neil decision established that a product
manufacturer cannot be held liable in strict liability or
negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer's product
"unless the defendant's own product contributed substantially to
the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating
a harmful combined use of the products." Plaintiffs objected that
O'Neil only applied to failure to warn cases, and that Ford's
design was defective because "it is a Ford design that called for
the installation and inclusion of asbestos-containing brake
products, whether or not they were made by Ford or anyone else."
The court rejected Plaintiffs' argument because they did not
present any evidence that the Ford cars were unable to use non-
asbestos parts or were somehow incompatible with non-asbestos
parts.

IV. Jury Instructions in Asbestos Cases

Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court committed error by
allowing jury instructions CACI Nos. 430 and 435 to be read to the
jury. Both of these instructions give the jury direction on what a
"substantial factor" is under California law. CACI No. 430, the
generally applicable instruction, defines "substantial factor" as
a factor that "contributed to the harm." This Use Notes for this
instruction state that it should not be read in asbestos related
cancer cases. However, Exxon argued that CACI No. 430 was
applicable to it because it was a premises liability defendant,
not a product manufacturer or supplier. CACI No. 435 is the
instruction for asbestos cancer cases.

CACI No. 435, applicable in asbestos cases only, defines
"substantial factor" as one that "contributed to the risk," not
just the harm. Plaintiffs argued that using CACI No. 430 confused
the jury and imposed a greater burden on them.

The court allowed both instructions to be read. "That the Use
Notes caution against giving the more general CACI No. 430 in a
mesothelioma case, when the more specific instruction CACI No. 435
is more applicable, does not support a conclusion that it was
error to give both instructions. CACI No. 430 is a correct
statement of the law relating to substantial factor causation,
even though, as Rutherford noted, more specific instructions also
must be given in a mesothelioma case."

V. No Studies Show Take-Home Hazards from Brake Repair

The jury found that Exxon did not know, and should not have
reasonably known, that Mr. Petitpas' work at the gas station put
Ms. Petitpas at unreasonable risk.

Plaintiffs argued that because the management at Exxon refineries
knew about the hazards of asbestos, their agents at service
stations also knew. The court did not agree with this argument.
Since the jury only heard evidence that conditions at other
locations posed a risk to other classes of employees (which Exxon
knew about), the jury properly found that Exxon did not know about
the risks at its service stations.

The Petitpas court went so far as to suggest that had the jury
found otherwise, it would have to be reversed. Dr. Castleman
admitted that there were no studies "of any statistical
power . . . that speak of the mesothelioma risk of mechanics that
do brake repair work" and that no such studies exist today.
Plaintiff's expert Dr. Horn also conceded this fact. Therefore,
the court reasoned, "There was no evidence linking asbestos
exposure to occasional bystanders who were near automotive workers
as they did brake work." The court's conclusion in Petitpas can
and should be used as an argument in all brake take-home repair
cases.

This decision bodes well for defendants challenging plaintiffs'
often broad and sweeping allegations in asbestos cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amcor Sues Ramsay as Asbestos Dispute Escalates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Kitney, writing for The Australian, reported that a legal
battle involving Amcor that is threatening development of one of
Melbourne's largest urban infill projects has taken a new twist,
with the packaging giant taking legal action against its original
environmental consultant on the site after asbestos was found in
the soil.

The 16.5ha site beside the Yarra River at Alphington, in
Melbourne's inner north, was once the site of an Amcor paper mill,
but is now being transformed by developer Genvill Homes into a $2
billion housing development set to be the city's first Tesla-
powered housing estate.

The decade-long development is the biggest ever undertaken by
Glenvill.

While Amcor left the site in 2012, Glenvill has launched legal
action against the former owner over an alleged $8.5 million in
outstanding payments and interest for remediation on the site. It
has also asked Amcor to accept responsibility for all further
remediation costs, which could be as high as $25m.

Now it has emerged that Amcor is suing its original environmental
consultant on the site, Ramsay & Associates, which undertook a
detailed site investigation and made a report on contamination
that was relied on by Amcor and the site's buyers, Glenvill and
its development partner Alpha Partners.

Glenvill and Alpha paid $120m for the land in 2013, with the
former contributing $90m to the purchase price. But subsequent
work by GHD Australia in 2015 during demolition works at the site
found asbestos that was not identified in the initial Ramsay
report. In its statement of claim filed with the Victorian Supreme
Court, Amcor claims Ramsay made negligent misrepresentations,
breached its duty of care and breached contractual terms in
connection with its engagement by Amcor to conduct an
environmental assessment of the site and provide estimates of the
cost of remediating it.

The packaging giant is seeking damages in excess of the initial
Ramsay cost estimate of $7.33m. But in its defence, Ramsay claims
the contractual time limit for Amcor to make a claim expired in
June last year and says the report was only prepared for Amcor to
rely on, and not Glenvill and Alpha, unless Ramsay provided
consent.

It alleges that the GHD cost estimate was based on new and updated
material, including an amended remediation approach and a
"changed" development plan for the site. Ramsay also says its
initial report did not include investigation of certain areas of
the site due to "access constraints, safety concerns, and on
instructions from Amcor Australasia".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 50+ Borders Schools
------------------------------------------------------
David Knox, writing for Peebles Shire News, reported that highly
hazardous asbestos can be found in more than 50 Borders schools,
according to new figures.

The once popular building material, which can cause lethal lung
diseases, was outlawed during the 1980s and 1990s in the UK.

But it remains prominent in many old buildings.

Health professionals believe asbestos only becomes harmful if it
is damaged and releases fibres into the air.

Although asbestos can still be found in six secondary schools --
Galashiels Academy, Selkirk High, Peebles High, Hawick High,
Jedburgh Grammar and the old Kelso High -- and a total of 49
primaries, authorities have no large scale plans for removal.

A Scottish Borders Council spokesperson said: "As per Health and
Safety Executive recommendations, asbestos should not be removed
unless it is in poor condition or likely to be disturbed due to
works.

"As a result, SBC follows this recommendation with regards to the
removal of asbestos."

Of Borders schools which are found to have the banned building
material, more than half (51 per cent) contain the most hazardous
brown asbestos, amosite, and 11 per cent contain blue asbestos,
crocidolite.

Both crocidolite and amosite were banned from the UK in 1985 with
the more common, and less harmful, chrystolite also being banned
in 1999.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Doesn't Expand Liability
---------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
California appeals court has declined to expand asbestos liability
in take-home exposure lawsuit.

The July 5 decision upheld a previous decision in the case of
Joseph Pepitas v. Ford.

Peptitas and his wife, Marline, sued the car company -- along with
Exxon Mobil Corp., Rossmoor Corp. and others -- claiming that
Marline's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos.

Joseph Peptitas worked on premises that were owned by the
defendant, and Marline Peptitas alleged she was exposed to
asbestos when she visited him at work and through fibers that were
on his clothing. He has also filed a claim of loss of consortium.

A summary adjudication narrowed down the case just to Exxon and
Ford, and a jury decided in favor of Exxon and Ford. It also
granted a nonsuit for Rossmoor.

However, in his appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lower court
erred by granting an adjudication in Exxon's favor and by granting
a nonsuit to Rossmoor. He claimed the jury was not properly
explained design defects involving Ford, and he claimed the jury's
decision was not supported by the evidence.

However, the appeals court upheld the decision, something one top
lawyer said adhered to California Supreme Court precedent.

"The holding suggests that the 2nd District Court of Appeal is
adhering to recent California Supreme Court precedent rather than
looking for opportunities to incrementally expand asbestos
liability for so-called take-home exposure claims or by chipping
away at the 'O'Neil doctrine' in broad terms," Shook Hardy & Bacon
attorney Mark Behrens told Legal Newsline in an email.

One of those precedents was set in Kesner v. Superior Court
(2016), according to Behrens.

The ruling "held that an employer may be subject to liability in
some circumstances for asbestos claims brought by family members
exposed to asbestos in the home through contact with an
occupationally exposed worker," he explained.

"The court of appeal chose not to expand Kesner to accommodate the
plaintiff's claim," Behrens said. Instead, the court of appeal
said that her claim "appears to be exactly what the [California]
Supreme Court was attempting to avoid with [its] bright-line
rule."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Clacton Widow Fights for Asbestos Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gazette News reported that a widow is fighting for compensation
after her husband died from an asbestos-related disease.

Barry Sayer worked as a carpenter and lived in Little Clacton all
his life.  He was diagnosed in February last year with
mesothelioma and died six months later, aged 76.

Widow Brenda believes Barry was exposed to asbestos when he was
contracted to the building firms Shairwoods and Galliford Sears
during the late 1970s and 1980s. She says her husband would come
home from work covered in dust, which she now assumes was
asbestos.

People exposed to asbestos can go on to suffer from
mesothelioma -- a deadly cancer which can take 30 years to
develop. The vicious disease is almost always fatal.  People who
contract mesothelioma at work are usually entitled to
compensation.

Brenda, who ran the village greengrocers for more than 13 years,
now hopes colleagues who worked with Barry can shed light on
conditions at building sites run by the two companies.

Brenda believes her husband was probably cutting asbestos sheeting
as part of building work, including converting warehouses into
shops and lining fire tunnels with asbestos at a site in West
Horndon.

The couple had met in their teens, but split when Brenda went to
work in a London tax office.  They rekindled their romance when
Brenda moved back to Little Clacton in her early 20s.  They soon
married and had four children, including twins, living in the
village their whole married life.

Barry was forced to retire in his early 50s after an accident, but
became a keen gardener.  Brenda said he grew "just about
everything".

"When he was too sick to get upstairs, we made him a bedroom
downstairs," she said.  "Luckily, he couldn't see the garden from
there because it would have broken his heart watching something he
loved fall into disrepair and become overgrown."

Lawyers at Fieldfisher are representing Brenda.

They are asking anyone who worked with Barry and has information
to email Shaheen.mosquera@fieldfisher.com or call her on 0207 861
4393.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Old Bingo Hall a Public Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Sexton, writing for Echo News, reported that discarded
asbestos from the roof of a former bingo hall is putting lives at
risk, a builder claims.

Construction manager Dal Herbert, 35, of Parr Court, Pitsea, was
on his way to the shops when he spotted the hazardous substance at
the side of old Gala Bingo, in High Road, Pitsea.

He told the Echo developers appear to have pulled down the ceiling
of the building in a bid to save it from falling -- unaware that
their actions were exposing residents to the dangerous asbestos.
It has since emerged Basildon Council ordered the removal of the
suspended ceiling.

Mr. Herbert claims he has contacted the authority three times
since his worrying discovery three-and-a-half-weeks ago.

He said: "Someone had pulled down the ceiling of the building,
obviously trying to make it safer, but not knowing asbestos was
there.

"I alerted environmental health at Basildon Council three times,
but I was told it wasn't their problem as it's a private
property."

He is especially concerned for the health of passengers using a
bus stop in front of the building.

Mr. Herbert, who has worked with asbestos for 16 years, warned it
spreads easily in the hot weather. He said: "There's hundreds of
people using that bus stop and everyone is oblivious. It's very
dangerous.

"Asbestos causes lung cancer and the symptoms don't show for 20 to
30 years. You breath in the fibres and they hook into your lungs."

Gala Bingo closed in 2009. The building was later put on the
market but it is not known who the current owner is.

Hiren Dave, 36, owner of Shiv Food and Wine, on Pitsea Broadway,
said: "Dal has warned me about it. He told me to make sure I tell
people -- especially old people because they always use the bus
stop.

"If nothing is done it'll be like the Grenfell Tower fire and too
late to do anything."

Basildon Council confirmed it had called for the ceiling to be
removed.

A spokesman said: "Basildon Council's building control team asked
the property owner to remove a suspended ceiling to make it safe
because it was in a dangerous state.

"It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure the
building is safe and any debris is disposed of responsibly."

The spokesman was unable to reveal the identity of the current
owner.

The Health and Safety Executive told the Echo it has not received
reports about the asbestos discovery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case Mngt Rules Delayed by Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that
implementation of the vast majority of provisions in a new case
management order for the New York City Asbestos Litigation docket
have been stayed pending a review by a Manhattan appeals court.

The rules were set to take effect Thursday. But in a handwritten
order issued on Wednesday, Appellate Division, First Department,
Justice Ellen Gesmer left intact one provision of the new order
that has been met with vehement opposition from the asbestos
defense bar: Plaintiffs will still be able to assert punitive
damages.

A stay on the remaining provisions, which includes a cap on the
number of cases that can be consolidated, remains in effect until
a First Department panel can rule on an extension of the stay,
which may take several weeks.

Seth Dymond, a partner at Belluck & Fox who appeared for the
asbestos plaintiffs bar in the matter, said Gesmer's ruling
preserves the right of plaintiffs to move forward with punitive
claims. "I think it is definitely a favorable decision to the
plaintiffs in this scenario," he said.

David Keyko, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and one
of the attorneys appearing for the defense bar in the matter,
declined to comment.

Punitive damages have been out of plaintiffs' reach since 1996,
when then-Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman
indefinitely deferred all punitive claims.

But in 2014, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein Heitler
found that punitive claims could be sought; the First Department
affirmed Heitler but stayed the reintroduction of punitive claims
to the asbestos docket until a new case management order could be
issued.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton did just that in
June, before stepping down as coordinating judge of the asbestos
docket and beginning his new job as a First Department justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Oxford Bldg Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that an Oxford University building where
asbestos was discovered is to be demolished and replaced.

The Tinbergen Building, which houses the departments of zoology
and experimental psychology, was closed in February.

More than 1,600 staff and students were forced to move, though the
asbestos was not in "accessible" areas.

A university steering committee unanimously recommended the
building be pulled down.

A spokesman said it was a "challenging time" and the university
was not yet in a position to say when demolition would take place,
how much it would cost, or what architects would be employed to
design its replacement.

Planning permission has already been granted by Oxford City
Council for temporary buildings on the Radcliffe Observatory
Quarter and University Club sports field.

Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause illnesses
including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Clemens Mansion Debris
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPLR11.com reported that EPA investigators have found asbestos in
some of the samples taken from debris near the site of last week's
Clemens Mansion house fire in north St. Louis.

A city spokesperson says the EPA and city health department will
conduct a health impact assessment that includes air monitoring.
The monitoring will determine if the asbestos is airborne.

The EPA doesn't want residents to disturb the fire debris until
health officials can do more tests and determine the best way
clean up the area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Talc Case Could Set Pattern of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported that
the high-profile litigation in Missouri over talcum powder might
be beginning to cool down, thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision, but a talc-related litigation in Pennsylvania is
beginning to heat up, and may set a pattern for a growing area for
tort claims.

The case is captioned Brandt v. Bon-Ton Stores, and, although the
claims stem from plaintiff Sally Brandt's use of a talcum powder
cosmetic product, the case is being handled in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas' asbestos program. That's because Brandt
claimed she developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos alleged
to have been contained in the Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder she
and her family used between 1954 and 1970.

The parties recently fought over some of the science behind their
claims in a Frye hearing, and the case is set to be tried before a
jury next month. According to asbestos attorneys, the case
presents the first instance where a Pennsylvania court will be
able to weigh into substantive scientific issues involving an
emerging area of asbestos litigation.

With a string of high-profile verdicts against Johnson & Johnson
ranging from $55 million to $110 million, talc-related litigation
has been grabbing headlines for more than a year, but Brandt's
suit is very different.

The high-profile talc claims against J&J mostly deal with ovarian
cancer, and more than 1,300 cases have been brought in Missouri
state court. An additional 426 cases are pending in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. Although jury selection has just begun in
a Los Angeles courtroom for the first talc product trial outside
Missouri, J&J is also using the recent Supreme Court decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court to dismiss 1,365 cases from
the Missouri docket.

Brandt's claims are more easily classified as asbestos litigation,
and the primary defendants in talc-related asbestos cases include
Colgate-Palmolive, who sold the product, and Whittaker, Clark &
Daniels, which distributed it. Although the suits have not been as
eye-catching as the verdicts against J&J, over the past few years,
plaintiffs with talc-related mesothelioma claims have won
significant verdicts.

In 2013, a New Jersey jury awarded a $1.6 million verdict over
asbestos-related talc claims. That number was shattered with the
reportedly record-setting $18 million verdict a Los Angeles jury
awarded in October, and, most recently, a New York jury hit
defendants with a $16.5 million verdict.

According to Rawle & Henderson attorney John C. McMeekin II, who
is representing Imerys Talc America in Brandt, there are a handful
of cases in Pennsylvania -- primarily in Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh -- claiming talc led to mesothelioma.

"It's not a one-off case," McMeekin said, adding that Brandt is
set to be the first talc-related asbestos case to hit the trial
phase in Pennsylvania. "That's really why Brandt is an important
case, and why the court granted a Frye hearing."

Nass Cancelliere Brenner attorney Edward Nass, who represents
plaintiffs in mesothelioma cases, but is not involved in Brandt,
agreed the case is likely the first to be pursued in Pennsylvania
over exclusively talc-related asbestos claims. However, Nass said
that, given information uncovered about talc over past five to 10
years, attorneys who represent clients with mesothelioma are
increasingly curious about talc.

"When our firm is interviewing a mesothelioma victim, we're asking
about traditional asbestos exposure, and we're also asking about
talc exposure, because we now know it's another potential source
for the client's illness," Nass said. "It's a much more germane
issue, and I think most, if not all, experienced asbestos
attorneys are looking at talc as another source for the person's
mesothelioma."

Parties in Brandt have raised numerous issues for the Philadelphia
court to examine under the Frye test. A four-day Frye hearing was
held beginning July 10. According to McMeekin, chief among the
issues raised by defendants are the methodologies used by
plaintiffs' pathology expert, Dr. Ronald Gordon, and plaintiffs'
geology and microscopy expert, Sean Fitzgerald.

Court papers show a defense argument that Cashmere Bouquet had not
been designed with asbestos as an ingredient, but rather asbestos
may have been introduced at the manufacturing stage. It follows
that it would be a leap, the argument continues, for experts to
say Brandt had been exposed to asbestos without first testing the
specific containers holding the product she actually used. There
is also argument that the tested samples cannot be properly
authenticated, since many were bought over the internet from
websites, including the online auction house eBay.

According to a filing by Palmolive's counsel, Kent & McBride
attorney Theresa Mullaney, courts in New Jersey and California
have precluded testimony regarding the samples, and a court in
Baltimore recently determined there was no basis to authenticate
the samples tested by Gordon and Fitzgerald.

McMeekin said these issues could be a significant factor in the
growing litigation.

"These are experts and methodologies that are being challenged
around the country," he said. "It's novel science and a novel
theory."

Nass, however, disagreed that an unfavorable Frye ruling in Brandt
will stop similar cases from being brought in Pennsylvania.

"It's certainly significant for the Brandt case," he said. "The
thing about a Frye hearing is it involves just an examination of
the particular experts who made an opinion in that case . . . to
me that doesn't set a whole lot of precedent for other cases."

Mullaney did not return a call seeking comment. Hoagland, Longo
Moran, Dunst & Doukas attorney Steven Bardsley, who is
representing Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, did not return a call for
comment. Waters Kraus & Paul attorneys Gibbs Henderson, Jonathan
George and Patrick Wigle are representing the Brandts. Wigle
declined to comment on pending litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Throws Out Bid to Dismiss "Howell"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, issued an Opinion
which affirmed the Order of the trial court denying Defendants
Consolidated Rail Corporation, et al.'s Motion for Administrative
Dismissal of the case captioned KEVIN E. HOWELL, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants-
Appellants, No.104554(Ohio App.).

Defendant-appellants, Consolidated Rail Corporation, America
Premier Underwriters, Inc., and its predecessors in interest
and/or liability, and CSX Transportation, Inc., appeal the trial
court's denial of their motion for administrative dismissal of the
complaint of plaintiff-appellee Kevin E. Howell for failure to
meet the prima facie requirements of the Ohio Asbestos Reform Act,
promulgated under H.B. 292 and codified at R.C. 2307.91 through
2307.98 for a smoker raising an asbestos-related lung cancer
claim.

Howell was employed by Consolidated in 1975, in the railroad
signal maintenance department repairing and maintaining railroad
signals and signal houses located on railroad tracks throughout
Northern and Central Ohio.  Signals often contained asbestos
boards, and Howell's duties included handling and drilling holes
in the boards, creating asbestos dust. Howell had also been a
heavy smoker for approximately 45 years.

Howell retired in 2013, after 38 years of employment.  He was
diagnosed with lung cancer and lung disease in April 2015.  On
June 4, 2015, Howell filed suit against appellants, alleging that
his condition is due to his exposure to asbestos, asbestos dust,
and toxic dusts and fumes (silica and diesel) during his
employment.

Appellants present two assignments of error:

   I. Howell has not made a prima facie showing of substantial
occupational exposure to asbestos.

   II. FELA does not excuse Howell from making the prima facie
showings required by H.B. 292.

The Ohio App. held that while R.C. 2307.91(FF)(1) and (2) requires
the establishment of causation by a competent medical authority,
the statute does not require that all evidence the court may deem
relevant under R.C. 2307.92(C)(1)(b)-(c) be issued by a competent
medical authority.

Appellants argue that the affidavits of Howell and two coworkers
describing the circumstances of exposure to asbestos during
employment are insufficient to support the presence of asbestos
under the statute.  The Ohio App. held that it has previously
recognized the efficacy of such evidence.

The Ohio App. reiterates that a smoker/asbestos claimant must
navigate the Ohio Act's procedural gauntlet to access substantive
FELA recovery.  FELA is an act that is to be construed broadly,
the scope of which "is not to be narrowed by refined reasoning or
for the sake of giving 'negligence' a technically restricted
meaning."  Liberal construction is required to permit the purposes
for which FELA was enacted to be fulfilled.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeal's July 20, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/VzbRFe from Leagle.com.

Kevin C. Alexandersen -- kalexander@gallaghersharp.com -- Thomas
E. Dover -- tdover@gallagersharp.com -- Holly Olarczuk-Smith --
olarczuk-smith@gallaghersharp.com -- Gallagher Sharp, Dan
Himmelfarb -- dhimmelfarb@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown L.L.P.,
Attorneys for Appellants, for Consolidated Rail Corporation.

Daniel L. Jones -- Djones@BlankRome.com -- Thomas H. Stewart --
Stewart@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome, L.L.P., 1700 PNC Center, 201
East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Attorneys for
Appellants, American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

Christopher M. Murphy, Colleen M. Blinkoff, Michael Torcello,
Doran & Murphy, 1234 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14209,
Kevin E. McDermott, 20525 Center Ridge Road, Suite 200, Rocky
River, Ohio 44116, Attorneys for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Determine Sufficiency of Responses Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued an Order denying the motion to determine the sufficiency of
the defendants' responses to requests in the case captioned, CITY
OF HARTFORD AND HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA INC. and PHARMACIA CORPORATION,
Defendants. Case No. 3:15cv1544(RNC)(D. Conn.); however, the Order
of denial to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide
Factual Basis for Request is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeal's July 20, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/JdvFXx from Leagle.com.

City of Hartford, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia D. Butler,
Baron & Budd, P.C., P. O. Box 40895, Austin, Texas 78704, United
States, Phone: 512-895-9552

City of Hartford, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Land, Baron &
Budd, P.C.,3102 Oak Lawn Avenue #100, Dallas, TX 75219 (214)521-
3605 pro hac vice, Carla Burke Pickrel, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro
hac vice, Cary McDougal, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice,
Mitchell E. McCrea, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, Scott Summy,
Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, Zachary Sandman, Baron & Budd,
P.C., pro hac vice, Alfredo Gabriel Fernandez, Shipman & Goodwin
LLP, Celeste Evangelisti, Baron & Budd, P.C., Howard G. Rifkin,
City of Hartford Corporation Counsel & Ross H. Garber --
rgarber@godwin.com -, Shipman & Goodwin.

Hartford Board of Education, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia D.
Butler, Baron & Budd, P.C., Brett Land, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro
hac vice, Cary McDougal, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice,
Mitchell E. McCrea, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, Scott Summy,
Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, Zachary Sandman, Baron & Budd,
P.C., pro hac vice, Alfredo Gabriel Fernandez, Shipman & Goodwin
LLP, Carla Burke Pickrel, Baron & Budd, P.C., Celeste Evangelisti,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Howard G. Rifkin, City of Hartford Corporation
Counsel & Ross H. Garber, Shipman & Goodwin

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Adam E. Miller --
miller@capessokol.com -- Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Brandon L. Arber -- arberb@whiteandwilliam.com --
White and Williams LLP, pro hac vice, David S. Haase --
haased@whiteandwilliam.com -, White & Williams LLP, pro hac vice,
Erik L. Hansell, Husch Blackwell, LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza,
Clayton, MO 63105, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Goutman --
goutmant@whiteandwilliams.com -, White & Williams LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Barton -- ecbarton@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney
LLP, Michael Thad Allen -- mallen@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP,
Michael L. Miller -- mlmiller@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP,
Paul D. Williams -- pdwilliams@daypitney.com, Day Pitney LLP &
Richard L. Campbell -- rcampbell@mkclaw.com -, Campbell, Campbell,
Edwards & Conroy, P.C.

Solutia Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam E. Miller, Capes,
Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C., pro hac vice, Brandon L. Arber,
White and Williams LLP, pro hac vice, Erik L. Hansell, Husch
Blackwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Goutman, White & Williams
LLP, pro hac vice, David S. Haase, White & Williams LLP, Elizabeth
C. Barton, Day Pitney LLP, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney LLP,
Michael L. Miller, Day Pitney LLP, Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney
LLP & Richard L. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy,
P.C..

Pharmacia Corp, Defendant, represented by Adam E. Miller, Capes,
Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C., pro hac vice, Brandon L. Arber,
White and Williams LLP, pro hac vice, David S. Haase, White &
Williams LLP, pro hac vice, Erik L. Hansell, Husch Blackwell, LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas M. Goutman, White & Williams LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Barton, Day Pitney LLP, Michael Thad Allen, Day
Pitney LLP, Michael L. Miller, Day Pitney LLP, Paul D. Williams,
Day Pitney LLP & Richard L. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards
& Conroy, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Blair" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware issued an Order granting
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned IN
RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JAMES BLAIR, as Administrator of the
Estate of WALTER H. GODFREY, JR., deceased, Plaintiff, v. CLEAVER-
BROOKS, INC. et al., Defendants. C.A. No. N14C-03-079 ASB (Del.
Super.) for failure of the expert report links Defendant's product
to the Plaintiff's injuries, nor does the doctor determine how the
latter came to this conclusion.

Plaintiff put forth evidence demonstrating that Cleaver-Brooks
sold boilers with asbestos containing products, and that Cleaver-
Brooks sold asbestos containing replacement parts; including
tadpole gaskets.

Accordingly, based on the case law of this State, Plaintiff's
expert report creates nothing more than a speculative nexus
between Mr. Godfrey's injuries and Defendant's product. Asbestos
is mentioned three times in the report. The third time asbestos is
mentioned in the report is in the doctor's conclusion that in his
opinion, and to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Mr.
Godfrey's exposure to asbestos was a substantial contributing
cause of his primary lung cancer. Nothing in the report links
Defendant's product to the Plaintiff's injuries, nor does the
doctor determine how he came to this conclusion.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court July 19, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/kI1PoP from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Issues Deposition Order in "Carroll"
---------------------------------------------------------
In PATRICIA CARROLL, individually and as personal representative
of THE ESTATE OF RONALD KENNETH CARROLL, deceased, Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant. No. 15-cv-373-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
issued an order on the parties' deposition designations, counter-
designations, and objections as to Robert Rygh.

The Court reminded the parties in the case that as a general note
applicable to all videotaped deposition excerpts that will be
played for the jury, the party offering the testimony will include
only specifically designated and approved questions and answers,
that party is responsible for removing all objections and any
other asides or discussions between counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court July 18, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/PE58I6 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, Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, PC 302 N. Market St., Suite 300, Dallas, TX 75202 &
Craig Ronald Steger, Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

Patricia L. Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Iola, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, Steven Scott Schulte, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger, Hale,
Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik. 505 King St., Suite 300 La Crosse,
Wisconsin 54601 608-519-4788788 Local

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin
-- dgriffin@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC &
Mark Ingram Tivin -- mark@otmblaw.com -- Tivin, Miller & Burns.
John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram
Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

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

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

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com --
von Briesen & Roper.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick --
mmccormick@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








                         *********


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  * * *