CAR_Public/170804.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, August 4, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 153



                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Braggs' Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
APOTEX CORP: 8 Selling Defendants Wins Partial Dismissal of Suit
ARIZONA: Inmates Harassed Over Testimony in Health-Care Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Ex-Agricultural Minister Misused Power, Case Claims
AUSTRALIA: Plaintiffs Detail Evidence in Cattle Ban Case Trial

BISCO INC: Baker & Hostetler Attorneys Discuss 7th Cir. Ruling
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Substance Use Coverage
CALHOUN, GA: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Walker" Suit
CALIFORNIA: Prisoner's 2nd Bid to Supplement Complaint Denied
CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. CHCS Transferred to Sacramento Division

CANADA: Natives Rejected From Band Enrolment Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Camera Program Deal in Taxpayer's Best Interest
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Action Suits Allege Brand Misled Public
CODE 42 SOFTWARE: Kissel Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
COLLECTO INC: Weissman Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA

COLT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action in Ontario
CONSUMERS SOLUTIONS: Ct. Junks Bid for Default Judgment in "Cain"
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Evidence Lacking in Customer's Receipt Suit
DELTA INT'L: Court Grants Black & Decker's MSJ in "Lopez"
DENTSPLY INT'L: Dentists, Periodontists Lose Certification Bid

DISCOVER BANK: Court Denies Law Firm's Bid to Strike
EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Urena's Bid to Certify Class Denied
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Class Settlement Sought in Jail Explosion
FACEBOOK INC: ECJ Hears Arguments on Privacy Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Irish Unit Rejects Schrems Data Privacy Claims

FAULKNER CTY, AR: Dayberry's Bid for Class Certification Denied
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Sent to Arbitration
FORD FUSION: Court Narrows Claims in Fuel Economy Litigation
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Hit With Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Tosses Deceptive Labeling Claim

GRAIN PROCESSING: 2018 Trial Set for Pollution Class Suit
GREAT AMERICAN: Goertzen Moves to Certify Classes of Purchasers
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Court Certifies Securities Class in LMPERS Suit
HAIR CLUB: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forney" Class Suit
HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Enjoin Stockholder Vote on Merger Denied

HOME DEPOT: 2d Cir. Ruling Has Implications on Class Counsel
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Technical FACTA Violation
HULCHER SERVICES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Stagner Suit
HYATT CORP: Guarisma's Redacted Bid to Certify Denied as Moot
IC SYSTEM: Olson Moves to Certify Class, Appoint Rep. and Counsel

ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in "Walsh" Has Prelim Approval
J.C. PENNEY: "Marcus" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Allows Scoma to Amend TCPA Suit
KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Denied in "Opperman" Suit
KROGER CO: Certification of FCRA Class Sought in "Reid" Suit

LA MERIDIONAL: One-Year Limitation Period Applied in Class Action
LEE COUNTY, FL: Bid for Certification in "Gittens" Denied
LEXMARK INT'L: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Mo. Court Narrows Claims in "Bond"
LIBERTY MUTUAL: J. Heckman Allowed to Intervene in "LaFollette"

LVNV FUNDING: Navarroli Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
MANPOWER INC: Court Approves $2.9MM "Mata" Class Settlement
MANPOWER INC: Court Approves $725,000 Attorney's Fees
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Arias' Bid to Certify Class
MDL 2361: Court Partly Grants Class Certification

MDL 2665: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of Classes
MDL 14-2551: NHL Denied Leave to File for Summary Judgment
MEDICREDIT INC: Court Allow Plaintiffs Substitution in "Aviles"
MICHIGAN: Judges Toss False Accusation Suit vs. UIA
MIDDLESEX CORP: Myrick Moves for Class Certification Under FCRA

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Denies Certification in "Hernandez"
MONSANTO: Cancer Survivor County Commissioner Joins Class Action
MONSANTO: New Suit Accuses Reps of Condoning Illegal Spraying
MONSANTO: Farmers' Estimates of Herbicide Damage Top 122K Acres
MSA SECURITY: Uses Dogs as Leverage, Handlers Claim

N.Y. LIFE INSURANCE: Class Action Waivers Are Unenforceable
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Drug Lawsuit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Struggle With Data Breaches
NEW YORK LIFE: Class Waiver Violates NLRA, Appellate Court Rules
NEWFOUNDLAND: Faces Child Abuse Class Action

OCULAR THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Bid Deadline
PHILADELPHIA: To End Use Of Forfeiture Funds For Law Enforcement
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Nazario Seeks to Certify Class of Citizens
PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Health Minister Calls for OxyContin Probe
PURDUE PHARMA: Could Face Potential Suit Over Opoiod Crisis

R.L. POLK: Del. Ch. narrows Defendants merger dispute
REACH AIR: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance
RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Class Action Over Move Free Products
ROTI RESTAURANTS: "Lindner" Remanded to Illinois State Court
RUBY CORP: Judge Approves $11.2MM Ashley Madison Settlement

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Lil' Man Suit
SEARS HOLDING: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
STATE FARM: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Durant" Suit
STATION CASINOS: "Coyne" Stayed Pending Decision in "Neville"
TEMPUR SEALY: Faces New Suit Over Mattress Firm Merger

TEXAS: Judge Orders Help for Inmates to Overcome Extreme Heat
TICKETMASTER: Releases List of Events for Ticket Fee Settlement
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: White Appeals Ruling in "Low" Suit to 9th Cir.
TWILIO INC: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action Suit
UBER: Discriminates Against Riders With Disabilities, Suit Says

UNITED STATES: DOJ Enjoined From Deporting Iraqis
VOLVO CARS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rear Camera Glitch Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Second Shareholder Class Action Can Proceed
WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies FCRA Class Action
WAYNE, MI: Appeals Ruling in Retirees' Class Suit

WELLS FARGO: Trainee Settlement Sheds Light on Rivals' Policies
XPO LOGISTICS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Quinlan" Suit
YAZAKI NORTH: Sutka Seeks to Certify Class of Resident Engineers
ZENCO COLLECTIONS: Benson's Cert. Bid Stricken; Hearing on Aug. 16
ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Suit Over Falsification of Profit Margins

* Congress Could Pass Resolution to Revoke CFPB Rule Within Weeks
* Consumer Advocates Back CFPB Gamble on Class-Action Suits
* Consumer Class Actions to be Introduced in Korea Next Year
* ESOP Class Action: An Existential Threat to the ESOP Community
* Irish Data Protection Bill Fails to Address Class Action Issue


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indonesia Asked to Ban Asbestos Use
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Battle Erupts Over Budd's Deposition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofing Co. Convicted for Poor Asbestos Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Some Capital Spaces
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Firms Settle Over Illegal Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Probes on Asbestos in Marco Polo Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvey Norman Issued Demand Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Asbestos Found in Cranleigh Water Pipe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Issue Worries Parents at Berg MS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nuke Worker Takes Valve Makers to Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mom Pulls Son Out of Daycare Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Crimes Continue to Expose Americans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, TMR at Odds Over Exposure Response
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Threatens Suit Over Asbestos in Hospital

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Ordered to Stop Operations After $1MM Fines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Brings GBP1.27MM Fines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonata Director Sued Over Asbestos Suit Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenock Pensioner Left in Dark Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Iowa Hotel Demolition Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ends Asbestos Claims Resolution Process
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas for Help After Asbestos Tragedy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Father Exposed to Asbestos by AERCO, Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Sydney Opera House Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Sentenced for Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Aurora Pump, et al. dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bedrossian Opinions Inadmissible in 2 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Writ of Habeas Corpus Inappropriate in "Stile"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D. Marano Banned from Testifying in "Arbogast"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Sue CTF for Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BW/IP Dismissed as Defendant in "McSwain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dismissed as Defendant in "McSwain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Dropped as Defendant in "McSwain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saberhagen Dismissed as Defendant in "Mikelsen"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring AAMC Reversed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Banned from Testifying in "Rockman"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM Enjoined from Suing Manville Trust



                            *********



ALABAMA: Braggs' Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Myron H. Thompson denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled EDWARD
BRAGGS, et al. v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.).

"In accordance with footnote 1 of the Phase 2A ADA final
settlement approval opinion (doc. no. 1311), it is ORDERED that
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (doc. nos. 665) is
denied as moot as to the plaintiffs' Phase 2A ADA claim," Judge
Thompson wrote.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0MjRzUee


APOTEX CORP: 8 Selling Defendants Wins Partial Dismissal of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PLUMBERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 690 HEALTH PLAN,
Plaintiff, v. APOTEX CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
16-665 (E.D. Pa.), the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part the motions to dismiss of the eight selling
Defendants who are not also registration defendants.

Plaintiff Plumbers Local Union No. 690 Health Plan brings this
putative class action against a multitude of Defendants alleging
claims under Pennsylvania state law for violations of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
negligent misrepresentation/fraud, unjust enrichment, civil
conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.

Fifteen Defendants (Jurisdiction Defendants) move to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Eleven of the Jurisdiction Defendants (Selling Defendants) concede
that they sell their generic prescription drugs in Pennsylvania.
Three of the eleven Selling Defendants (Registration Defendants)
also concede that they are foreign corporations registered to do
business in Pennsylvania.4 Four of the Jurisdictional Defendants
Non-Selling Defendants do not manufacture, market, distribute, or
sell any prescription drugs in Pennsylvania.

Jurisdiction Defendants are companies involved in the generic
prescription pharmaceutical drug business. Jurisdiction Defendants
are not incorporated in Pennsylvania and do not have their
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Plumbers resides in
Pennsylvania, maintains a principal place of business in
Pennsylvania, and has members who live in Pennsylvania.

Selling Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that manufacture
generic prescription drugs and sell their generic drugs in
Pennsylvania.

Non-Selling Defendants do not manufacture, market, distribute, or
sell any prescription drugs in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Non-
Selling Defendants are not registered to conduct business in
Pennsylvania.

Jurisdiction Defendants are not incorporated in Pennsylvania and
do not have their principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Plumbers contends that this Court has general jurisdiction over
Jurisdiction Defendants because of their continuous and systematic
contacts with Pennsylvania.

Because Jurisdiction Defendants are not incorporated in
Pennsylvania and do not have their principal place of business in
Pennsylvania, they are not at home in Pennsylvania. Accordingly,
this Court lacks general jurisdiction over Jurisdiction
Defendants.

Selling Defendants sold their generic drugs in Pennsylvania to
Plumbers' Members. If the purposeful availment and relatedness
requirements are met, then the final inquiry is whether the
exercise of jurisdiction comport[s] with 'fair play and
substantial justice.

While the absence of direct sales or shipments of goods into the
forum is not dispositive, the presence of direct shipments will
show the defendant's purposeful availment.

Here, Selling Defendants concede that they regularly sell their
generic drugs in Pennsylvania. Selling Defendants have
purposefully availed themselves of conducting activities in
Pennsylvania because they seek to serve the Pennsylvania market by
targeting Pennsylvania as a place to sell their drugs.

Selling Defendants' contacts with Pennsylvania meet the
relatedness requirement. Plumbers' claims all stem from the same
conduct of Jurisdiction Defendants -- the alleged intentional
misrepresentation of the AWPs for their generic drugs. Selling
Defendants were aware that third-party payors like Plumbers relied
upon AWPs to determine how much to reimburse and pay for a given
drug.

Because Plumbers has established that minimum contacts exist
between Pennsylvania and Selling Defendants, the exercise of
personal jurisdiction is presumptively constitutional, and Selling
Defendants must demonstrate a compelling reason that would "render
jurisdiction unreasonable. Selling Defendants have made no such
showing. Accordingly, the Court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Selling Defendants "comport[s] with 'fair play
and substantial justice.

The stream of commerce theory is based on the premise that
jurisdiction may be established over a defendant who places its
products into the stream of commence and those products ultimately
reach the forum state.

Plumbers fails to plead in the Amended Complaint that any of Non-
Selling Defendants' generic drugs were ever sold in Pennsylvania
and Non-Selling Defendants have made no concession regarding their
sales. There is no allegation or evidence that Non-Selling
Defendants' generic drugs entered Pennsylvania through the stream
of commerce or that Non-Selling Defendants took any act
purposefully directed toward Pennsylvania. Therefore, Plumbers
cannot successfully establish specific jurisdiction under the
stream of commerce theory.

Because there is no allegation or evidence that Non-Selling
Defendants' generic drugs were ever sold in Pennsylvania, they
have not engaged in any intentional conduct that creates the
necessary contacts with Pennsylvania. Furthermore, there is no
allegation or evidence that Non-Selling Defendants expressly aimed
their tortious conduct at Pennsylvania. Plumbers cannot
successfully establish specific jurisdiction under the stream of
commerce theory

Plumbers brings claims against Jurisdiction Defendants for
violations of the consumer protection laws of forty-eight
additional states and two territories. Plumbers asserts these
claims on behalf of putative class members. Plumbers does not
allege where the generic drugs involved in these claims were sold
or where they were purchased.

Selling Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of
conducting activities in Pennsylvania because they seek to serve
the Pennsylvania market by targeting Pennsylvania as a place to
sell their drugs.

Because specific personal jurisdiction is based on claims arising
out of a defendant's conduct within the forum state, this Court
has no jurisdiction over claims based on out-of-state consumer
fraud laws

Only Plumbers' Pennsylvania Claims arise out of or relate to
Selling Defendants' sales of generic drugs in Pennsylvania. The
Non-Pennsylvania Claims do not arise out of or relate to any of
Selling Defendants' conduct within the forum state. Accordingly,
the Court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over the Non-
Pennsylvania Claims brought against Jurisdiction Defendants.

Non-Selling Defendants have not purposefully directed their
activities at Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Court lacks specific
jurisdiction over all claims against Non-Selling Defendants,
including the Non-Pennsylvania Claims.

Plumbers also contends that Andrx Corporation consented to
personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania when it registered as a
foreign corporation in Pennsylvania. Andrx Corporation asserts
that it did not consent to personal jurisdiction because it did
not register as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania.

In Daimler, the Supreme Court held that, in order to comport with
due process, general jurisdiction is only proper in the forums
where a corporation is reasonably regarded as home -- the place of
incorporation and the principal place of business, or in the
"exceptional case" another forum where the corporation's
operations are "so substantial and of such a nature as to render
the corporation at home in that State.

Because the Supreme Court has not addressed the viability of
consent to jurisdiction post-Daimler, courts in this district have
continued to apply the precedent established by the Third Circuit
in Bane to hold that registration to do business in Pennsylvania
constitutes consent to jurisdiction.

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
we take the allegations of the complaint as true. But once a
defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, a plaintiff bears
the burden of proving by affidavits or other competent evidence
that jurisdiction is proper.

Plumbers provides neither an affidavit nor any other competent
evidence to refute that Andrx Corporation is now known as Andrx
LLC and that it is not registered to do business in Pennsylvania.
Therefore, Plumbers has not met its burden of demonstrating facts
that establish personal jurisdiction over Andrx Corporation based
on consent to jurisdiction.

The motions to dismiss on the Non-Pennsylvania Claims of the eight
Selling Defendants is granted.

The motions to dismiss on the Pennsylvania Claims of the eight
Selling Defendants is denied.

Registration Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is denied.

Non-Selling Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
is available http://tinyurl.com/y72lfay7from Leagle.com.

PLUMBERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 690 HEALTH PLAN, Plaintiff, represented
by DONALD E. HAVILAND, JR., 111 South Independance Mall E Suite
1000Philadelphia, PA 19106. HAVILAND HUGHES LLC.

PLUMBERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 690 HEALTH PLAN, Plaintiff, represented
by CHRISTINA MARIE PHILIPP, ., 111 South Independance Mall E Suite
1000Philadelphia, PA 19106, HAVILAND HUGHES, LLC, DION G. RASSIAS,
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC, JAY W. CHAMBERLIN, ., 111 South
Independance Mall E Suite 1000Philadelphia, PA 19106, HAVILAND
HUGHES, JILLIAN E. JOHNSTON, THE BEASLEY FIRM LLC & WILLIAM H.
PLATT, II, Haviland Hughes LLC., 111 South Independance Mall E
Suite 1000Philadelphia, PA 19106.

APOTEX CORP., Defendant, represented by JAMES W. MATTHEWS --
jmatthews@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, JOHN F. NAGLE --
jangle@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, KATY E. KOSKI --
kkoski@foley.com FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, ANN E. QUERNS --
Aquerns@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP & TERRY M. HENRY --
Thenry@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD., Defendant, represented by MELISSA
ERRINE BYROADE -- mbyroade@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP, PHILIP DAVID ROBBEN -- probben@kelleydrye.com -- KELLY DRYE &
WARREN LLP & BETH L. WEISSER  -- bweisser@foxrothschild.com -- FOX
ROTHSCHILD -- LLP.

FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES W.
MATTHEWS, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, KATY E. KOSKI, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,
JOHN F. NAGLE, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP & TERRY M. HENRY, BLANK ROME
LLP.

HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by D.
JARRETT ARP, --jarp@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
DANIEL E. RHYNHART -- rhynhart@Blank.Rome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP,
DAVID C. KISTLER -- Kistler@Blank.Rome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP,
MELANIE L. KATSUR -- mkatsur@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN
CRUTCHER LLP, MICHAEL A. IANNUCCI -- iannacci@Blank.Rome.com --
BLANK ROME LLP, SCOTT D. HAMMOND --shammond@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP & WILLIAM JEREMY ROBISON --
wrobison@gibsondunn.com  -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP.

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, represented by GRACIELA M.
RODRIGUEZ, -- gmrodriguez@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, NIKESH
JINDAL -- njindal@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, JOSEPH E.
WOLFSON -- jwo@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE & MARK C. FRANEK --
mcf@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE.

LANNETT COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL K.
TWERSKY, --mtwersky@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by
WILLIAM M. CONNOLLY -- william.connolly@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE
& REATH, LLP.

SANDOZ, INC., Defendant, represented by HEATHER K. MCDEVITT --
hmcdevitt@whitecase.com -- WHITE & CASE LLP, JOSEPH ANGLAND, 1155
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, USA,  WHITE & CASE
LLP, JOSHUA D. WEEDMAN, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10036, USA WHITE & CASE LLP, MICHAEL J. GALLAGHER, 1155 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10036, USA, WHITE & CASE LLP, ALEXANDER
D. MACMULLAN, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO, 190 North
Independence Mall West, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106, JOSEPH
E. O'NEIL, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO, 190 North Independence
Mall West, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106 & RICKY MARIO GUERRA,
LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO, 190 North Independence Mall West,
Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by
JAMES P. ELLISON -- jellison@hpm.com -- HYMAN PHELPS & MCNAMARA
PC, JENNIFER MCVEY THOMAS -- jthomas@hpm.com -- HYMAN PHELPS &
MCNAMARA PC & JOSEPH E. WOLFSON, -- jwo@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS
& LEE.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, represented by
JASON R. PARISH -- jason.parish@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON -- jwo@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE &
TIMOTHY J. GEVERD, -- timothy.geverd@morganlewis.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP.


ARIZONA: Inmates Harassed Over Testimony in Health-Care Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kiefer, writing for AZ Central, reports that attorneys for
inmates suing the Arizona prison system over their health care
allege in new court filings that certain prisoners have been
harassed by Arizona Department of Corrections officials for
testifying about deficiencies in their health care.

The documents were filed on July 20 in U.S. District Court in
Phoenix as part of a class-action lawsuit against the DOC.

Prisoners claim in the filing that their belongings were taken,
that they were threatened or that their cellmates were moved
because they testified on July 14 about ongoing failures by the
DOC to stay in compliance with court orders.

In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and the
Arizona Center for Disability Law filed a federal lawsuit on
behalf of 14 inmates in DOC prisons who are mentally or physically
disabled. The suit alleged that medical, dental and psychiatric
care in the prisons was grossly inadequate.

The case was designated a class-action suit over the protests of
the DOC. In 2014, without admitting wrongdoing or liability, the
Corrections Department entered into a settlement that set
parameters for medical care in Arizona prisons. The settlement
also paid $4.9 million in attorneys' fees and set aside up to
$250,000 a year for monitoring.

U.S. District Court Judge David Duncan signed off on the
settlement in February 2015.

But the attorneys representing the inmates maintain that the DOC
has consistently reported non-compliance incidents. And they have
consistently sought aid from the court.

"Over the course of two years, they have fallen off in a lot of
categories," said Corene Kendrick of the Berkeley, California-
based Prison Law Firm and a lead attorney in the case. "They have
reported woefully deficient numbers."

Last month, on June 14, 2017, Duncan, frustrated with the
continued deficiencies, ordered that "every single failure to
comply will result in an order to show cause as to why a $1,000.00
fine should not be imposed."

He further ordered the Corrections Department to report back in
one month as to the number of infractions.

On July 13, as preparation for a hearing on July 14, the
Corrections Department submitted its compliance report showing
"2,127 separate incidents of noncompliance," which could result in
$2.1 million in fines just between June 14 and July 11.

Among the compliance issues were more than 1,100 instances in
which inmate medications were not provided or transferred without
interruption, more than 700 instances in which diagnostic reports
were not reviewed within five days, and more than 130 times that
specialty consultation reports were not reviewed or acted on
within seven calendar days.

Four inmates were transported to court to testify at the July 14
hearing.

According to a notice filed on July 20 by the plaintiffs, two of
the prisoners who testified claimed they were retaliated against,
one by having a deputy warden confronting him in front of other
inmates and offering to move him to a cell closer to the medical
clinic that was not in compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

Another inmate claimed that her cellmate was moved and that she
was left alone in her cell at night, awakened more than once by
staff, worried that contraband will be planted in her cell and ".
. . .  concerned that she is being set up for injury by either
staff or another inmate when she is alone in her cell at night,
with no other witness to any physical or sexual assaults made
against her."

The filing notes that the Corrections Department dismissed the
allegations as being "without merit."

Corrections officials did not respond to an email from The Arizona
Republic requesting response.

Duncan held on July 21 afternoon telephonic hearing on the matter
that was attended by Corrections Director Charles Ryan.

The judge was described by Kendrick as "livid" about reports that
the prisoner witnesses may have been targeted for retaliation.

"He verbally ordered them to put everyone back to the status quo,"
she said. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Ex-Agricultural Minister Misused Power, Case Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Neales, writing for The Australian, reports that a group of
northern Australian cattle farmers are poised to test how far
government ministers can exercise their powers in a landmark legal
case beginning in the Federal Court on July 19.

The unprecedented "misfeasance" case is a class action by the
farmers -- headed by the isolated Brett Cattle Company -- against
former Labor agriculture minister Joe Ludwig.

Backed by the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund, the legal action
aims to prove Mr Ludwig abused and misused his powers when he
imposed a snap five-week ban on the live cattle export trade to
Indonesia in 2011.

The class action, to be heard in Sydney by judge Steven Rares,
alleges Mr Ludwig acted legally but improperly and without due
process when he imposed the ban, which disrupted the $1.4 billion
live-cattle export trade and left many northern cattle farmers
ruined and without income for two years.

It is the first time an Australian minister has been accused of
misfeasance, a civil charge which, if proven, would leave Mr
Ludwig liable to be sued for damages.  The case will be defended
by the Australian Government Solicitor acting for Mr Ludwig.

Misfeasance in public office is a legal term used to describe an
act that is legal but performed improperly, breaching a duty of
care and without due consideration of its wider consequences.

The cattlemen allege Mr Ludwig's sudden decision to ban all live
exports to Indonesia -- after public outrage at footage of cruelty
to Australian cattle in some Indonesian abattoirs was shown on ABC
TV -- caused them and the wider agricultural industry huge
financial and structural damage. They are seeking a finding of
misfeasance personally against Mr Ludwig as then agriculture
minister and, in a second part of the same civil case to be heard
before Justice Rares in December, more than $600 million in
compensation.

Tracey Hayes, chief executive of the Northern Territory
Cattlemen's Association, said the Gillard government's first,
temporary moratorium on live exports after the ABC Four Corners
footage was aired had been the correct action, allowing time for
conditions at all Indonesian abattoirs to be reviewed.

"But Joe Ludwig's sudden ban that shut the whole industry down at
a time when 700,000 cattle a year were going to Indonesia, 70 per
cent from the Northern Territory, and only a few abattoirs in the
Indonesian supply chain were suspect was outrageous," Ms Hayes
said.

"It was clearly a knee-jerk decision taken without due
consideration, due process or industry consultation, and with no
regard to its financial consequences and ramifications for
thousands of cattle families.

"It was a decision made not on animal-welfare grounds but purely
for political reasons because (the federal government) was a
minority government under pressure from key independents and
Greens who held the balance of power."

She said Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie, a strident
opponent of all live-animal exports, had played a key role in
forcing Mr Ludwig to act.

The National Farmers Federation, which administers the deep-
pocketed fighting fund, has spent more than $4m on the class-
action case since 2012. An NFF spokesman said all governments and
ministers must be held accountable for poor decision-making. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Plaintiffs Detail Evidence in Cattle Ban Case Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that
lawyers representing plaintiffs in the class action claim against
the Commonwealth government over the Indonesian live cattle ban
have pinpointed events that pressured the government into an
"extremely accelerated response" to animal welfare issues exposed
by the ABC Four Corners broadcast of May 31, 2011 in signing the
second control order that shut trade for up to six months, several
days later.

July 19 was the first day of the trial held in the Federal Court
in Sydney before Justice Rares, with the Brett Cattle Company of
the NT lead litigants in the claim that's seeking about $600
million in damages due to the sudden trade ban.

Justice Rares opened the formal proceedings, in the first stage of
proceedings that is scheduled to run to July 28, by informing
representatives of the two legal teams he'd likely to be standing
up, due to a spasming muscle in his back.

"So don't get put off, it's not about you -- when I want to
adjourn, I will let you know," he said.

The plaintiffs' Senior Counsel Noel Hutley went into detail about
the live export trade's historical background and value to
northern communities with figures from 2002.

But Justice Rares urged Mr Hutley to focus on the case's core
legal point of alleged malfeasance of public office by former
Labor Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig, who signed the second
control order.

"I'm just wondering why I need to have seven volumes of material,
which I'm being taken to, page after page, and then I've got to
sit down and write a judgment where I'm looking at this Minister's
state of mind when he's exercising a power," Justice Rares said.

Mr Hutley said "With respect your Honour, you're not going to be
taken to seven volumes worth of documents".

"There are seven volumes there," he said.

"A lot of them were not put in by us.

"I won't be taking you to anything like seven volumes."

Mr Hutley said an independent reviewer -- Bill Farmer -- was named
in the government's initial regulatory response, where cattle
trade was also suspended to abattoirs identified in the ABC
program, but he wasn't appointed until 13 June.

"He was tasked to examine the whole live animal export supply
chain from paddock to point of slaughter for all markets that
receive Australian livestock," he said.

"So, in other words, the independent examination never got going
prior to the second order.

"It was thus, we say, apparent both to the department and to the
Minister that they were proceeding on an incomplete understanding
of the way the industry operated in Indonesia.

"The department having, we say, a lesser understanding than the
Minister."

Mr Hutley outlined how the intense public and media pressure saw
the issue escalate to include the then Prime Minister Julia
Gillard's attention, due to ongoing revelations by trade critics
of boats still heading to Indonesia loaded with more Australian
cattle, following the ABC broadcast.

"The emergence of the distressing footage . . . provoked a wave of
political pressure from community, interest groups, independents,
the Greens, members of the Minister's own caucus," he said.

"The political pressure was such that the problem came to be
treated as a matter to be solved by the Prime Minister as much as
the Minister.

"Much of this political pressure came from groups with the avowed
agenda of shutting down the live cattle trade in toto.

"As the Minister well understood, they had an interest in treating
the footage in the Four Corners reports as if it were
representative of the entirety of Indonesia as a whole as a basis
for allowing a complete ban.

"Now, of course, there's nothing illegitimate about such political
approach and we don't, of course, criticise it.

"But the underlying political agenda was well understood by the
Minister."

Mr Hutley said the minister didn't share the view that the
industry should be shut down.

"He also had the benefit, we say, of much better information about
the reality of the trade in Indonesia," he said.

Mr Hutley said the RSPCA and Animals Australia wrote to the
Minister repeatedly calling for the complete shutdown of the
industry including on May 30 and again on June 6, "calling for an
urgent halt to the animal trade".

He said they were joined at that time by the Australian Meat
Industry Council and one of the "forces" driving the Council was
the "packaged trade" which they believed was affected by the live
trade's existence.

"So they joined the call," he said.

"A petition was compiled by the organisation GetUp! calling for an
immediate moratorium on live exports and a transition to no live
trade by 2015.

"And in that campaign, GetUp! was paying particular attention to
boats and upcoming departure of boats.

"The evidence will show -- is that this level of attention to day-
to-day information about individual boats leaving Australia was a
key factor in prompting an extremely accelerated response by the
government."

Pressure continued to escalate

Mr Hutley said Animals Australia also called on the Gillard
government to end live exports and he read out a statement
highlighting the ratchetting pressure coming from critics, in
evidence documented for the trial records.

It read, 'today more cattle are leaving Western Australia for
Indonesia.  The fourth shipment to leave Australia since these
atrocities were reported. Julia Gillard has the ultimate power to
stop these shipments and protect Australian animals being
brutalised in Indonesian slaughter houses.  These ads will run
every day until Australia takes appropriate action to safeguard
the welfare of Australian animals by immediately halting the trade
to Indonesia.  The Government's lack of action is unforgivable.
We have no choice but to make the Prime Minister publicly
accountable for the continuation of this trade and to appeal to
her to intervene to protect Australian animals'.

Mr Hutley said the Minister was regularly provided with references
to the extended press coverage of the live animal trade issue at
the time, via reports from a clipping service, and that advisers
from the Prime Minister's office had also conveyed their concerns
about adverse media, to the Minister's office.

He said political pressure also materialised from other sources,
at the time.

"Within the Minister's own party there was a private members
motion calling for live exports to be phased out," he said.

"In response to the Four Corners report, the Independents, Mr
Xenophon and Mr Wilkie proposed a bill to ban live export.

"That proposal interested, as one would expect, the Prime
Minister's office as to what the Minister's office was doing.

"And on June 3 the Greens announced a bill to prohibit the live
export for slaughter.

"The public campaign against the trade drew attention to
particular shipments which were imminent.

"The Minister's office sought information about pending shipments.

"On June 3, the department provided that information (and it was)
passed it on to the Minister."

Mr Hutley referred to 1900 cattle due to be loaded onto the
Falconia at Port Hedland in the early hours of Tuesday June 7.

But he said by the afternoon of Saturday June 4 it was apparent
that the Minister's office was working on "what was described as a
two-step proposal".

Mr Hutley referred to documents showing internal government
communications that sought answers to questions about the proposal
which were needed ahead of a cabinet meeting on June 6, including
for the Prime Minister's office.

Mr Hutley read one of the emails, saying, 'reference to two-step
proposal refers to a move to a possible temporary suspension, then
reopening on either interim arrangements or permanent basis in
some months noting that the Minister has not finalised his
position and that this is also subject to Cabinet'.

Shortly after, the case was adjourned until 10.15am tomorrow.

Industry never told the guillotine was about to drop
Earlier in proceedings however, Mr Hutley explained how the
industry had presented the minister with a proposed strategic plan
of action and vision for in-market welfare, which the Australian
Livestock Exporters Council provided to the Minister's office,
referring to an email of May 6.

He read a section of the plan which said, 'Ensure all animals
exported from Australia are managed through known supply chains,
feedlot, transport, abattoir, and treated humanely under endorsed
livestock welfare standards from the point of arrival in overseas
markets through to the point of processing'.

The second stage of the two part plan included an Indonesia Animal
Welfare Action Plan, which described how the strategic vision
would be achieved in Indonesia, Mr Hutley said.

"The plan described the means of achieving the strategic vision of
ensuring that all animals exported are managed through known
supply chains and treated humanely under endorsed livestock
welfare standards from the point of arrival in overseas markets
through to the point of processing," he said.

"The department is advised by MLA on May 11 that the plan
documents had been developed through significant consultation with
the livestock export industry and have the support of wider
livestock industries.

"Industry had not been asked by the department or the Minister to
identify the best of the existing facilities, or the most secure
of the existing supply chains, with a view to determining which
parts of the trade might be able to continue if stricter animal
welfare conditions were imposed.

"This becomes significant when we come to consider the sudden
shift in the Minister's approach which happens in June 2011.

"Industry was never told that the guillotine was about to drop.

"It was never asked to inform the Minister about those facilities
and supply chains which should, logically, be spared the
guillotine, even though the Minister was aware that an experienced
leader in the industry had told him on 1 April that two major
operators were able to supply secure integrated supply chains
which used stunning."

Mr Hutley said the department provided the Minister with a
briefing note about the industry plan on about May 13.

He also read from documents outlining the government's view of the
plan, saying 'We believe progress could be made more quickly and
industry should be asked to expedite delivery of this objective.
Transparency and accountability are keys to industry successfully
gaining broad public support for the strategy and delivering on
the milestones. The transparency and accountability elements need
to be clarified in the document'.

He also referred to another brief that came forward on April 29
saying ABC FourCorners was likely to air a program on live exports
in mid to late May and the minister need to decide whether any
action was necessary to amend the government's current role in
live exports, with sufficient time to consult with colleagues,
including possibly with cabinet, 'in a timeframe that allows you
to respond to the program'.

"Of these options, our view is that the best approach is to refer
to the existing set of actions you have in train - you wrote to
industry," Mr Hutley said in reading the brief to court.

Closed loop supply chains in focus
Mr Hutley also read details of references to different options to
improve in-market animal welfare including using closed loop
systems which provide the "highest assurance that standards are
met".

But he said that advice also said closed loop systems "would not
be viable for cattle in most markets in the near/medium term,
implying a likely cessation of trade and are resource intensive
for the government under current arrangements".

"Now that, we say, reflects a degree of ignorance within the
department, because we say that the Minister has been informed
that, in effect, there are closed loops in Indonesia," he said.

"Not on an industrywide basis, but on individual basis."

Mr Hutley said "But what we say ultimately happens and where . . .
the process verges into irrationality" is regulation is originally
proposed, to prevent live trade "excluding closed loop systems".

"But then on the evening of the 6th, after a Cabinet meeting,
that's all removed and the absolute ban for six months is put in,"
he said.

"Absolute ban.

"And that, of course, means that there's an absolute ban for the
entirety of Indonesia.

"And even closed loops, what could be satisfied as closed loops,
get closed out.

"They don't even get a look in, they don't get looked at.

"But you could imagine the significance, your Honour, of an
absolute ban in the industry.

"Not just the time, a six month absolute ban, imagine -- we will
say that will have a profound contractual effect.

"It must have been obvious to anyone".

Justice Rares said it "Also creates issues of sovereign risk".

Mr Hutley also provided background to animal welfare controversies
in the live trade, which, he said when the minister had to
consider issues in late May and June 2011, "he appreciated that
that was a flashpoint in a long term ongoing policy issue for
government and industry".

"One of the important aspects of the evidence that the applicant
will emphasise: that any reasonable person who was informed on the
issue of animal welfare and the live export trade, appreciated
that this was a complex issue that did not lend itself to
simplistic solutions," he said.

"For those who supported a policy of maintaining the export trade,
whilst still seeking to deliver improved animal welfare outcomes,
it was clear that the problem called for tailored solutions based
on accurate information about the existing conditions and reliable
means of improving the conditions.

"Reasonable and informed people dealing with this matter well
understood that these were not matters that could be solved
overnight or dealt with in a broad brush way.

"One of the reasons why management of this policy was complex was
the limited reach, of course, of Australian law.

"Essentially, Commonwealth laws allowed for control of exports and
the imposition of conditions of export, but there was a practical
limitation upon the capacity of the Australian Government to
regulate what occurred in a foreign country."

Mr Hutley said producers of cattle for live export were located in
northern Australia and about 98 per cent originated from
Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory.

"Those regions offer limited access to other markets due to the
distance, isolation, transport regulations, climate, and lack of
infrastructure such as abattoirs," he said.

He said as of 2011, over 90 per cent of the value of farm exports
from the Northern Territory came from live cattle exports

In another document Mr Hutley read out advice referring to a draft
of recommendations which said the "fundamental policy choice for
the Australian government is the relative weight to place on
maintaining the live export industry, and the rural/regional
communities that depend on it, on meeting animal welfare standards
in importing countries".

'At the extremes, the choices would be: support the live well
export trade, accepting that a proportion of Australian animals
will have animal welfare outcomes below the prescribed OIE
standards in importing countries. (2) ensure that OIE standards
are consistently met for handling Australian animals in imported
countries, and, therefore, be prepared to prevent trade by not
issuing permits with those market where this cannot be
demonstrated', it said.

Mr Hutley said, "That's the extremes. And that's what they chose,
which they recognised was the extreme"

He said a speech by the minister had also shown that the
government's policy was to maintain the live animal export trade,
while seeking to improve the treatment of animals in the process.

That was the Minister's stated approach and it was his stated
approach throughout the period, coming up to the events leading to
the six month ban with which this case is concerned of the export
trade to Indonesia, he said.

"Where the process miscarried, to the point we say of
irrationality, disproportionality, and unreasonableness of an
invalidating kind was in formulating an appropriate regulatory
response to achieve that objective," he said.

"The applicant will show that the Minister, under intense
political pressure, was rushed into taking the dramatic step of
suspending the entire live cattle trade to Indonesia for six
months."

Mr Hutley said the former minister "may or may not give evidence
in this case".

"We've got an outline from the Minister, the Minister is available
to give evidence, and may well give evidence," he said.

Justice Rares said "Well, he may -- yes."

The story Plaintiffs detail evidence of "rushed" decision in
cattle ban class action first appeared on Farm Online. [GN]


BISCO INC: Baker & Hostetler Attorneys Discuss 7th Cir. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- Holly A. Melton,
Esq. -- hmelton@bakerlaw.com -- and Linda A. Goldstein, Esq. --
lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that with treble damages and attorneys' fees
compounding already high dollar judgments, defendants in TCPA
class actions understandably try their best to escape litigation
before class certification is decided.  But a recent decision in
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that one such
attempt to block class actions from moving forward will not work.

In 2016's Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, the Supreme Court
considered whether an unaccepted offer of judgment made by the
defendant under Rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure was
enough to moot the class representative's individual claim or the
claims of the class.  The Court found that an unaccepted offer did
not commit either party, and allowed the putative class action to
proceed.  However, the Court left one question open -- whether
"the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable
to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount."

Unresolved Question

This open issue was predictably enticing for defense counsel in
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., which was resolved in the
Seventh Circuit on June 20.  The defendant argued that, under Rule
67, a deposit of an amount necessary to satisfy a claim -- in a
bank account held by the court -- would moot the class
representative's claim, effectively unraveling the class.

The Seventh Circuit decided, in a unanimous panel decision, that
the argument advanced in Fulton Dental did not fit the
hypothetical situation left open by the Supreme Court in the
earlier case.  The Campbell-Ewald decision raised the hypothetical
of a deposit made to an account held by the plaintiff, not an
account held by the court.

The Seventh Circuit held that deposits governed by Rule 67 did not
grant ownership of the funds to the plaintiff, and that these
deposits were therefore no different than an unaccepted offer --
which the Supreme Court had disposed of in Campbell-Ewald. The
question raised by the Supreme Court in that case remains open.

The Takeaway

Recent cases in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal
(2016 and 2017, respectively) reached contradictory conclusions
about how such a situation might affect the overall litigation.
Given the creativity demonstrated by defendants in their attempts
to shake loose of class actions, we can expect further discussion
of the open Rule 68 question in the future. [GN]


BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Substance Use Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Kim, writing for the fix, reports that a group of
California parents have filed a class action lawsuit against Blue
Shield of California -- accusing the health plan provider of
denying coverage for mental health and substance use disorder
treatment.

The parents say their teenage children were unfairly denied
coverage by Blue Shield's claims administrator based on guidelines
not disclosed to patients.

Charles Des Roches of Salinas, California, is suing on behalf of
his 15-year-old son who suffers from emotional and drug problems
including severe depression.  The Los Angeles Daily News reports
that Blue Shield refused to help pay for his medical bill, which
amounted to "tens of thousands of dollars" after he was admitted
for urgent treatment at a Southern California rehab.

Los Angeles County resident Sylvia Meyer's 18-year-old son was
also denied coverage for intensive outpatient psychiatric services
after he was admitted to the hospital for mental health and drug
problems.

According to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, the plaintiffs want Blue Shield
to "reprocess thousands of mental health and substance use benefit
denials."

The San Francisco-based Blue Shield serves over 4 million health
plan members and 65,000 doctors throughout California.

When determining coverage, insurers refer to their own set of
standards, often leaving patients in the dark, the Daily News
notes.

"The process is often not transparent, conflicts are not
disclosed, and the standard is generally more restrictive which
suggests a focus on cost, rather than patient outcome," said
Dr. Anita Everett, president of the American Psychiatric
Association.

The "internal guidelines" followed by Blue Shield's claims
administrator "allowed them to justify denying coverage when it
should have been provided," said D. Brian Hufford, a lawyer
representing the plaintiffs.

Informing plan members when an insurer's guidelines are more
restrictive than usual would allow them to make informed
decisions, rather than keeping them in the dark, Everett told the
Daily News.

The lawsuit is part of a national strategy by law firms to ensure
that insurers are not unfairly denying coverage for mental health
treatment.  Another company, United Behavioral Health, was also
hit with a class action lawsuit for its questionable coverage
criteria. [GN]


CALHOUN, GA: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Walker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Calhoun, Georgia, filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Maurice Walker v. City of
Calhoun, GA, Case No. 4:15-cv-00170-HLM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Walker
was arrested for public intoxication in 2015 and jailed because he
could not afford to pay a $160 cash bond that would have secured
his release.  He remained in jail for six days until Southern
Center attorneys stepped in and sued the City on his behalf.

The appellate case is captioned as Maurice Walker v. City of
Calhoun, GA, Case No. 17-13139, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 22, 2017;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before August 10, 2017, as to Appellee Maurice Walker.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MAURICE WALKER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G St. NW, Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

               - and -

          Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, Esq.
          Ryan Primerano, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
          83 Poplar St. NW
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 688-1202
          E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org
                  rprimerano@schr.org

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF CALHOUN, GA, is represented by:

          Ansel Franklin Beacham, III, Esq.
          Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq.
          Samuel L. Lucas, Esq.
          BRINSON ASKEW BERRY SEIGLER RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
          PO BOX 5007
          Rome, GA 30162-5007
          Telephone: (706) 291-8853
          E-mail: fbeacham@brinson-askew.com
                  adavis@brinson-askew.com
                  slucas@brinson-askew.com

               - and -

          George P. Govignon, Esq.
          GOVIGNON LAW OFFICE
          109 N Wall St.
          Calhoun, GA 30701
          Telephone: (706) 629-7070

               - and -

          Abby Christina Grozine, Esq.
          David F. Root, Esq.
          CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 3600
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 522-8220
          Facsimile: (404) 523-2345
          E-mail: agrozine@carlockcopeland.com
                  droot@carlockcopeland.com


CALIFORNIA: Prisoner's 2nd Bid to Supplement Complaint Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District for
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Supplement Original Complaint as moot in the case captioned PETER
GERARD WAHL, Plaintiff, v. SUTTON, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01576-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Peter Gerard Wahl (Plaintiff), a former state prisoner,
is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983. Currently pending before the
court are Plaintiff's motions to supplement.

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 19, 2016, as a
purported class action, complaining about "classification
processing" related to good time credits and transfer to mainline
where additional good time credits are received.  Plaintiff's
amended complaint, which concerns events post-dating his original
complaint, appears to improperly change the nature of this suit.
In the order granting Plaintiff leave to the amend, the court
expressly warned Plaintiff that he may not change the nature of
this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended
complaint.  Despite the apparent change in his underlying claims,
the court will nonetheless screen the allegations in Plaintiff's
first amended complaint to determine if he states a cognizable
claim for relief.

Plaintiff's motion alleges no new facts that arose subsequent to
his first amended complaint to support a supplemental pleading.
Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in February 2017,
which was after the proceedings reflected in the minutes of the
Orange County Superior Court took place. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
motion to supplement his complaint is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb6feobefrom Leagle.com.

Peter Gerard Wahl, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. CHCS Transferred to Sacramento Division
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California Court issued an Order transferring to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in
Sacramento the case captioned ANTHONY A. SHARP, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CLARK KELSO, Defendant. No. 1:17-cv-00791-AWI-BAM
(PC), (E.D. Cal.).  The Court did not rule on Plaintiff Sharp's
request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiffs Anthony A. Sharp, Talin Hartley Piccione, Rene Lavell
Coleman, and Carlton Cordell Barra are state prisoners proceeding
pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.

Plaintiffs allege that violations of their civil rights took place
in Fresno County, Kern County, and Amanda County. However,
Plaintiffs allege violations committed by employees of California
Correctional Health Care Services, located in Elk Grove,
California.  Thus, the events took place in Sacramento County,
which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  Therefore,
the complaint should have been filed in the Sacramento Division.

The Court held that a civil action, which has not been commenced
in the proper court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred
to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to
the Sacramento Division.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion is
available http://tinyurl.com/y8me37sdfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony A. Sharp, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Talin Hartley Piccione, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Rene Lavell Coleman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Carlton Cordell Barra, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CANADA: Natives Rejected From Band Enrolment Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that Corner Brook
native Jerry Brake, who now lives in Ontario, is one of what is
expected to be thousands of Mi'kmaq people who have been rejected
enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band.

A third court action has been filed with the Federal Court of
Canada in connection with the controversial Qalipu Mi'kmaq First
Nation Band enrolment process.

The latest proceeding is an application for a class-action lawsuit
against the federal government seeking to invalidate the 2013
supplemental agreement that led to some 80,000 people being
rejected from inclusion on the Qalipu founding members list.
The application initiated by former Corner Brook resident Jerry
Brake has been taken on by the law firm of Koskie Minsky on behalf
of all rejected applicants.

Brake, who now resides in the Ottawa area, is among those who
applied for and were rejected for membership in the Qalipu band.
The plan is to have the action certified as a class action and to
have Brake certified as the representative plaintiff.

"I've battled cancer for 11 years and have almost lost a few
times, but my doctors say I'm in great shape now," Brake said in a
phone interview on July 21. "I feel like this is why I'm here now:
to fight for the people. It's going to be a battle all the way."

According to David Rosenfeld of Koskie Minsky, the legal action
seeks to not only have the supplemental agreement declared null
and void, but to also have all of those roughly 80,000 rejected
applicants reassessed based on the terms and conditions of the
original agreement in principle to form the band reached in 2008.
The legal action also makes a claim for damages for those
rejected, but Rosenfeld said no dollar figure has been established
for that yet.

Brake said he is concerned that not fighting the ramifications of
the supplemental agreement could set a precedent that might impact
other Indigenous groups in future dealings with the government.
"This is where my frustration comes in," he said. "If they think
they can do this to Newfoundlanders, then why wouldn't they try it
in other parts of Canada?"

The Federal Court of Canada is also dealing with a lawsuit
launched by former lawyer Douglas Doucette of Calgary, who is
seeking to have both the 2008 agreement in principle and the 2013
supplemental agreement quashed. Legal action is also being taken
by the Mi'kmaq First Nation Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador,
which is seeking a judicial review of the 2013 supplemental
agreement.

Rosenfeld said, while there are some common arguments in each of
these proceedings, there are different nuances to each too.
Doucette, a former Corner brook resident, is the lone plaintiff in
his litigation against the federal government, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq
First Nation Band and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the
latter which negotiated the deals with government to establish the
Qalipu band.

The Mi'kmaq First Nation Assembly is not yet seeking certification
as a class-action suit, but a review of the supplemental agreement
with the hope of having that agreement overturned.

"I'm not sure why there isn't better coordination, but this is
something we will be asking for," said Rosenfeld, adding he would
like to see some of the major common issues decided by the court
at the same time instead of in separate decisions. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Camera Program Deal in Taxpayer's Best Interest
------------------------------------------------------------
US News reports that attorneys for the city of Chicago say they're
recommending aldermen approve a nearly $40 million settlement to a
class action lawsuit involving the city's red-light camera
program.

Chicago corporation counsel Ed Siskel says the city's Law
Department is making the recommendation "in the best interest of
the taxpayers." He says there's a risk of a more than $250 million
settlement against the city without the settlement.

Under the deal announced on July 20, about 1.2 million motorists
would qualify for 50 percent refunds. The lawsuit alleged the city
didn't give adequate notice to red-light and speed camera
violators. Siskel says the city "continues to believe it has
strong legal defenses to these claims."

The agreement needs approval from aldermen. The City Council's
Finance Committee could consider it on July 24. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Action Suits Allege Brand Misled Public
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Cluckey and Shelly Whitehead, writing for Fast Casual,
report one class action suit has been filed, another is awaiting
class certification and a third is in the wings, all alleging that
Chipotle and its leadership led food safety officials, investors
and the public at large to believe its food safety initiatives
were adequate when they were not.

The court actions come after a day of crushing, crisis-level news
about events striking the chain's stores in Virginia and Texas
that ultimately sent the brand's stock price into a downward
spiral, closing on July 20 at $356.05.

The beleaguered brand's plight is three-pronged this morning and
includes:

A norovirus outbreak among diners at a Sterling, Virginia,
location of the chain that prompted more than 130 diners to post
reports illness on the website Iwaspoisoned.com beginning late
last week. The health department for that location verified at
least 60 reports of sickness were reported to their offices, with
norovirus verified in one of the initial reports.

A rodent outbreak at a Chipotle location in the Dallas West End
historic district that was publicized worldwide on July 20 after a
diner's video of several rats in the restaurant was posted to
Facebook, with a quote saying, "Rats fell from the ceiling."

Three class action suits are in process -- one filed, one pending
class certification and a third still forming its class --
according to press releases, alleging that Chipotle and its
leadership led investors, the public and food safety officials to
believe the chain had met food safety standards when leadership
knew otherwise.

As of early this morning, the brand's leadership had made only a
single statement about any of the incidents to any media. That
came on July 19, when Chipotle Food Safety Director James Marsden
wrote in an email to this site, "It is safe to eat at Chipotle."
The same statement was disseminated to other media, according to
news reports internationally.

Class actions allege leaders misled public and investors

Though three class actions are in the works, only one has been
filed as of late July 20 by the Pomerantz Law Firm against
"Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and certain officers," according to
the filing in U.S. District Court in Colorado, where Chipotle is
headquartered.

The class in this suit comprises investors who bought or acquired
Chipotle securities. The plaintiffs allege that the brand violated
sections 10B and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the suit alleges that between Feb. 5, 2016, and July
19, 2017, Chipotle and its leadership "made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies." The suit alleges that:

Chipotle's purported improvements in food safety policies were
"inadequate."

Chipotle's quality controls were not in compliance with applicable
consumer and workplace safety regulations and were thus not
sufficient to "safeguard consumer and employee health."

As a result, the suit alleges that the brand made claims that were
"materially false and misleading at all relevant times."

The suit then recounts the last week's illnesses in Virginia, the
rodent infestation in Texas and a Chipotle stock price that has
fallen rapidly since these incidents as justification for damages
to be awarded to plaintiffs joining the class

The Goldberg lawsuit, which is awaiting class certification,
follows along the same lines and even provides some examples of
actions the brand undertook to increase its food safety measures
system wide, beginning with Marsden's hiring and implementation of
safety measure changes such as:

"requiring all employees to wash their hands every half hour,
mandating that two employees verified that certain ingredients had
been immersed in hot water for at least five seconds to kill
germs, and using Pascalization to pre-treat food ingredients."
The firm alleges that with these measures, and "along with free
food promotions and increased advertising, Chipotle aimed to
restore customer confidence in the safety of its food."

A third firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, is still forming
its class, according to a news release.

Additionally this morning, the food safety website Food Safety
News confirmed a recent meeting focused on Chipotle food safety
measures. In the June 1 meeting, Chipotle Food Safety Director
James Marsden and Chipotle Food Safety Advisory Board member Dr.
Elisabeth Hagen met with officials at the USDA Food Safety and
Inspection Service to update them on the brand's food safety
initiatives.

A brand-deafening silence?

As of early July 21 morning -- almost a week after diners
initially reported becoming ill after eating at the chain's
Sterling, Virginia, store -- Chipotle leadership had maintained a
public silence except for the quote from Marsden on July 19.

This silence has muted the brand's voice as a successful player in
the industry, while giving way to a high-decibel roar of negative
news, which investors have clearly heard. [GN]


CODE 42 SOFTWARE: Kissel Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JORDAN KISSEL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CODE 42
SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 - 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-01936-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), moves the
Court for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
      agreement;

   2. for settlement purposes only, certifying the proposed
      Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement;

   3. appointing Scott J. Ferrell, David W. Reid, and Victoria C.
      Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Plaintiff Jordan Kissel as the Class
      Representative;

   5. approving the Parties' proposed notice program, including
      the proposed forms of notice, as set forth in the
      Settlement Agreement, and direct that notice be
      disseminated pursuant thereto;

   6. appointing JND Class Action Administrator as Settlement
      Administrator, and direct JND to carry out the duties and
      responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator as
      specified in the Settlement Agreement;

   7. approving the Parties' proposed monetary settlement benefit
      to the Settlement Class, approve the procedures set forth
      in the Settlement Agreement for the qualifications of Class
      Members, approve the method for Class Members to exclude
      themselves from the Settlement Class, and for Class Members
      to object to the Settlement;

   8. staying all non-settlement related proceedings pending
      Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement; and

   9. setting a Final Approval Hearing and other dates in
      connection with the final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 1, 2017, at 2:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ld42SiKw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC RIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                  rhikida@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                  dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                  vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com


COLLECTO INC: Weissman Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled NOSSON WEISSMAN on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. COLLECTO, INC., d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No.
1:17-cv-04402 (E.D.N.Y.), seeks certification of a class
consisting of (a) all persons in New York (b) who, on or after a
date one year prior to the filing of this action, and on or before
a date 21 days after the filing of this action, (c) were sent an
initial collection letter by defendant (d) in the form represented
by Exhibit A.

The case involves a form collection letter intended for use by the
Defendant as initial letter sent to consumers.  The Plaintiff asks
the Court to determine that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
action may proceed as a class action against Collecto.

The Plaintiff also asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC and Lawrence Katz, Esq., be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jmAr8VtF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com


COLT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------
Colt Resources Inc. ("Colt" or the "Company") on July 19 disclosed
that a Statement of Claim dated July 14, 2017 has been filed with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and its
former CEO and CFO regarding a proposed class action lawsuit.  The
Statement of Claim seeks permission of the Court to commence a
class action proceeding for alleged misrepresentations in the
Company's public disclosure in 2016 and other matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the claim.

                      About Colt Resources Inc.

Colt Resources Inc. -- http://www.coltresources.com-- is a
Canadian mining exploration and development company engaged in
acquiring, exploring, and developing mineral properties with an
emphasis on copper and gold. [GN]


CONSUMERS SOLUTIONS: Ct. Junks Bid for Default Judgment in "Cain"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment in the case captioned ADRIAN CAIN, and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSUMERS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC
and JONATHAN C. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-CV-2031-VEH (N.D. Ala.), without prejudice to re-filing in a
manner that satisfies the deficiencies identified in the Order.

This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Adrian Cain (Mr. Cain)
against Defendants Consumer Solutions Group, LLC (CSG) and
Jonathan C. Frank & Associates, LLC (JCF) for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Mr. Cain also filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to CSG.  Mr.
Cain also filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to JCF.

The Court's analysis of a Motion for Default Judgment involves a
two-step process.  First, the Court must satisfy itself that it
has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the
lawsuit.  Second, the Court must ensure that Mr. Cain has
satisfied the elements of Rule 55, FED. R. CIV. P., and is
entitled to the default judgment he seeks.

A court obtains personal jurisdiction over the parties when the
complaint and summons are properly served upon the defendant.
Further, Mr. Cain alleges that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this FDCPA action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1331, which states that this Court has jurisdiction over claims
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States. As this action relates to the enforcement of rights of
action created by federal statute, the Court is satisfied that it
has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) allows a court to enter a
default judgment when the Clerk has entered default and the party
seeking judgment has applied to the court for a default judgment.
To determine whether the moving party is actually entitled to a
default judgment, a court must review the sufficiency of the
complaint and its underlying merits.

The Court has identified several issues with the pending Motions
for Default Judgment. First, both Motions have failed to
adequately establish that Mr. Cain is entitled to default
judgments in his favor because they do not present a sufficient
basis to assure this Court that he has a legitimate claim to the
relief requested. Mr. Cain has not identified with specific detail
which facts, deemed admitted by virtue of Defendants' default,
give rise to cognizable claims for relief.

Second, Mr. Cain's Complaint seeks relief in the form of actual,
compensatory, and/or punitive damages; attorneys' fees; an
injunction; and other equitable relief. Even though well-pleaded
facts in the complaint are deemed admitted, plaintiffs'
allegations relating to the amount of damages are not admitted by
virtue of default; rather, the court must determine both the
amount and character of damages.

In both Motions for Default Judgment, Mr. Cain has failed to
demonstrate the plausibility under the FDCPA of each form of
relief he requests. Mr. Cain is hereby put on notice that any re-
filed Motion for Default Judgment against either defendant must
(1) make a clear showing that each element of each claim in the
Amended Complaint has been satisfied; and (2) include evidence,
supported by authority, as to the amount and type of damages he
seeks.

Mr. Cain has not indicated to this Court whether he still intends
to pursue his class action allegations. Further, as the movant,
Mr. Cain has not shown how awarding class-wide relief in an FDCPA
action in the context of a default is ever appropriate under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 55.

Accordingly, the Court declines to enter any type of judgment
regarding his class allegations due to the underdeveloped nature
of the record and Mr. Cain's failure to establish satisfaction of
Rule 23's preliminary and procedural requirements.

The Court determines that both Motions for Default Judgment are
hereby denied without prejudice to re-filing in a manner that
satisfies the deficiencies identified in this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxykf2efrom
Leagle.com.

Adrian Cain, Plaintiff, represented by Wesley L. Phillips,
PHILLIPS LAW GROUP LLC. PO Box 362001Birmingham, AL 35236-2001


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Evidence Lacking in Customer's Receipt Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Darden Restaurants
Inc. has asked a Florida federal judge to order a consumer to show
why her suit, which claims the restaurant improperly printed a
receipt with her credit card's expiration date, should remain in
court, arguing the customer has failed to provide any documents
that support her case.

Darden told U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke on July 19 that
Rosie Romero's putative Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
class action rests on a solitary allegation that she was presented
with an electronically printed receipt that revealed the
expiration date of her credit card account number. But Romero
provided no violative receipt and no affidavit or declaration
attesting that a violative receipt was ever received, Darden said.

"Plaintiff provided exactly one document relevant to her claim: a
redacted bank record showing she went to a Darden restaurant on
March 31, 2017," Darden said, providing a copy of the bank record
as Exhibit A. "Ironically, this record directly contradicts that
she -- as she alleges in her complaint -- used a credit card on
March 31. Her evidence indicates a debit card was used."

Mark Eisen, a lawyer for Darden, told Law360 in a phone interview
on July 21, "Counsel for Rosie Romero provided a useless document
that just shows she went to a restaurant, but it doesn't support
her claim."

Also on July 19, Judge Cooke issued an order saying that because a
trial for the FACTA suit has been set for December, she is
requiring the parties to participate in mediation to be completed
on Oct. 19.

Romero argued on July 14 that Orlando-based Darden Restaurants'
request to stay her putative class action claiming FACTA
violations until the court rules in a similar case is an
illegitimate attempt to delay consumers' access to the court and
should be denied.

Darden, which owns several major chains including Olive Garden and
LongHorn Steakhouse, filed its request with Judge Cooke in late
June, arguing that the putative FACTA class action brought by
Romero represents the fifth such case brought by the plaintiff's
counsel in 2017, and that the judge's upcoming ruling on a motion
to dismiss in Lopez v. Miami-Dade County could spare the court
from having to evaluate once again in the Romero case whether the
plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury and thus has standing to
sue.

In her suit, filed May 31, Romero claimed Darden has violated
FACTA by printing payment card expiration dates on customers'
receipts. She said the company has been sued before for failing to
follow the law's requirements but still hasn't complied, opening
diners up to the increased risk of identity theft by including too
much information on their receipts.

When Romero went to Darden's Bahama Breeze restaurant in Pembroke
Pines, Florida, in late March, the receipt she received included
her credit card's expiration date, her suit says. She said she
believes Darden does the same at other restaurants, including
Olive Garden and LongHorn, pointing out that the company uses the
same point-of-sale equipment at all of its locations.

A motion to dismiss is pending before Judge Cooke in the Lopez
case focused on the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark May 2016
decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, which addressed the question of
when "a bare procedural violation of a statutory right"
constitutes an injury in fact sufficient for standing to bring
suit in federal court.

The high court ruled that a consumer could not sue Spokeo Inc. for
mere technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But
the ruling left the door open for plaintiffs in other cases to use
statutory violations to establish standing.

Congress enacted FACTA in 2003 to combat identity theft, barring
merchants from printing more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number and from including expiration dates on
receipts provided at the point of sale or transaction, according
to Romero's complaint.

Romero seeks to represent a class of all people in the United
States who used credit or debit cards at Darden restaurants and
were given receipts that included the expiration dates within the
last two years.

She requests statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Counsel for Romero did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on July 21.

The consumer is represented by Scott D. Owens, Esq. --
scott@scottdowens.com -- of Scott D. Owens PA, Bret L. Lusskin,
Esq. -- info@lusskinlaw.com -- of Bret Lusskin PA, Keith J. Keogh,
Esq. of Keogh Law Ltd. and Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi.

Darden is represented by David S. Almeida, Esq. --
dalmeida@beneschlaw.com -- and Mark Eisen, Esq. --
meisen@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff
LLP and Mark D. Schellhase, Esq. -- mark.schellhase@gray-
robinson.com -- of GrayRobinson PA.

The case is Rosie Romero v. Darden Restaurants Inc., case number
0:17-cv-61098, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]


DELTA INT'L: Court Grants Black & Decker's MSJ in "Lopez"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued a Memorandum and Opinion granting Defendants Stanley Black
& Decker, Inc., and Black & Decker (U.S.)s' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned ISMAEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. DELTA
INTERNATIONAL MACHINERY CORPORATION; DELTA MACHINE COMPANY, INC.;
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.;
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC.; BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC.;
PENTAIR, INC.; KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION and GLH, LLC,
Defendants, No. CIV 15-0193 JB/GBW (D.N.M.).

Lopez brings this products liability action to recover damages for
injuries he incurred while operating an unguarded power table saw
at a plant in El Paso, Texas.  To resolve the MSJ, the Court must
determine whether the Black & Decker Defendants are liable for
Lopez' injuries based on three theories: (i) that they supplied
the subject table saw which allegedly caused Lopez' injuries; (ii)
that they are liable as the "alter egos" of the corporation that
originally manufactured the table saw; and (iii) that they are
liable as successors to the table saw's manufacturer.

The Court concludes that the Black & Decker Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all three theories,
because (i) they did not supply the table saw; (ii) they do not
sufficiently control the table saw's manufacturer such that the
Court can pierce the corporate veil between them; and (iii) in
acquiring the corporation that manufactured the table saw, they
did not expressly assume that corporation's liabilities for the
table saw.  Accordingly, the Court granted the MSJ.

With respect to Lopez' request that the Court deny the MSJ without
prejudice to refiling after discovery concludes, the Court
concludes that further discovery will not yield facts that are
material to Lopez' opposition to the MSJ.  As for Lopez'
alternative request for a two-week extension of time to respond to
the MSJ, the Court concludes that, although Lopez has demonstrated
"good cause" for an extension, his request is nevertheless moot,
as he has since filed several briefs in opposition to the MSJ. The
Court, accordingly, denies the requests in the MSJ
Response/Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya8tl8pqfrom
Leagle.com.

Victor Lindsey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Terri J.
Abernathy, US Attorney's Office.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Dentists, Periodontists Lose Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned CENTER CITY PERIODONTISTS,
P.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 10-774 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of a putative class of
dentists and periodontists residing in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, for breach of express warranty claims arising from alleged
deficiencies in the design and labeling of various models of the
Cavitron ultrasonic scaler, a dental device used for a variety of
procedures above and below the gum line.

Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Class Motion).

Class certification is not appropriate on the present record.
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that each of the prerequisites
under Rule 23(a) is satisfied or that the class fits within the
desired categories of class actions set forth in Rule 23(b).
Failure to meet any of Rule 23(a) or 23(b)'s requirements
precludes certification.

Plaintiffs' claims satisfy commonality.  According to Plaintiffs,
commonality is met because the breach of warranty claims all share
as the common issue that Dentsply represented in the [DFUs] that
the Cavitron was suitable for its indicated dental uses if
purchasers followed Dentsply's installation and maintenance
instructions.  This Court agrees that these questions will result
in common answers that apply across the board to all members of
the Class.

Plaintiffs do not satisfy typicality.  Because awareness of a
seller's affirmations is a basic element of a breach of warranty
claim in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs who were not
aware of the DFUs' relevant content cannot be typical
representatives of a class that was allegedly misled and damaged
by Defendant's representations in those same DFUs.  Even assuming
Plaintiffs lacked any knowledge about biofilm and relied solely on
Dentsply's DFUs (a factual finding that would be at odds with
their legal obligation to comply with the CDC's recommendations),
Plaintiffs' claims would still be markedly different from those of
class members like schools and institutions" who were certainly
familiar with the biofilm problem and selected their equipment and
infection control practices accordingly.

Plaintiffs do not satisfy adequacy.  Even though the friendship
between the plaintiff and class counsel did not rise to the level
of a "familial relationship," the court found them to be
sufficiently close to raise "serious concerns as to [the
plaintiff's] adequacy to represent the instant class.
These alarms sound even louder in the present case where Dr.
Jaffin and one of plaintiffs' counsels of record, Dr. Edwin
Zinman, have been friends for twenty-five years -- far longer than
the six years in Mowry and they still regularly keep in touch
despite living on opposite coasts.  Plaintiffs are not adequate
class representatives.

Plaintiffs have not proven numerosity.  The final requirement
under Rule 23(a) is numerosity. Plaintiffs estimate that there are
more than 1,000 putative class members in each state based on
common sense assumptions.  None of the evidence supplied by
Plaintiffs suffices to ascertain, or even infer, the number of
dentists who unwittingly used Cavitrons with public water for non-
surgical procedures in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Plaintiffs have
not met their burden on numerosity.

In sum, Plaintiffs failed to meet three of four requirements under
Rule 23(a).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7fcwkjmfrom Leagle.com.

CENTER CITY PERIODONTISTS, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by ALAN
KLEIN, DUANE MORRIS LLP.

CENTER CITY PERIODONTISTS, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by
CATHERINE B. HEITZENRATER,-- CHeitzenrater@duanemorris.com --
DUANE MORRIS LLP, EDWIN J. ZINMAN,-- staff@toothattorney.com --
ZINMAN PC, JESSICA PRISELAC, ---JPriselac@duanemorris.com --
DUANE MORRIS LLP, LUKE P. MCLOUGHLIN, --
LPMcLoughlin@duanemorris.com --DUANE MORRIS LLP, PAUL NELSON, --
paul.nelson@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC, SEAN
ZABANEH, --SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com --  DUANE MORRIS LLP &
SOLOMON DAVID, --sdavid@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS

AFFILIATED PERIODONTISTS OF NORTH JERSEY, P.A., Plaintiff,
represented by ALAN KLEIN, AKlein@duanemorris.com  DUANE MORRIS
LLP, CATHERINE B. HEITZENRATER, DUANE MORRIS LLP, EDWIN J. ZINMAN,
ZINMAN PC, JESSICA PRISELAC, DUANE MORRIS LLP, LUKE P. MCLOUGHLIN,
DUANE MORRIS LLP, PAUL NELSON, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC, SEAN
ZABANEH, DUANE MORRIS LLP & SOLOMON DAVID, DUANE MORRIS.
MITCHEL GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, represented by ALAN KLEIN, DUANE
MORRIS LLP, CATHERINE B. HEITZENRATER, DUANE MORRIS LLP, JESSICA
PRISELAC, DUANE MORRIS LLP & LUKE P. MCLOUGHLIN, DUANE MORRIS LLP.
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ROBERT A.
LIMBACHER, -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com-- Goodell, DeVries, Leech &
Dann LLP, DEREK M. STIKELEATHER -- dstikeleather@gdldlaw.com --
KAMIL ISMAIL, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, LINDA S. WOOLF
-- lsw@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN LLP, MARGARET
O'NEILL -- mmoneill@debevoise.com GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN,
LLP & RICHARD M. BARNES -- rmb@gdldlaw.com --, GOODELL DEVRIES
LEECH AND DANN LLP.


DISCOVER BANK: Court Denies Law Firm's Bid to Strike
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Order denying Defendant Kohn Law Firm S.C.'s
Motion to Strike Paragraph from Complaint in the case captioned
SASHA RIZZO, Plaintiff, v. DISCOVER BANK and KOHN LAW FIRM S.C.,
Defendants, No. 17-cv-408-jdp (W.D. Wis.), and denying Motion to
Stay.

Plaintiff Sasha Rizzo brings this proposed class action against
defendants Discover Bank and Kohn Law Firm S.C. for violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.  Rizzo alleges that
defendants publicly filed highly confidential and statutorily
protected consumer reports namely, credit scores -- during state
court collection actions.

Kohn moved to strike certain paragraphs from Rizzo's complaint.
Kohn contends that it would be unduly prejudiced if forced to
respond to legal allegations.

Here, Kohn's issue is that paragraphs 15 of the complaint plead
law as opposed to facts.

The Court held that "Rizzo does not appear to gain anything by
pre-emptively arguing legal issues in her complaint; she must
plead facts to state a viable claim for relief, and she will have
to brief motions to prevail on legal fights. But Rizzo is not
barred from pleading legal conclusions in an initial pleading.
Just because Rizzo decided to plead legal conclusions does not
mean that Kohn is required to brief the issues in its answer. Kohn
must respond to the pleading as required under Rule 8(b). That's
it. Kohn has not demonstrated that such an undertaking will be
prejudicial. The motion to strike is denied."

This suit is not two months old and already Kohn has demonstrated
an eagerness to file unnecessary motions with a disregard for
proper motion practice. The court suggests that Kohn adjust its
approach to this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybe54jjnfrom Leagle.com.

Sasha Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Christianson --
josh@menomonie.com -- Menomonie Bankruptcy.

Sasha Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas John Lyons, Jr.,
Consumer Justice Center, P.A., 367 Commerce Ct, Vadnais Heights,
MN, 55127-8506, Office (651) 770-9707,  & Thomas John Lyons, Sr.,
Lyons Law Firm PA.

Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Webber --
chuck.webber@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP & Jessica
Zoe Savran -- Jessica.savran@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendant, represented by Terry E. Johnson --
tjohnson@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C.


EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Urena's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cormac J. Carney denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled RUDY URENA and VICTOR URENA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Case
No. 8:16-cv-00634-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Rudy Urena and Victor Urena bring the employment action
against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants
mischaracterize them as independent contractors rather than
employees.  In their motion for class certification, the
Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All persons who have, during the period commencing
     February 23, 2013 through trial in this action, served as
     "Distributors" by personally delivering and/or merchandising
     products in the State of California under a "Distribution
     Agreement" with Earthgrains Distribution, LLC that they
     entered into on behalf of themselves or entities in which
     they have an ownership interest.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zv1iV2n9


ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Class Settlement Sought in Jail Explosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that
attorneys representing families and individuals impacted by a 2014
natural gas explosion at the Escambia County Central Booking and
Detention facility have filed for a class action settlement.

Counsel for the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement on July 14 in
circuit court.

If approved, the settlement would allow for up to $17.5 million to
be divided among the roughly 670 impacted claimants, with payouts
divided into seven categories based on the amount of harm the
claimants suffered.  Three "gravely injured" claimants and their
families -- two men who were killed in the blast and a corrections
officer who was paralyzed -- will fall outside the category system
and receive the bulk of the settlement.

Adrian Bridges, an attorney with the Michles and Booth law firm
representing numerous plaintiffs, said the class-action format
would provide structure and equity to the proposed settlement
process.

"We tried to come up with a system that's as fair as possible
given there's not enough money (to completely satisfy everyone),
and there's a wide variety of injuries," he said.

Bridges said plaintiffs would be categorized based on the nature
of their injuries -- for example those who suffered PTSD but no
physical wounds would fall into a different category than those
who underwent back surgery.

As currently proposed, the settlement would see approximately $8.4
million split among the three gravely injured claimants, about
$5.6 million divided among all claimants and $3.1 million going to
legal fees and attorneys, according to court filings. Excluding
the gravely injured, the proposed payout range for individuals is
roughly $1,200 to $115,000 depending on the claimants' category.

The remainder of the funding, some $400,000, would go to advance
payment checks and administrative fees for the plaintiffs.

Attorneys will mail claim forms to the class, about 448 of whom
are represented by an attorney and about 220 will have letters
sent to their best known address.

The motion defines the class as, "All persons who were at the
scene of the Escambia County Central Booking and Detention
Facility in Pensacola, Florida, during the explosion, or
subsequent evacuation therefrom and emergency responses thereto;
anyone who was married to such a claimant at the time of any of
the foregoing events; in the case of a claimant who is deceased,
the wrongful death beneficiaries or heirs of said claimant; or
anyone who is related to the claimant and has a claim through the
claimant due to said relationship."

Bridges said the proposed settlement will include an appeal
process for people who feel they weren't placed in the appropriate
category or believe they had issues that weren't taken into
account during their placement.

He added the process was still a long way from finished, and there
were still many procedural steps ahead and attorneys would need
time to ensure affected individuals had notified and been afforded
the opportunity to opt into the class.

Bridges said ultimately, members of the class "should be able to
rest assured they're not being disadvantaged in any way.  Everyone
who is similarly situated will get the same relief. They'll know
what they're getting is fair in light of what others are getting
and in light of the total settlement." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: ECJ Hears Arguments on Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Miles, writing for Reuters, reports that the Court of
Justice of the European Union (ECJ) heard arguments on July 19
over whether to allow a class action suit against Facebook,
brought by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems -- and about
25,000 other users across the globe.

Mr. Schrems is claiming 500 euros ($576) in damages for each
signatory to his lawsuit, one of a series of European challenges
to U.S. technology firms and their handling of personal data.

Mr. Schrems's lawsuit concerns alleged violations of privacy by
Facebook through its use of personal data and tracking of users on
external pages, among other things.

Mr. Schrems argues it is vital that the case be treated as a
class-action suit.  He believes 25,000 individual lawsuits on user
privacy would be "impossible" due to the financial burden on users
and the inefficiency for judges.

"If privacy claims cannot be grouped, they (Facebook) can get away
with violating the law," Mr. Schrems said in a statement.

While common in the United States, class action suits are
generally not recognized in Europe.

Facebook calls the suit a way to get around that, brought by an
activist so well-known he has merited an exhibit dedicated to his
campaign against Facebook in Berlin's Spy Museum.

Mr. Schrems launched the lawsuit in August 2014 at his home court
in Vienna against Facebook Ireland Ltd, the subsidiary offering
the social network to more than 80 percent of active users
worldwide.

Around 25,000 other Facebook users transferred their financial
claims to him, forming an artificial class action suit, although
legally the case remains between two parties.

Austria's Supreme Court referred two questions to the European
court.

Firstly, it asked whether people lose the status of "consumer"
when they publish books, deliver lectures, collect donations and
operate websites.

Secondly, in the event that Mr. Schrems could be considered a
consumer, it asked whether it could hear the class action case
when some of the consumers involved may not be based in Austria or
even in the EU.

Facebook argues that Mr. Schrems cannot be considered a
"consumer".

He has spoken and written extensively on privacy law, and,
according to Facebook, used the social media platform to further
those professional activities -- something Mr. Schrems denies.

A Facebook spokesperson said: "Mr. Schrems's claims have twice
been rejected on the grounds that they cannot proceed as 'class
action' on behalf of other consumers in Austrian courts. We were
pleased to be able to present to the CJEU and look forward to
resolving these claims."

European consumer group BEUC backed Mr. Schrems's bid to have the
case handled as a class action.

"Consumers are often powerless when tech giants breach data
protection rules," said BEUC's Christoph Schmon.  "It makes sense
to bundle multiple claims and avoid parallel procedures in
different countries."

A court adviser, Advocate General Michal Bobek, is expected to
issue his opinion on November 7, with the final judgment to come
by the end of the year. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Irish Unit Rejects Schrems Data Privacy Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Baker, writing for Irish Times, reports that Facebook
Ireland has rejected claims by Austrian lawyer Max Schrems that he
is a private consumer and entitled to take a class action case
against the social network.

In parallel to the ongoing case in the High Court in Dublin,
lawyers for Mr Schrems and Facebook Ireland appeared on July 19 at
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg,
over the admissibility of a worldwide "privacy class action"
against the social network by the Austrian.

Unlike the Irish case, which deals mainly with US mass
surveillance, the Austrian case is focused on the commercial
misuse of personal data by Facebook.

In August 2014, Mr Schrems, a Facebook user since 2008, brought a
lawsuit in Vienna against Facebook Ireland over commercial
violations of EU privacy laws.  Since then, at least 25,000 other
Facebook users have assigned their rights to him in order to form
a so-called "Austrian style class action".

'Professional litigant'

However, in July 2015, the regional court in Vienna ruled Mr
Schrems is a "professional litigant" and should instead sue
Facebook where it is headquartered -- in Dublin.  The July 19
hearing at Europe's highest court is the end result of referrals
and appeals against that decision.

At the centre of the case are two questions. Firstly, is Mr
Schrems a private individual with consumer status? Facebook
contends that he is not because, it says, he used a public
Facebook page to promote his activities.  Secondly, can he bring a
class action case in Austria even though many of the other
claimants are based elsewhere in the EU?

Herwig Hofmann, lawyer for Mr Schrems, argued that his client
cannot lose his consumer status even though he set up a "public"
Facebook page.  Further activities are completely irrelevant, said
Mr Hofmann, adding that even the "Europe Versus Facebook" public
page had two other administrators in addition to Mr Schrems.  They
are totally separate contracts, he said.  For example, the
European Commission's Facebook page is not the private account of
the staff member who set it up or administers it, said Mr Hofmann.

Even the intention to make a profit is not necessarily a
"professional" activity, he said.  "There is an effort here to
reverse the role of victim and perpetrator . . . by Facebook, one
of the biggest companies in the world," said Mr Hofmann.
Social agenda

Nikolaus Pitkowitz, for Facebook Ireland, argued that someone
organising consumer protection is not a consumer themselves.  He
also took issue with Mr Schrems's claim that he had two separate
contracts with Facebook -- one for his private profile and one for
the public page.

According to Mr Pitkowitz, Mr Schrems mostly uses his public page.

"He acts as a data protection activist, it is clearly
professional," said Mr Pitkowitz.  "The applicant is using media
interest in his case to advance his career and increase sales of
his book." He added that consumer privilege doesn't extend to
professional actors regardless of social agenda.

Mr Hofmann argued that Mr Schrems is a good example of how
jurisdiction can change without any intervention from the
claimant.  Mr Schrems originally set up his account while studying
in California.

"Facebook then unilaterally transferred all its international
contracts to its Ireland subsidiary," said Mr Hofmann.

"Preventing assigned claims is unjustifiable intervention.  If
consumers are prevented from bundling their claims, how many
courts would have to deal with this and how many consumers would
even make the claims?"

The Advocate General will issue his opinion November 7th.  This
opinion is not legally binding on the court, but, in practice, the
judges usually follow his advice. The final judgment by the CJEU
is expected by the end of the year. [GN]


FAULKNER CTY, AR: Dayberry's Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian S. Miller denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class action certification submitted in the lawsuit
styled JUSTIN DAYBERRY, et al. ADC# 660638 v. TIM RYALS, et al.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00221-BSM-JTK (E.D. Ark.).

Tim Ryals is the Sheriff of Faulkner County, Arkansas.

According to the Judge Miller's order, the proposed findings and
recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome
T. Kearney have been received.  No objections have been filed.

"After careful consideration, the proposed findings and
recommendations are adopted in their entirety.  Accordingly,
plaintiff Justin Dayberry's motion for class action certification
[Doc. No. 8] is denied without prejudice," Judge Miller ruled.

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


FLAGSHIP FACILITY: "Bradford" Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the captioned case
GREGORY A. BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES INC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-01245-LHK, (N.D.  Cal.), and dismissing
the same action.  The Court denied as moot Defendant's Motion to
Stay.

Plaintiff Gregory Bradford, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, sues Flagship Facility Services Inc. for
unpaid wages.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
to Dismiss the Action or, in the Alternative, Stay the Action
Pending Arbitration.

Defendant is a dedicated facility maintenance company that
provides services that include but are not limited to, janitorial
services, facility maintenance, and food services to various
companies across California.  During the hiring process, Plaintiff
was issued a number of documents.  One of those documents was an
arbitration agreement titled Dispute Resolution Policy.

The Dispute Resolution Policy states that it is intended to apply
to the resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved in
a court of law, and therefore this Policy requires all such
disputes to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and
binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial.  The
Dispute Resolution Policy also specifies that there will be no
right or authority for any dispute to be brought, heard or
arbitrated as a class or collective action.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to arbitration
agreements in any contract affecting interstate commerce.  Under
Section 3 of the FAA, a party may apply to a federal court for a
stay of the trial of an action 'upon any issue referable to
arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration.
The FAA states that written arbitration agreements shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

Defendant argues that the Dispute Resolution Policy to which
Defendant agreed requires arbitration on an individual basis.
Defendant also argues that the arbitrability of the instant suit
should be determined through arbitration in the first instance.

Plaintiff does not dispute that Plaintiff and Defendant entered
into an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff also does not dispute
that the scope of the Dispute Resolution Policy includes the
claims in the instant suit. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the
Dispute Resolution Policy is substantively unconscionable because
it includes a class and collective action waiver that interferes
with Plaintiff's right to engage in concerted activity under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 151.

The Court first addresses Defendant's arguments.

Here, the Dispute Resolution Policy covers all disputes, claims,
or controversies arising from or relating to this contract or the
relationships which result from this contract. Dispute Policy. the
Dispute Resolution Policy specifies that it covers without
limitation disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation
of or application of this Policy, but not as to the
enforceability, revocability or validity of the Policy or any
portion of the Policy.

The Dispute Resolution Policy states that a dispute about the
enforceability and validity of the Dispute Resolution Policy is
not subject to arbitration. Moreover, the class and collective
action waiver specifically states that determinations whether the
class and collective action waiver is unenforceable, void or
voidable must be decided by a court.

Therefore, the parties have not clearly and unmistakeably
delegated the power to decide arbitrability to an arbitrator. In
fact, the terms of the Dispute Resolution Policy indicate that the
parties agreed to resolve disputes like those at issue in the
instant motion through court proceedings. Accordingly, the Court,
and not an arbitrator, must determine arbitrability.

Substantive Unconscionability Because of the Class and Collective
Action Waiver's Interference with Plaintiff's NLRA Rights

First, the Court discusses the legal framework for when the NLRA
renders an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Second, the Court
discusses whether the NLRA causes the Dispute Resolution Policy to
be unenforceable.

Legal Framework

In Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975,  court specifically
addressed a concerted action waiver, a waiver of the right to
bring concerted legal claims, collective or class action claims,
in any forum -- in an arbitration agreement, and held that such
concerted action waivers are unenforceable because they violate
the right to engage in concerted activity under the NLRA. However,
Morris recognized that an arbitration agreement that precludes the
ability to bring concerted legal actions may still be enforceable
where the employee could have opted out of the individual dispute
resolution agreement and chose not to.

In Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, the Court
held that the arbitration agreement in that case did not interfere
with or restrain this NLRA right despite the arbitration
agreement's class action waiver because the plaintiff had been
provided the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration agreement.
The Ninth Circuit held that this opportunity to opt out of the
arbitration agreement meant that the class and collective action
waiver did not interfere with the plaintiff's NLRA right to
concerted activity. (If she wanted to retain that right, nothing
stopped her from opting out of the arbitration agreement.

District courts in the Ninth Circuit applying Morris and
Johnmohammadi have held that the NLRA does not render a class and
collective action waiver unenforceable if the employee had a
meaningful opportunity to opt out of the collective and class
action waiver or the arbitration agreement.

In contrast, in Echevarria, a district court in this district held
that an arbitration agreement did not provide a meaningful
opportunity to opt out because Aerotek's online application
process not only failed to inform Echevarria that he could opt out
of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, but the Mutual Arbitration
Agreement stated expressly that it would be enforced whether or
not Echevarria signed it. Echevarria, 2017 WL 24877,

Gonzalez v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., 2016 WL 6427866, (N.D. Cal.
Oct. 31, 2016)). Similarly, in Gonzalez, a district court in this
district held that the plaintiff was not provided a meaningful
opportunity to opt out where the sole indication in an online
application form that an opt out was available was a missing
asterisk next to the boxes for e-signing the arbitration
provision.

Whether the NLRA Causes the Dispute Resolution Policy to be
Unenforceable in this Case

The class and collective action waiver in this case states that
there will be no right or authority for any dispute to be brought,
heard or arbitrated as a class or collective action. The parties
do not dispute that absent an opt out provision, Morris would
cause the Dispute Resolution Policy to be unenforceable because of
interference with Plaintiff's NLRA right to concerted activity.

The Court finds that because the employee could have opted out of
the individual dispute resolution agreement and chose not to,
Morris does not render the Dispute Resolution Policy and its class
and concerted action waiver unenforceable or substantively
unconscionable. Morris, 834 F.3d at 982 n.4.

Impermissible Claim Splitting

Plaintiff argues that granting the instant motion may result in an
illegal splitting of causes of action. The rule preventing claim
splitting is designed to protect the defendant from being harassed
by repetitive actions based on the same claim. The motion to
compel arbitration here would not result in claim splitting.

The Dispute Resolution Policy requires that Plaintiff bring his
claims in individual arbitration. The members of the purported
class action class and collective action class will not be a party
to that arbitration. Therefore, any decision in arbitration will
have no effect on the other class members.

Accordingly, because the Dispute Resolution Policy does not
conflict with the NLRA, is not unconscionable, and compelling
arbitration would not result in impermissible claim splitting, the
Court grants Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss
the Action, and denies Defendant's Alternative Motion to Stay the
Action Pending Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion is
available http://tinyurl.com/y9kzdknofrom Leagle.com.

Gregory A. Bradford, Plaintiff, represented by James Ross Hawkins,
-- James@jameshawkinsaplc.com --  James Hawkins APLC.

Gregory A. Bradford, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory E. Mauro, -
-- GREG@MAUROLAWFIRM.NET -- GREGORY E. MAURO.

Flagship Facility Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Arthur
M. Eidelhoch -- aeidel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Lisa K. Horgan -- lhorgan@littler -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Michael J. Hui -- mhui@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FORD FUSION: Court Narrows Claims in Fuel Economy Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss the case captioned In
re: FORD FUSION AND C-MAX FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to All Actions, No. 13-MD-2450 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased or leased a 2013 Ford
Fusion Hybrid (Fusion) or 2013 Ford C-MAX (C-MAX), from
dealerships licensed by Ford Motor Company, an automobile
manufacturer based in Dearborn, Michigan, allegedly in reliance on
Ford's misrepresentations and material omissions about the
Vehicles' fuel economy.

Plaintiffs bring this Consolidated Second Amended Class Action
Complaint (SAC) on their own behalf and on behalf of members of a
putative class, alleging that they would not have otherwise
purchased or leased the Vehicles, or would not have paid as much
for them, had it not been for Defendant's misrepresentations, and
that they have otherwise been damaged because of higher fuel costs
and the diminution in the Vehicles' value.

The problem, Plaintiffs contend, is that Ford's advertising
campaign was highly misleading.  Plaintiffs allege that the
campaign emphasized that the 47 MPG was something the Vehicles
would actually deliver, and conveyed the overall impression that
Ford's 2013 Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX did, in fact, deliver 47 MPG
under real-world driving conditions.

The Court held:

   (1) The consumer protection law claims that are based on the
"Freight," "Weeee," Fusion Brochure, Fusion Hybrid Video, C-MAX
Brochure, and "Wrong Direction" advertisements are dismissed with
prejudice. However, Plaintiffs whose claims are based on the
"Hybrid Games" video -- Holman, Pitkin, Broome, and Harkins --
have stated adequately a claim under the relevant state consumer
protection laws.

   (2) In Ford I, the Court held that Plaintiffs' common law fraud
claim survived Defendant's first Motion To Dismiss.  The Court
noted that Plaintiffs "included adequate allegations as to some
advertisements with the requisite specificity under Rule 9(b)" to
state a fraud claim.  The Court did not, however, specifically
identify which advertisements were actionable.  Now that
Plaintiffs have identified the advertisements upon which each
Plaintiff relied, the Court concludes that the "Freight," "Weeee,"
Fusion Brochure, Fusion Hybrid Video, C-MAX Brochure, and "Wrong
Direction" advertisements are not actionable -- nothing in these
advertisements guarantee or promise specific, real-world
performance.  But, the fraud claim may proceed as it pertains to
the "Hybrid Games" video.

   (3) Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim survives to
the extent that it is based on the "Hybrid Games" video.  This
claim is otherwise dismissed with prejudice.

   (4) Except to the extent Plaintiffs' claims are premised on
Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims are dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7f2sek9from Leagle.com.

Richard Pitkin, Plaintiff, represented by Dorothy P. Antullis,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 120 E Palmetto Park Rd Ste 500.
Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809.

Richard Pitkin, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Simek Kusel --
esk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Emily Jo Kirk
-- ejk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Jae Kook
Kim jkk@mccunewright.com -- MCune Wright LLP, John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A.,20 North Orange Ave, Suite 1600, Orlando,
Florida 32801,  Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel L. Jensen --
rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice.

Gregory Holman, Plaintiff, represented by Dorothy P. Antullis,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Emily Jo Kirk, McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Mark J.
Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel L.
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice.

Dennis Harkins, Plaintiff, represented by Dorothy P. Antullis,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Emily Jo Kirk, McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Mark J.
Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel L.
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice.

Leah Broome, Plaintiff, represented by Dorothy P. Antullis,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Emily Jo Kirk, McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan, P.A. & Mark J.
Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Peter Joseph Fazio -
- pjfazio@arfdlaw.com -- Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch,
LLP, Andrew Michael Fraerman, DLA Piper LLP, Christopher M. Young,
DLA Piper LLP, 203 North LaSalle StreetSuite 1900Chicago, IL
60601-1293, David Matthew George, Dykema Gossett PLLC,  2723 South
State Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Edward Colin
Thompson, DLA Piper LLP, Holly Drumheller Butler, DLA Piper LLP,
J. Trumon Phillips, DLA Piper, 203 North LaSalle StreetSuite
1900Chicago, IL 60601-1293 James M. Campbell --
jmcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell Campbell Edwards
& Conroy PC, Jeffrey M. Croasdell --jcroasdell@rodey.com --
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Jeffrey M. Yeatman, DLA Piper
LLP, pro hac vice, Joel A. Dewey, DLA Piper Us LLP, 203 North
LaSalle StreetSuite 1900Chicago, IL 60601-1293, Kimberly J.
Ruppel, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Aaron Goldberg, DLA PIPER
RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, 203 North LaSalle StreetSuite 1900
Chicago, IL 60601-1293, Maya Prakash, DLA Piper US LLP, 203 North
LaSalle Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, IL 60601-1293, Paul L.
Nystrom -- pnystrom@dykema.com --  Dykema, Peter George Safirstein
-- psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com -- Morgan & Morgan, P.C.,
Rodney E. Loomer -- rloomer@trdlp.com -- Turner, Reid, Duncan,
Loomer & Patton, P.C., Sherry A. Rozell -- rloomer@trdlp.com --
Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, Timothy H. Birnbaum, DLA
Piper, 203 North LaSalle StreetSuite 1900Chicago, IL 60601-1293,
John Mark Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC &
Paul L. Nystrom -- Dykema.


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Hit With Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that an
individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against a debt
collector, citing alleged misrepresentation in debt collection.

Jeffrey Hanford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint July 18 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division
against Franklin Collection Service Inc. alleging the defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on July 27,
2016, he received a collection letter regarding his alleged debt
owed to AT&T. The plaintiff claims the letter constitutes of
false, confusing and misleading statements that will likely to
deceive consumers into paying or settling, regardless of whether
the debt is legitimate, to preserve their credit score.

The plaintiff holds Franklin Collection Service responsible
because the defendant allegedly used deception, false pretenses,
false promises, misrepresentation, factual omissions and unfair
business practices in order to deceived consumers about their
attempts to collect the alleged debt without effectively
disclosing the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt was
owed.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and grant such other or further relief in plaintiff's favor as
deemed just and proper. He is represented by Nathan D. Sturycz of
Sturycz Law Group in Edwardsville, Illinois.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern
Division case number 4:17-cv-02005 [GN]


GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Tosses Deceptive Labeling Claim
------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports baby food maker Gerber has scored a partial
victory in a false labeling would be class action. The Ninth
Circuit in Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., Case No. 15-15174, has
reversed itself and thrown out a deceptive labeling claim based on
the plaintiff's lack of evidence that reasonable consumers would
be deceived.

Plaintiff Natalia Bruton filed the putative class action against
Gerber Product Co. alleging that labels on certain baby food
products included claims about nutrient and sugar content that
were impermissible under Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations that prohibit such claims on products intended for
children less than 2 years old. Bruton did not allege that the
labels were false, but that the lack of such claims on
competitors' products (in compliance with FDA regulations) made
Gerber's labels likely to mislead the public into believing that
Gerber's products were healthier.

The Ninth Circuit previously reversed the district court's grant
of summary judgment for Gerber on this issue.  In doing so, the
court stated that "even technically correct labels can be
misleading."  In its July 17, 2017 unpublished ruling, however,
the court reversed itself and held that "even assuming the
validity of Bruton's theory," she lacked sufficient evidence to
show that reasonable consumers were likely to be deceived by
Gerber's labels, because many of the competitors' labels included
the same types of claims prohibited by the FDA regulations.

The court's decision highlights that plaintiffs in false labeling
and advertising lawsuits cannot evade the requirement of
demonstrating that reasonable consumers would be misled. The
decision is important to retailers, who can face such claims based
on their private label products.

"No Added Sugar" Lawsuit Can Proceed Against Odwalla

Such class action claims have been proliferating recently. In June
a California federal judge declined to dismiss a proposed class
action over a "no added sugar" label on Coca-Cola owned Odwalla
Inc. juice drinks. The plaintiff in Wilson v. Odwalla, Inc.,
alleged the labels are misleading because they imply that fruit
juice, as a whole, normally contains added sugars.

In denying Odwalla's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Dale
Fisher of the Central District of California rejected Odwalla's
argument that the claims are preempted by FDA regulations allowing
a "no sugar added" label if the food the product resembles, and
substitutes for, normally contains added sugars.

Honest Co. Settles "All Natural" Personal Products Class Suit

Food and beverage products are not the only targets of deceptive
labeling class actions. Jessica Alba's Honest Co. has agreed to
pay $7.35 million and stop labeling products as "all natural" or
"100 percent natural" to resolve a consumer class suit alleging it
deceptively marketed dozens of products containing many synthetic
ingredients. Instead, products will be called "natural,"
"naturally derived," or "plant-based," and the terms will be
defined on the Honest website. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: 2018 Trial Set for Pollution Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ritter at Muscatine Journal reports that for a trial is set
for 2018 in Muscatine District Court in a class action lawsuit
claiming residents have suffered damages from pollution emitted
from the Grain Processing Corporation plant.

The approximately 15-day trial will begin July 9, 2018, in
district court. The suit was certified as a class action by the
Iowa Supreme Court in May, and includes residents who have lived
within 1.5 miles of the GPC plant on Oregon Street since 2007.

Residents claim the pollution, including smoke, odor and haze, has
caused personal inconvenience and discomfort and has prevented
residents from enjoying their properties, according to lead
counsel Sarah Siskind.

Residents, who first brought the case against GPC in 2012, have
testified the pollution has interfered with entertaining outdoors,
has caused physical symptoms, such as burning eyes and sinus
congestion, and has left dust and particles on homes and vehicles.

GPC has argued the plant has been operating since the 1940s, well
before most class members moved into the area. The company claimed
it has invested more than $100 million between 2006 and 2015 to
upgrade the plant and reduce emissions.

In an interview, Siskind said the class will not include personal
injury claims, because it is difficult to determine if a health
problem was directly caused by pollution. The class will only
focus on property damage and the use and enjoyment of residents'
properties.

One of the attorneys who filed the suit in 2012, Jim Larew, said
in an interview the class action suit is a "significant case" for
the entire state of Iowa.

"It clearly indicates that state class action statute can be an
appropriate vehicle to advance common law claims against
polluters, where you have many people who have been subjected to
the same pollutants," he said.

In a news release, GPC spokeswoman Janet Sichterman said the class
action has "negative ramifications for large and small businesses
throughout our state who meet stringent permit requirements."

Before the trial next year, a settlement conference will be held
May 31, 2018, according to Muscatine County District Court Judge
Thomas Reidel. [GN]


GREAT AMERICAN: Goertzen Moves to Certify Classes of Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOYCE GOERTZEN, an
individual, individually and on behalf of herself all similarly-
situated persons, by and through her power of attorney BEVERLY
KRAUS v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Does 1-50,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00240-YGR (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to:

   1. certify the Plaintiff's claims on behalf of two classes of
      similarly-situated individuals against Great American:

      CLASS DEFINITION NUMBER ONE:

      All persons (and the estates and/or beneficiaries of such
      persons, if applicable) who purchased, were insured by, or
      were the beneficiary of, or surrendered a Great American
      Policy that was issued when one or more of the purchasers,
      insured, or beneficiaries was a California resident 60
      years of age or older (the "Class").

      CLASS DEFINITION NUMBER TWO (ELDER ABUSE SUBCLASS):

      All persons who were 65 years of age or older when they
      purchased or surrendered one of the Great American Policies
      (including the estates and/or beneficiaries of persons who
      were 65 years of age or older when they purchased or
      surrendered one of the Great American Policies) (the
      "Elder Abuse Subclass");

   2. appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
      Classes; and

   3. appoint Evans Law Firm, Inc. as Class Counsel for the
      Classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 19, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
          EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
          3053 Fillmore Street, #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
          E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Court Certifies Securities Class in LMPERS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William K. Sessions III entered an opinion and order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF FORT
LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GREEN MOUNTAIN
COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., LAWRENCE J. BLANFORD and FRANCES G. RATHKE,
Case No. 2:11-cv-00289-wks (D. Vt.).

The putative class action is brought by several institutional
investors against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., formerly known as
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., its former Chief Executive
Officer, Lawrence Blanford, and its former Chief Financial
Officer, Frances Rathke.  After their appointment as lead
plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 5,
2012, asserting violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In their approved motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs
moved the Court to certify their case as a class action on behalf
of a class of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Green Mountain common stock between February 2, 2011, and
November 9, 2011, and were injured as a result.  They also moved
for their appointment as class representatives and the appointment
of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as class counsel.

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


HAIR CLUB: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forney" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carneisha Forney filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Carneisha Forney v. Hair Club for Men Ltd.,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-09640-R-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
has moved for class certification of three classes of all persons,
who received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from
the Defendant.

The appellate case is captioned as Carneisha Forney v. Hair Club
for Men Ltd., Inc., Case No. 17-56042, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Carneisha Forney's opening brief is due on
      January 2, 2018;

   -- Appellee Hair Club for Men Ltd., Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on January 29, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CARNEISHA FORNEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Defendant-Appellee HAIR CLUB FOR MEN LTD., INC., is represented
by:

          Monica D. Scott, Esq.
          Edward Dean Totino, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: monica.scott@dlapiper.com
                  edward.totino@dlapiper.com


HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Enjoin Stockholder Vote on Merger Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Application for
Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned Paul Parshall,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. HCSB Financial Corporation, Michael S. Addy, Clay D.
Brittain, III, Gerald R. Francis, Jan H. Hollar, James C. Nesbitt,
John T. Pietrzak, D. Singleton Bailey, and United Community Banks,
Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01589-RBH (D.S.C.).

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Paul Parshall's
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction whereby Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote relating to the merger of
Defendants HCSB Financial Corporation (HCSB) and United Community
Banks, Inc. (UCBI).

Plaintiff filed a complaint naming as defendants HCSB, HCSB's
Board of Directors (who are named as individual defendants), and
UCBI.  Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, in his complaint that (1)
this action stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
HCSB will be acquired by UCBI; (2) Board of Directors caused HCSB
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with UCBI, and
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of
HCSB will receive 0.005 shares of UCBI per share of HCSB.

Here, for purposes of this preliminary injunction motion, the
Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proof
regarding his allegations of material omissions. Further, the
Court finds Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing
negligence or injury.

For purposes of this preliminary injunction motion, the Court
finds Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proof regarding
his allegations of material omissions.  Further, the Court finds
Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing negligence or
injury.  The shareholder declarations provided by HCSB state that
the disclosures in the Final Proxy as written contain all
information material to investors, and that the additional details
requested by Plaintiff are not material information needed by the
shareholders.

The Court notes Plaintiff has not submitted an affidavit or
declaration from himself or any other shareholder or from an
expert addressing the materiality of the alleged omissions. The
Court finds Plaintiff has not clearly shown a likelihood of
success on the merits regarding his allegation that the
Registration Statement omits material information about Hovde's
relationship with HCSB and UCBI.

The Court finds Plaintiff has not made a clear showing of
irreparable harm for multiple reasons. First, Plaintiff has not
submitted an affidavit or declaration from himself (or an expert)
detailing how the omitted disclosures would inform his vote.
Second, Plaintiff has failed to show why monetary damages are not
an adequate remedy; specifically, he appears to have an adequate
remedy at law because he could be compensated with money damages
for his current $14 holding, and therefore extraordinary
injunctive relief is not appropriate.

Ms. Hollar argues a delay in vote could jeopardize the merger
itself, impose significant logistical problems and expenses upon
HCSB and its employees, result in a reduction in share value of
the stock of either HCSB or UCBI, and potentially cause HCSB to
lose employees if the merger is delayed. Significantly, Ms. Hollar
points out HCSB has already incurred substantial expenses related
to the proposed merger, most of which would not be recoverable if
this merger opportunity is lost. In light of these considerations,
the Court finds Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show the
equities tip in his favor.

The Court finds enjoining a stockholder vote on a $66 million
dollar bank merger has the potential to be enormously disruptive
and create public uncertainty regarding the entities involved.

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden to
show a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on all
four Winter factors. Accordingly, the Court Denies Plaintiff's
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycrrbjuyfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Parshall, Plaintiff, represented by J. Rutledge Young, III --
ryoung@duffyandyoung.com -- Duffy and Young LLC.

Paul Parshall, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-
legal.com -- Rigrodsky and Long, pro hac vice & Julie Lauren Moore
-- jmoore@duffyandyoung.com -- Duffy and Young LLC.

HCSB Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cory E.
Manning, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William
McGee, III, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

Michael S Addy, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning --
cory.manning@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III --
billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough.

Clay D Brittain, III, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

Gerald R Francis, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

Jan H Hollar, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

James C Nesbitt, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

John T Pietrzak, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

D Singleton Bailey, Defendant, represented by Cory E. Manning,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Thomas William McGee, III,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

United Community Banks Inc, Defendant, represented by J. Theodore
Gentry -- tgentry@wyche.com -- Wyche PA, Wallace K. Lightsey --
wlightsey@wyche.com -- Wyche PA, James Timothy Mast --
tim.mast@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice &
Mary Martin Weeks -- mary.weeks@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman
Sanders, pro hac vice.


HOME DEPOT: 2d Cir. Ruling Has Implications on Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Seigel, Esq., at Barnes Thornburg LLP, writing for National
Law Review, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to put an
end to long-running antitrust litigation concerning Visa and
MasterCard swipe fees. Instead, it left in place a ruling from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that overturned the
credit card companies' $7.25 billion settlement with millions of
retailers. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016), cert.
denied sub. nom., Photos Etc. Corp. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
137 S.Ct. 1374 (2017) (mem.).

The outcome not only delivers a hit to the credit card industry
and raises questions for businesses relying upon credit card
payments, but it will also have far-reaching implications for
class action counsel. Why? Because the Second Circuit did not look
favorably on the same lawyers representing the two subclasses.

Here's some background. Retailers and trade associations filed a
consolidated complaint against Visa, MasterCard, and several large
banks in 2006. The underlying class action concerned allegations
that the credit card companies developed rules allowing them to
charge higher interchange fees than what would otherwise be
tolerated in a competitive market. While the case was pending,
however, several legislative developments across the country
altered the industry in favor of merchants, somewhat minimizing
the imposition of the high fees.

After years of negotiating, in November of 2012 the district court
overseeing the case preliminarily approved the landmark settlement
agreement involving two distinct subclasses of plaintiffs: The
Rule 23(b)(3) subclass that consisted of merchants that accepted
the cards from January 2004 to November 2012 who would share the
largest cash payment in United States antitrust history, and the
Rule 23(b)(2) subclass that consisted of merchants accepting the
cards from then on, who would receive only injunctive relief in
the form of rule changes. The difference between the two
subclasses was quite consequential: members of a (b)(3) subclass
can opt out and pursue litigation on their own -- indeed,
thousands of retailers did -- while members of a (b)(2) subclass
are bound by the result.

The problem? Both subclasses were represented by the same lawyers,
which the Second Circuit determined posed a "fundamental conflict"
that created "unacceptable incentives" for those negotiating the
settlement. The Second Circuit observed, "[t]he fault lines are
glaring:" That is, the (b)(3) merchants had an interest in
maximizing cash compensation for past harm, while the (b)(2)
merchants had an interest in maximizing restraints to prevent
future harm.

What's more, the court appeared to suspect the resulting tension
had a significant effect; the relief between the two subclasses
was disparate. For example, the most significant relief afforded
to the (b)(2) subclass -- the ability to pass the surcharge on --
was limited, because some states prohibit the practice. Plus, the
injunctive relief lasted only until July 20, 2021, but the
litigation release was much broader, "bind[ing] in perpetuity,
without opportunity to reject the settlement, all merchants who in
the future will accept Visa and MasterCard, including those not
yet in existence." The release lasted so long as the credit card
companies' rules remained substantially similar to those in place
in November 2012.

The lesson for commercial litigants is to take a closer look at
potential conflicts of interest on all sides of a lawsuit. This is
particularly so when dealing with parties with divergent interests
and lawyers who stand to gain -- perhaps even, as here,
"enormously" so -- by getting the deal done. Time spent
considering whether class counsel have adequate "incentive to
zealously represent" the entire class could save the deal and
avoid considerable headache. [GN]


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Technical FACTA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey J. Lee, Esq. -- mlee@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey recently concluded
that a putative class representative did not have standing under
Spokeo to sue for a technical violation of the federal Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).

The Court identified the issue as whether the consumer alleges a
sufficiently "concrete" harm to confer standing, based on a
technical violation of FACTA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq.,
when a retail store printed the first six numbers and last four
numbers of his credit card on his transaction receipts.  Relying
on the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540, 1548 (2016), the Court identified two factors that determine
whether an intangible harm is sufficiently concrete to confer
standing under Article III.

The first factor, according to the Court, was "whether an alleged
intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English or American courts."

The second factor was "whether Congress has expressed an intent to
make an injury redressable."  Even if a statute creates a
statutory right and gives a person authority to have that right
vindicated, the Court continued, Article III still requires
concrete injury even if the statute has been violated.

Because the plaintiff did not adequately allege a concrete injury
for the technical violation, the Court dismissed his second
amended complaint.

The defendants here were a conglomerate of clothing stores and
manufacturers.  On three occasions, the plaintiff purchased
clothes from the defendants and the defendants printed the first
six and last four digits of the plaintiff's credit card.

As you may recall, under FACTA, "no person that accepts credit
cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print
more than the last 5 digits of the card number . . . upon any
receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction." See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c. The statute creates a
private cause of action for "any actual damages . . . or damages
of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000" for each
violation. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a).

The plaintiff filed his original, single-count FACTA complaint in
January 2015 and his first amended complaint ("FAC") in March
2015, seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1000 per violation, as
well as attorney's fees and punitive damages.  In August 2015, the
Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).  In December of that year, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of
Spokeo.

In May 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Spokeo held
that a plaintiff does not automatically "satisf[y] the injury-in-
fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory
right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate
that right."  Applying Spokeo, the Court determined that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiff's FAC
without prejudice.

The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint ("SAC").  The
defendants again moved to dismiss for lack of standing.  While the
defendants' motion to dismiss was pending, the Third Circuit
decided In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846
F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017), which applied Spokeo in the context of an
alleged data breach that led to the disclosure of the plaintiff's
personal information.

The Court first identified the issue as "whether [plaintiff]
alleges a sufficiently 'concrete' harm to confer standing." Next,
the Court analyzed the two recent cases, Spokeo and Horizon,
addressing issues of concreteness and standing.

First, the Court quoted extensively from the findings in Spokeo
related to concrete injuries. "'Concrete' injuries may be
'intangible' or non-economic, but, like other cognizable injuries,
they must be 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.'" Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548.  The Court then
identified two factors from Spokeo that determine whether an
intangible harm is sufficiently concrete.  The first is "whether
an alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that
has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit
in English or American courts." Id. If so, "it is likely to be
sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact element of standing."
Horizon, 846 F.3d at 637 (3d Cir. 2017).

The second consideration, according to the Court, is "whether
Congress has expressed an intent to make an injury redressable;"
for, "even if an injury was previously inadequate in law, Congress
may elevate it to the status of [a] legally cognizable injur[y]."
Id. (quoting Spokeo, 846 F.3d at 637).

The Court continued, "a plaintiff does not automatically satisf[y]
the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person
a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to
vindicate that right. Article III standing requires a concrete
injury even in the context of a statutory violation.'" See Spokeo,
136 S. Ct. at 1549.

Next, the Court analyzed the findings from Horizon.  In that case,
two laptop computers containing unencrypted personal information
of over 800,000 health insurance customers were stolen from
defendant's headquarters.  The breach ultimately led to a
fraudulent tax return being filed in the plaintiff's name and to
an attempted credit card fraud.  The plaintiff was also denied
credit because his social security number had been associated with
identity theft.  The plaintiff's complaint alleged several
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
including the unauthorized furnishing of personal information.

Applying Spokeo, the Third Circuit denied the defendant's facial
challenge, holding that the alleged injuries were sufficiently
"concrete" to confer constitutional standing.  The Court
acknowledged that, under Anglo-American law, the "unauthorized
disclosures of information have long been seen as injurious," and,
by passing the FCRA, Congress clearly intended to establish "that
the unauthorized dissemination of personal information by a credit
reporting agency causes an injury in and of itself -- whether or
not the disclosure of that information increased the risk of
identity theft or some other future harm."

The Third Circuit concluded that the alleged injury in Horizon was
"concrete" because it sufficiently resembled a common law injury
(invasion of privacy), such that Congress could "elevat[e] [it] to
the status of legally cognizable injur[y]." Id at 640. The New
Jersey District Court acknowledged that the Horizon majority
declined to consider "the full reach of congressional power to
elevate a procedural violation to an injury in fact," because the
case before it "[did] not strain that reach." Id. at 638.

Relying on the findings from Spokeo and Horizon, the Court turned
its attention to the facts of this case, where the plaintiff
attempted to identify two "concrete" injuries: (1) disclosure of
information considered by law to be intrinsically private, and (2)
the increased risk of identity theft or credit card fraud in the
future. According to the Court, neither theory alleged an adequate
"concrete" injury, so the plaintiff failed to satisfy the injury-
in-fact element of constitutional standing.

Applying the factors from Spokeo, the Court determined that there
was no meaningful relationship between the defendants' conduct and
any privacy interest historically recognized at common law.
"Unlike in Horizon, Plaintiff's personal information was not
disclosed to third parties or used to perpetrate credit-card or
tax fraud."  According to the Court, the defendants did not
"disclose" the plaintiff's personal information.  Instead, he gave
his credit card to the defendants and they printed some of the
numbers on his receipt.  "[P]rinting a card's first six and last
four digits -- rather than only the last five digits -- does not
implicate the historic 'right to be let alone,' particularly when
the first six digits do not pertain to the customer's individual
bank account."

As to the second factor under Spokeo, "the judgment of Congress,"
the Court concluded that it did not support the plaintiff's
argument. "[I]t does not follow that Congress contemplated private
actions by individuals who have not sustained any actual harm."

The Court next addressed the plaintiff's allegation of increased
risk of identity theft in the future.  The Court acknowledged
that, based on the holdings from Spokeo, "if [plaintiff]
adequately alleges that [defendants'] statutory violation creates
a material risk of future harm, then [plaintiff] likely has
constitutional standing."  The Court, however, quickly concluded
the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged a risk of future harm.

The Court observed that credit card numbers are 16 digits long,
with the first six relating to the issuing bank and the last 10
referring to the card holder.  Thus, by printing the first six and
last four, the defendants did not increase the risk of future harm
because the personal information given -- the last four digits --
did not exceed the five digits permitted by Congress.

Next, the Court addressed the plaintiff's allegations that
"dumpster divers" or "sophisticated criminals" could use the
receipts to perpetrate fraud. According to the Court, the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient information to establish
these alleged harm-causing scenarios were anything other than
hypothetical and too remote.  Accordingly, the Court rejected
those allegations.

Finally, the Court summarized its findings: "Congress cannot
empower individuals to manufacture a 'case' or 'controversy' where
none exists.  As Spokeo explained and Horizon acknowledged, the
'congressional power to elevate intangible harms into concrete
injuries is not without limits.' Those limits are established by
Article III of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court.  This Court finds that [defendants'] technical violation of
FACTA lies beyond these limits."

Accordingly, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the plaintiff's SAC. [GN]


HULCHER SERVICES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Stagner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., denied the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of class claims under Section 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit entitled DAVID
STAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HULCHER SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01036-FJG
(W.D. Mo.).

Judge Gaitan opined that in sum, although the standard for
conditionally certifying an opt-in class under the FLSA is
lenient, the Plaintiff has not met that standard.

In support of the Motion, the Plaintiff has provided as support
only his own affidavit, indicating that "all" similarly situated
employees across the country worked more than 40 hours per week
without receiving straight time for all hours worked and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week,
according to the order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4KeZ7m4n


HYATT CORP: Guarisma's Redacted Bid to Certify Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ursula Ungaro denied as moot the Plaintiff's redacted
motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled CARLOS GUARISMA v.
HYATT CORP., Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.).

On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a redacted Motion to Certify
Class, along with a Motion to Seal.  On July 17, 2017, the Court
denied Plaintiff's Motion to Seal, and ordered Plaintiff to re-
file an unsealed and un-redacted Motion to Certify Class.

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an unsealed and un-redacted
Motion to Certify Class.  Accordingly, the Court denied as moot
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

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


IC SYSTEM: Olson Moves to Certify Class, Appoint Rep. and Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Olson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. IC SYSTEM, INC.
and MASON COMPANIES, INC., D/B/A STONEBERRY, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01014-DEJ (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=G8JcYfkA

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


ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in "Walsh" Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting application for preliminary approval of the
Settlement and the Settlement Class in the case captioned LISA
WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00607-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.).

The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
Settlement Class based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and Release between Plaintiff and Defendant (Stipulation
of Settlement) filed herewith. The Settlement appears to be fair,
adequate and reasonable to the Class.

The Court confirms Plaintiff Lisa Walsh as Class Representative
and Thierman Buck, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court confirms
Simpluris as the Claims Administrator.

Final Fairness and Approval hearing is set for October 30, 2017 at
1:30 P.M.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yardb8pyfrom Leagle.com.

Lisa Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP., 7287 Lakeside Dr., Reno, NV, 89511-76520

Lisa Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by Leah Lin Jones --
leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP. 7287 Lakeside Dr., Reno, NV, 89511-76520

ITS Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V. Alcala, 70
W Madison St, Ste 3500, Chicago, IL 60602-4252, Ungaretti & Harris
LLP, Brittany Ann Bogaerts, Nixon Peabody LLP, 70 W Madison St,
Ste 3500, Chicago, IL 60602-4252, Seth Neulight, Nixon Peabody
LLP, 70 W Madison St, Ste 3500, Chicago, IL 60602-4252, Jill Irene
Greiner -- jillgreiner@att.net -- Dotson Law & Robert A. Dotson,
Dotson Law.


J.C. PENNEY: "Marcus" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN B. MARCUS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.C. PENNEY
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:13-CV-00736-
RWS (E.D. Tex.), the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued an Order adopting
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommends that the
District Court enter the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing for Notice.

On June 27, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Notice of No
Objections, stating that the parties reviewed the Report and
Recommendation and do not have any objections. The Court therefore
Adopt the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as
those of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb8ly8gufrom Leagle.com.

Alan B. Marcus, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Suzanne
Myers -- damin@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Alan B. Marcus, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Brane --
Abrane@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay
Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, David J. Harris, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David
Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, James Albert Caputo  -- jacaplc.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Rocky M. Lawdermilk, Rocky Lawdermilk - Attorney at
Law, 2630 Liberty, Beaumont, TX 77702,Samuel H. Rudman --
Srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, pro hac vice,
Thomas John Ward, Jr. -- tjw@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill,
PLLC & Jack Wesley Hill -- wh@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill,
PLLC. National Shopmen Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com --  Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Robert R. Henssler -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com -- Jr.,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Claire Abernathy Henry --
claire@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Danielle Suzanne
Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem --
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack
Wesley Hill, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, James Albert Caputo,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Rachel A. Cocalis --
Rcocalis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Theodore
J. Pintar -- tedp@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& X. Jay Alvarez -- jaya@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

David O'Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Jonah H. Goldstein,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Shawn Gilbert, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Elton Joe Kendall,
Kendall Law Group, LLP 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700, Dallas, Texas,
75204 & Rocky M. Lawdermilk, Rocky Lawdermilk - Attorney at Law.
Erhan Erdem, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Rocky M. Lawdermilk,
Rocky Lawdermilk - Attorney at Law & Roger Bruce Greenberg,
Sponsel Miller Greenberg PLLC. 50 Briar Hollow Lane, Suite 370
West, Houston, TX 77027

J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Jacob
Mendro --jmendro@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Meryl L. Young, --myoung@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Robert C. Walters, --rwalters@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, John Frederick Bufe, Potter Minton, a Professional
Corporation, 110 North College, 500 Plaza Tower, Tyler, TX 75702
Lissa M. Percopo -- lpercopo@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP & Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton, a Professional
Corporation. 110 N. College, Tyler TX

Myron E. Ullman, III, Defendant, represented by Jason Jacob
Mendro, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Meryl L. Young, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Robert C. Walters, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, John
Frederick Bufe, Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation, Lissa
M. Percopo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Michael E. Jones, Potter
Minton, a Professional Corporation.

Kenneth H. Hannah, Defendant, represented by Jason Jacob Mendro,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Meryl L. Young, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Robert C. Walters, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, John Frederick
Bufe, Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation, Lissa M. Percopo,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton, a
Professional Corporation.

JC Penney Investor Group, Consol Defendant, represented by Michael
Kevin Hurst -- mhurst@lynnllp.com -- Gruber Elrod Johansen Hail
Shank, LLP.

J.C. Penny Company, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Meryl
L. Young, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C.
Walters, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher & Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton,
a Professional Corporation.

Myron E. Ullman, III, Consol Defendant, represented by Meryl L.
Young, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C.
Walters, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher & Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton,
a Professional Corporation.

Kenneth H. Hannah, Consol Defendant, represented by Meryl L.
Young, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C.
Walters, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher & Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton,
a Professional Corporation.

Heath Clute, Movant, represented by Rocky M. Lawdermilk, Rocky
Lawdermilk - Attorney at Law.

Omar Ahmed, Movant, represented by Thomas Emerson Bilek, The Bilek
Law Firm, LLP. 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950, Houston, TX 77002
The Saso Group, Movant, represented by Daniel Ward Jackson, The
Jackson Law Firm. 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 1116, Houston, TX 77027
JC Penney Investor Group, Movant, represented by Brian C. Kerr,
Milberg Weiss Bershad & William Kelly Puls, Puls Haney, PLLC. 301
Commerce Street, Suite 2900, Fort Worth, TX 76102-3428
Christos Ifantides, Movant, represented by Ira Michael Press --
ipress@kmllp.com --- Kirby McInemey LLP & Roger F. Claxton --
roger@claxtonlaw.com --

Aletti Gestielle SGR S.p.A., Movant, represented by Michael W.
Stocker --mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP & Thomas
Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- Ajamie LLP.


JACKSON HEWITT: Fla. Court Allows Scoma to Amend TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint captioned
SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC., JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY
SERVICES LLC, ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC, JOHN DOES 1-5 and NAVEEN
MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM. (M.D. Fla.).
The Plaintiff, however, is allowed to file a second amended
complaint.

This is a junk fax case.  Scoma filed this action pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227.  Scoma
alleges that the Defendants transmitted by fax machine an
unsolicited facsimile to Scoma.

The fax consists of a one-page document describing a product of
Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. Scoma alleges that it had not given
Defendants permission or express invitation to send the fax, and
that Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles to
it and others without the opt-out language and notice required by
47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200.

To state a claim for violation of the TCPA, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) the fax is an advertisement; (2) the fax was
unsolicited; and (3) the defendant(s) sent the fax to a telephone
facsimile machine using a telephone facsimile machine, computer,
or other device. 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C). An unsolicited
advertisement within the meaning of the TCPA is any material
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person
without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in
writing or otherwise.

Scoma alleges that Defendants used a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send an unsolicited facsimile to
Plaintiff. However, the Court finds that Scoma fails to adequately
allege which Defendant was the sender of the fax, let alone
provide factual support.  A sender within the meaning of the TCPA
is the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited
advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or
promoted in the unsolicited advertisement.

The Court further finds that Scoma fails to allege that the
Jackson Hewitt Defendants knew that the other named Defendants
were sending a fax, or any other facts which, if true, would
render the Jackson Hewitt Defendants liable for the others'
conduct. The same holds true for Astro and Mathur.

Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice,
and Scoma will be given an opportunity to replead consistent with
the Federal Rules and this Order.

To satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must give defendants fair
notice of a plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests.

The Court notes that, here, the Complaint likely fails to comply
with Rule 8, as it merely recites portions of the statute and
completely lacks factual support for its allegations of years of
unauthorized faxes sent to the putative class members.

While dismissing class allegations at this stage of the case is
considered an extreme remedy that is usually reserved for cases
where it is apparent from the face of the complaint that class
certification will be impossible regardless of the facts the
plaintiff later may be able to prove, and that arguments as to the
sufficiency of class allegations are better suited as challenges
to a motion for class certification, rather than as a basis for a
motion to dismiss, Wagner v. CLC Resorts and Devs., Inc., 32
F.Supp.3d 1193, 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

Scoma is directed to file a second amended complaint, failure to
do so may result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available http://tinyurl.com/ycb3lll6from Leagle.com.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -
- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice.
Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly
-- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Jackson Hewitt Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale A. Evans, Jr.
-- dale.evans@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De
Simone -- Michael.peter@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas
Justin Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP.

Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, Defendant, represented by
Dale A. Evans, Jr., Locke Lord, LLP, Michael Peter De Simone,
Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas Justin Cunningham, Locke Lord, LLP.

Astro Tax Services LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.

Naveen Mathur, Defendant, Pro Se.


KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Denied in "Opperman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar denied the motion for class certification
re: False Advertising Law and related claims filed in the lawsuit
titled MARC OPPERMAN, et al. v. KONG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a putative class action against Apple for alleged
invasions of privacy through applications on Apple devices.  The
action began as separate class actions filed in California and
Texas against Apple and multiple App Defendants.  The four actions
were consolidated, and the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013.

The Plaintiffs challenge Apple's alleged misrepresentations
regarding the security features on certain Apple devices.  In
their second consolidated amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that, between July 10, 2008 and February 2012, they owned one or
more of three Apple products -- the iPhone, iPad or iPod touch
(collectively "iDevices").

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify this class against
Apple with regard to Plaintiffs' False Advertising Law,
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, deceit, and Unfair
Competition Law claims:

     All United States residents who, prior to February 8, 2012
     (the "Class Period") purchased an iDevice of the following
     models: iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPad,
     iPad 2 or the second through fourth generations of the iPod
     Touch (the "Class Devices").

Apple opposes the Motion, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not
established predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
damages can be measured, as required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013); and that the proposed class contains
uninjured members.

Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
established predominance or demonstrated a feasible way of
measuring damages, it will deny certification, Judge Tigar opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x6K59ciV


KROGER CO: Certification of FCRA Class Sought in "Reid" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DELORES REID, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00815-TSB (S.D. Ohio), moves the Court for
an order certifying this class:

     All individuals throughout the United States who applied for
     an employment position with Kroger's Mid-Atlantic Division,
     and about whom Kroger obtained a consumer report for
     employment purposes from General Information Services, Inc.
     that Kroger classified as "Not Clear for Hire" or "Hold"
     within two years immediately preceding the filing of the
     Complaint and during its pendency.

Defendants The Kroger Co. and Kroger Limited Partnership I
uniformly failed to provide mandatory pre-adverse action
disclosures and notices, according to Ms. Reid.  She contends that
Kroger's systematic failures to do so constitute willful
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and are suitable for
class wide adjudication.

Ms. Reid additionally moves the Court for an order deeming her an
adequate representative of the Class and appointing Matthew A.
Dooley, Esq., Stephen M. Bosak, Esq., and Ryan M. Gembala, Esq.,
of O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., LPA, as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0H9olIUE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Stephen M. Bosak, Esq.
          Ryan M. Gembala, Esq.
          O'TOOLE, McLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA CO., LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com
                  sbosak@omdplaw.com
                  rgembala@omdplaw.com


LA MERIDIONAL: One-Year Limitation Period Applied in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Torres Girotti, Esq. -- martin.torres@bomchil.com -- of M &
M Bomchil, in an article for Mondaq, reports that for the first
time in an insurance class action brought by a consumers'
association, the National Commercial Court of Appeals applied the
one-year limitation period set out in the Insurance Law instead of
the three-year limitation period set forth in the Consumer
Protection Law.

The judgement was issued in re "Consumidores Financieros
Asociacion Civil p/ su defensa c/ La Meridional Compania Argentina
de Seguros s/ ordinario", where the plaintiff consumers'
association sought: (i) the nullity of a clause regarding total
destruction of the vehicle based on the percentage of the sale
value of the wreckage; and (ii) an indemnification for the clients
of the defendant that were not indemnified for the complete value
of the vehicle due to said clause.

The defense was regarded as preliminary since it involved a matter
of law and also to provide certainty as to the retroactive scope
of the evidence to be taken.

As the grounds for its decision, the Court of Appeals explained
that the statute of limitation cannot be separated from the cause
of the action, so that when said cause is set out in the insurance
contract, the limitation period to be applied is one-year as set
forth in the Insurance Law and not the general three-year
limitation period of the Consumer Protection Law.

The reason for this is that the Consumer Protection Law is a
general rule applicable to all consumers' contracts or
relationships so that it cannot tacitly or implicitly prevail over
the Insurance Law, as the latter is a previously enacted law that
specifically and exclusively regulates insurance contracts.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals stated that this solution
accords with the amendment introduced by law No. 26,994 to the
Consumer Protection Law, as it limited the three-year limitation
period to sanctions -- and no longer to claims -- emerging from
said Consumer Protection Law.

In other words, the amendment eliminated all references to legal
claims based on the Consumer Protection Law and to the mandatory
limitation period most favorable to the consumer when other laws
set forth a different term.

The decision was challenged by the plaintiff through an
extraordinary appeal which was dismissed and led to a direct
remedy of complaint before the National Supreme Court whose
decision is still pending.

This is a relevant precedent for consumers' class actions related
to insurance contracts as it settles the ordinary dispute on the
applicable limitation period, limiting the retroactive
indemnification liability to one year.

Even though the National Supreme Court has not yet issued a
decision on this matter in the context of consumers' class
actions, it has done so in several individual claims giving the
same ruling expressed by the Court of Appeals.  Therefore, the
likely outcome is that the National Supreme Court will follow its
prior doctrine even in the case of class actions, should the
direct remedy of complaint be opened.

This is so because: (i) the rules involved do not foresee a
different limitation period for class actions and (ii) such a
solution does not dismiss the action but only limits the
limitation period to be considered, thus allowing the main purpose
of these claims which is preventing or correcting alleged abuses
and not obtaining an indemnification. [GN]


LEE COUNTY, FL: Bid for Certification in "Gittens" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order
accepting and adopting the Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report
and Recommendation in the case captioned GWYNETTA GITTENS, JERALD
THOMPSON, STEPHANIE LAWRENCE and PRESTON TOWNS, an individual
Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-412-FtM-99MRM (M.D. Fla.), recommending denying
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class Action Pursuant to Rule
23(B)(1).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order and
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycamcan6from
Leagle.com.

Gwynetta Gittens, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Yormak --
byormak@yormaklaw.com -- Yormak Disability Law Group.
Dr. Jerald Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Yormak,
Yormak Disability Law Group.

Stephanie Lawrence, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Yormak,
Yormak Disability Law Group.

Preston Towns, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Yormak,
Yormak Disability Law Group.

The School Board of Lee County, Florida, Defendant, represented by
Richard Barton Akin, II Richard.akin@henlaw.com -- Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA & Suzanne Makayla Boy  --
suzanne.boy@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA.


LEXMARK INT'L: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on July 20, 2017, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System ("Oklahoma
Firefighters") against Lexmark International, Inc. ("Lexmark" or
the "Company") (NYSE:LXK), and certain of its senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Lexmark
International, Inc., No. 17-cv-05543 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Lexmark between August 1, 2014 and July 20,
2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's end-user demand,
channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high-margin
supplies business.  Lexmark is a manufacturer of printers and
related supplies, primarily ink cartridges.  Lexmark sells its
products to wholesale distributors and large retail chains in more
than 90 countries around the world.

During the Class Period, Lexmark repeatedly touted the
profitability and growth of its high-margin supplies business.
However, Defendants' Class Period statements pertaining to the
Company's profitability and growth prospects were materially false
and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
end-user demand and growth for the Company's supplies business was
deteriorating; (2) pricing increases were the primary driver of
supplies revenue growth, not end-user demand; (3) customers in the
supplies channel reacted by buying ahead of anticipated pricing
increases; and as a result, (4) there was excessive inventory
levels at its European wholesale distributors.

On July 21, 2015, when Lexmark reported poor results for its
second quarter ending June 30, 2015 and lowered its 2015 sales
guidance, the Company ultimately revealed its supplies growth was
not attributable to end-user demand but rather the result of its
European customers buying ahead of customary price increases which
produced excessive inventory.  In reaction to this revelation, the
Company's stock price dropped $9.57 per share, or 20.2 percent, to
close at $37.75 per share on July 21, 2015.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
Lexmark during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York no later than September 19,
2017.  The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment
as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.
If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class,
you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Oklahoma-
Firefighters-Pension-and-Retirement-System-v-Lexmark-
International-Inc.cfm

Oklahoma Firefighters is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is
built on its half-century of securities litigation experience,
more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading
industry publications.  Offices are located in New York, NY,
Wilmington, DE, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL.  [GN]


LIBERTY INSURANCE: Mo. Court Narrows Claims in "Bond"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, issued an Order denying in part and
granting in part Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions for summary
judgment in the case captioned DAVID BOND and REBECCA BOND,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 2:15-
cv-04236-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

The summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant as to the
Wind/Hail Endorsement.  Summary judgment is, likewise, granted in
favor of Plaintiffs for their Coverage A and B claims under the
Base Policy and Home Protector Plus Endorsement.

Plaintiffs David and Rebecca Bond purchased a Liberty Guard Deluxe
Homeowners Insurance Policy from Defendant Liberty Insurance
Corporation.  The Bonds' policy includes an endorsement for wind
and hail damage. In April 2014, the Bonds' home was damaged by
hail, and they submitted a claim to Liberty for coverage of that
hail damage.

The Insurance coverage provides for:

   COVERAGE A - Dwelling. We cover: 1. The dwelling on the
residence premises shown in the Declarations, including structures
attached to the dwelling;

   COVERAGE B - Other Structures. We cover other structures on the
residence premises set apart from the dwelling by clear space.
The primary issue in this lawsuit is whether Liberty's policy
permits it to subtract a deductible from an Actual Cash Value
payment made for an insured's property damage covered under the
base policy, Home Protector Plus Endorsement, or Wind/Hail
Endorsement.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment because they interpret
Liberty's base policy and relevant endorsements as allowing a
deductible to be taken only when an RCV payment is made to the
insured. Plaintiffs move the Court for a declaratory judgment as
to Liberty's ability to apply a deductible to ACV payments for
Coverage A and B claims, as well as for an injunction precluding
Liberty from continuing this practice with future insureds'
claims.

Liberty moves for summary judgment arguing that its policy
requires the payment of a deductible, regardless of whether the
insured opts for an ACV or RCV payment for Coverage A and/or B
losses covered by the policy.  Liberty includes new arguments, as
well as arguments it already briefed in opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, requesting the Court to reconsider
its rejection of those arguments.

Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.  In this case, there is no dispute of material
fact, the Court held.  Therefore, the only question is whether
Liberty's policy requires a deductible to be paid when an ACV
payment is made for Coverage A and B claims, and if so, whether
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction.

The Court rejects Liberty's numerous attempts to relitigate both
the appropriateness of bifurcating this action and class
certification, issues that this Court has already resolved in
prior orders.  First, Liberty did not oppose Plaintiffs' motion to
bifurcate, which was filed at an early stage in this litigation.
Only now, more than one year later, does Liberty seemingly wish to
challenge whether this action should have been bifurcated in the
first place by arguing the lack of usefulness and efficiency of
bifurcation.  The Court rejects these arguments as untimely at
this late stage of the litigation.

Second, as to Liberty's arguments going to the appropriateness of
class certification, this Court has already spent extensive time
analyzing this issue and has addressed Liberty's arguments at
length once before. Therefore, the Court declines to reconsider
such arguments again at the present summary judgment stage.

As a separate argument, which again goes to the appropriateness of
class certification, Liberty contends that Plaintiffs' are not
entitled to declaratory relief because the relief sought will
purportedly not apply to all class members.

Wind/Hail Endorsement

The relevant language from the Wind/Hail Endorsement is as
follows:

     "The following special Deductible is added to the policy: For
the premium charged, we will pay only that part of the total of
covered direct physical loss to property covered under Section I
of this policy caused by Windstorm or Hail that exceeds the
Windstorm or Hail Deductible as shown on the Declarations. . . "

When this Windstorm or Hail Deductible Applies

This Deductible applies in the event of direct physical loss to
property covered under this policy caused directly or indirectly
by the perils of Windstorm or Hail.

The Court finds that the provision's plain language clearly
explains the requisite conditions for the endorsement to apply in
the first place. First, there must be a direct physical loss to
property covered under Section I. Second, that direct physical
loss must be caused by wind or hail. And third, the total of this
loss must be greater than the Wind/Hail Deductible, otherwise
there would be no sense in applying the Wind/Hail Endorsement
because the deductible would negate any recovery for the insured.

Accordingly, this conflict affirms that the Section I referred to
by the Wind/Hail Endorsement means the sum total of all direct
physical losses caused directly or indirectly by wind or hail that
are covered under Section I of the policy, including Coverage C
losses. Thus, the Court finds that a windstorm/hail deductible
applies, even if the insured takes only an ACV payment and does
not elect to submit a replacement cost claim. Liberty's motion for
summary judgment as to the Wind/Hail Endorsement is therefore
granted.

This particular request for injunctive relief, however, is much
narrower than the request in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which
Plaintiffs admit to having abandoned. Because Plaintiffs have
abandoned their much broader injunctive claims in their Amended
Complaint, Liberty is correct that summary judgment must be
granted as to those claims.

The Court next considers the merits of granting the more narrow
permanent injunction sought by Plaintiffs. The Injunctive Relief
Subclass is defined as:

     "all persons with a dwelling or other structure located in
the state of Missouri insured by Liberty Insurance Corporation
under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 09) and endorsements at the
time of class certification."

Therefore, the Court will amend the Injunctive Relief Subclass to
reflect the following italicized revisions:

     "Injunctive Relief Subclass: all persons with a dwelling or
other structure located in the state of Missouri insured by
Liberty Insurance Corporation under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04
09) and endorsements at the time of the Court's Order granting
injunctive relief.

     "Excluded from this subclass are: (1) those insureds who
opened new Liberty policies written on or after April 17, 2017,
and (2) those insureds who renewed their Liberty policies on or
after June 15, 2017."

For the first time in its Reply, Liberty asserts that the Bonds
cannot represent the injunctive relief subclass because they have
not had a current policy with Liberty since even prior to the
Court's Class Certification order. Liberty contends that the Bonds
cancelled their homeowner's policy with Liberty.

As a general rule, the Court does not consider arguments raised
for the first time in a reply brief. Bearden v. Lemon, 475 F.3d
926, 930 (8th Cir. 2007).

However, because Liberty's argument challenges the satisfaction of
a fundamental class certification requirement, this argument must
be addressed before the Court can rule on the merits of this
subclass's injunctive relief claim.

Therefore, the Court will permit Plaintiffs 20 days to respond. If
no response is filed by this deadline, the injunctive relief
subclass will be decertified for lack of an adequate
representative, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(4).

Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions for summary judgment are
granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted in
favor of Defendant as to the Wind/Hail Endorsement. Summary
judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs for their Coverage A
and B claims under the Base Policy and Home Protector Plus
Endorsement. In addition, the class definition is amended.

Rather than decertifying the class on the ground that the named
plaintiffs are no longer adequate representatives of the
declaratory relief subclass, the Court affords Plaintiffs an
opportunity to submit a motion for the substitution or
intervention of new named plaintiffs in this action within 30 days
of the date of this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion is
available http://tinyurl.com/ycy6go4wfrom Leagle.com.

Rebecca J Bond, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Steelman,
Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield. 901 Pine Street, Suite 110, Rolla,
MO 65401

Rebecca J Bond, Plaintiff, represented by Derrick L. Morton, --
morton@ntmdlaw.com -- Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood,
pro hac vice, Douglas A. Terry, -- rfitzpatrick@ntmdlaw.com --
Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood, pro hac vice & Thomas
H. Hearne, Hearne & Pivac, 3830-B S Lone Pine Ave, Springfield, MO
65804, USA

David Bond, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Steelman, Steelman,
Gaunt & Horsefield, Derrick L. Morton, Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt
Paruolo & Wood, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Terry, Nelson Terry
Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood, pro hac vice & Thomas H. Hearne,
Hearne & Pivac.

Liberty Insurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce A.
Moothart -- bruce@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris LLC &
Deena Bein Jenab -- deena@sbhlaw.com --Seyferth Blumenthal &
Harris LLC.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: J. Heckman Allowed to Intervene in "LaFollette"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, issued an Order granting Jean
Heckmann's motion to intervene individually and as class
representative in the case captioned ERIC LAFOLLETTE and CAMILLE
LAFOLLETTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, No. 2:14-CV-04147-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

Eric and Camille Lafollette originally filed the current case as a
putative class action. The Court certified this case as a class
action and appointed the Lafollettes as class representatives.

The Court entered its Order granting in part and denying in part
both parties' motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted
summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual on the Wind/Hail
Endorsement subclass, finding that a deductible did apply to any
claims made under this endorsement.

Because the Lafollettes' claim arose under the Wind/Hail
Endorsement, the Court found that their claim was no longer viable
and that as a result, they could no longer continue to serve as
class representatives.

Rather than decertifying the class because of the Lafollettes'
inadequacy as class representatives, the Court afforded
Plaintiffs' counsel 30 days to submit a motion for substitution or
intervention of a new named plaintiff. Jean Heckmann now seeks to
intervene individually and as the named plaintiff representing the
class in this matter.

The class Ms. Heckmann seeks to represent has already been defined
by the Court as:

     "All persons who received an ACV payment, directly or
indirectly, from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company for
physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other structures
located in the state of Missouri arising under policy Form HO 03
(Edition 04 91) and endorsements, such payments arising from
losses that occurred where a deductible was applied to the ACV
payment for the person's dwelling or other structure (Coverage A
and/or B)."

Jean Heckmann moves to intervene in this matter pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. It is well settled that when a
certified class exists, as is the case here, class members should
be allowed to intervene to represent the class rather than
allowing the class to fail.

It is firmly established that where a class action exists, members
of the class may intervene or be substituted as named plaintiffs
in order to keep the action alive after the claims of the original
named plaintiffs are rendered moot.

Liberty Mutual does not dispute that Ms. Heckmann is a class
member. However, Liberty Mutual objects to Ms. Heckmann's
intervention under Rule 23(a)(3), arguing that Ms. Heckmann is not
typical of the class and thus, cannot serve as class
representative. Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses
of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class.

Here, Ms. Heckmann's claims and the claims of the class arise from
the same course of conduct Liberty Mutual's systematic practice of
applying a deductible to ACV claims in Missouri under its form
policy HO 03. Like all other class members, Ms. Heckmann's
deductible was improperly applied to her ACV payment for her
Coverage A and/or B lossin her case, under her Home Protector Plus
Endorsement.

This Court has already rejected Liberty Mutual's arguments about
the Declarations governing application of a deductible, that
exclusion of the term, No deductible applies to this coverage
under certain Additional Coverages (ACV) somehow means that a
deductible does apply to all ACV payments, and that if an insured
can complete her repairs for the amount of the ACV payment, then
she has not been injured because she has effectively received the
RCV payment.

Accordingly, Liberty Mutual's recycled arguments, all of which
have already been rejected, in some cases multiple times, do not
serve to support its opposition to Ms. Heckmann's intervention.

The fact that some of her ACV payment arose from the Reasonable
Repairs provision does not undermine her typicality because it
does not change the fact that a deductible was improperly applied
to her ACV payment.

Ms. Heckmann's motion to intervene is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/ydaavmnzfrom
Leagle.com.

William Turley, Special Master, Pro Se.

Eric Lafollette, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Steelman,
Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield, 901 Pine Street, Suite 110, Rolla,
MO 65401, Thomas H. Hearne, Hearne & Pivac,  3830-B S Lone Pine
Ave, Springfield, MO 65804, USA, Derrick L. Morton --
morton@ntmdlaw.com -- Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood,
pro hac vice & Douglas A. Terry --  terry@ntmdlaw.com -- Nelson
Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood, pro hac vice.

Camille Lafolette, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Steelman,
Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield, Thomas H. Hearne, Hearne & Pivac,
Derrick L. Morton, Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Wood, pro
hac vice & Douglas A. Terry, Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo &
Wood, pro hac vice.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael L. Blumenthal -- mike@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth Blumenthal &
Harris LLC & Bruce A. Moothart -- bruce@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth
Blumenthal & Harris LLC.


LVNV FUNDING: Navarroli Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LVNV
FUNDING, LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., ALEGIS GROUP,
L.L.C., and FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, L.L.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-05373
(N.D. Ill.), seeks certification of two classes over alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

   (1) The Firstsource class consists of (a) all individuals with
       Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a letter was sent by or on
       behalf of Firstsource to collect a debt, (c) which debt
       was a credit card on which the last payment had been made
       more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which letter
       offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did not
       state that any payment may restart the statute of
       limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after a date
       one year prior to the filing of this action and on or
       before a date 21 days after the filing of this action; and

   (2) The LVNV class consists of (a) all individuals with
       Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a letter was sent by or on
       behalf of LVNV or Resurgent to collect a debt, (c) which
       debt was a credit card on which the last payment had been
       made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which
       letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did
       not state that any payment may restart the statute of
       limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after a date
       one year prior to the filing of this action and on or
       before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.

Mr. Navarroli further asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, as counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cc9cU6xu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANPOWER INC: Court Approves $2.9MM "Mata" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting the
parties request for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned JUVENTINA MATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK. (N.D. Cal.).

Due and adequate notice having been given to Class Members as
required by the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court
having considered all papers filed and proceedings in this case,
and determining that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and otherwise being fully informed and good cause
appearing, therefore it is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as
follows, inter alia:

   * Final approval will be with respect to the following class,
certification for which is granted:

        "All current and former non-exempt hourly associates who
worked for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula and all
current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for
Defendants Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US
Inc. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who performed work
and/or suffered violations of any law occurring while such person
was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or CPM LTD d/b/a
Manpower of San Diego and Manpower Temporary Services shall not be
considered a Class Member with respect to such employment."

Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido are suitable representatives for
the Settlement Class and are appointed the Class Representatives.
The Court finds that Padilla and Guido's investment and commitment
to the litigation and its outcome ensured adequate and zealous
advocacy for the Settlement Class, and that their interests are
aligned with those of the Settlement Class.

The Court finds that the attorneys at Fitzpatrick, Spini &
Swanston and Wanger, Jones, Helsley, PC, have the sufficient
experience, knowledge, and skill to promote and safeguard the
interests of the Class. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs'
counsel satisfy the professional and ethical obligations attendant
to the position of Class Counsel, and appoints Plaintiffs' counsel
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Pursuant to the settlement, Defendants will pay the gross
settlement amount of $2,900,000.  The Gross Settlement Fund shall
be paid to Class Members in the manner described in the Settlement
Agreement.

The request for civil penalties under PAGA in the amount of
$25,000 is granted. Seventy-Five Percent (75%), or $18,750, will
be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
The remaining 25%, or $6,250, will become part of the Net
Settlement Amount.

The Court approves claims administration expenses in the amount of
$200,000 to CPT Group, Inc.

Defendants will pay Class Members pursuant to the procedure
described in the Settlement Agreement. Defendants will have no
further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorneys' fees,
or for any other charge, expense, or liability, except as provided
in the Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel's request for an enhancement award of $7,500.00 each
for Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido is warranted, in
light of their service to the Class.  The request for an
enhancement award of $7,500.00 each to Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla
and Lesli Guido is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8bxo758from Leagle.com.

Juventina Mata, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston. 555 S Main St., Salinas, CA 93901-
3302

Juventina Mata, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James
Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, 555 S Main St.,
Salinas, CA 93901, David E. Cameron -- dcameron@downeybrand.com --
Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole --
ptoole@wjhattorneys.com  -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Steven Kurt
Vote -- svote@wjhattorneys.com  -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Claudia Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Steven
Kurt Vote, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Lesli Guido, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Steven
Kurt Vote, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula, Defendant, represented by
Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobi --
frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com  -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter
Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Paul Hastings LLP
& Timothy Lloyd Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C..

Manpowergroup US Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Spencer C.
Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence
Tobin, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick
Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul Hastings
LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, P.C..

Manpower Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobin,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen,
Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul Hastings LLP &
Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart,
P.C..

Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc.,, Defendant, represented by
Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis
Lawrence Tobin, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James
Patrick Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul
Hastings LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart, P.C..

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon David
Cantor -- jdcantor@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP.

Manpowergroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC & Timothy Lloyd Johnson,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C.


MANPOWER INC: Court Approves $725,000 Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting the
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the case captioned
JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA
PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK (N.D.
Cal.).

Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $725,000.00 (25% of the Gross Settlement Amount) to be
paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(h) is reasonable in light of the relevant
factors and as compared to the lodestar multiplier based upon the
hours spent in prosecuting this case. The request for an award of
25% of the Gross Settlement Amount is Granted.

The Ninth Circuit has established 25 percent of the fund as the
'benchmark' award that should be given in common fund cases. The
Ninth Circuit has approved the lodestar method as an appropriate
cross-check.

In the instant case, Class Counsel's reported lodestar was
$1,329,971.50. Therefore, Class Counsel's request for $750,000
represents a multiplier of 0.55. In other words, Class Counsel
will receive only slightly more than half of the reported
lodestar. The Ninth Circuit has approved multipliers significantly
higher than 0.55.

Of the 254 objection forms received by the Class Administrator,
only 1 form contained an objection to the award of attorney's
fees. Specifically, Bruce Therman Andrews, Sr. objected to the
attorney's fees motion and stated, "I am not being represented
properly so I object to their 25% they did nothing."

Andrews later submitted a letter confirming his desire to opt out.
Therefore, Andrews lacks standing to object to the settlement,
including the award of attorney's fees.  However, even if the
Court considers Andrews's statement as an objection, the Court
finds that Andrews has failed to take into account that Class
Counsel performed substantial work on behalf of the Class and
obtained a significant benefit for the Class. Therefore, Andrews's
objection to the award of attorney's fees is overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion is
available http://tinyurl.com/ybgsc5ovfrom Leagle.com.

Juventina Mata, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, 555 S Main St., Salinas, CA 93901-
3302

Juventina Mata, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James
Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, 555 S Main St Salinas,
CA 93901. Map it, Phone Number: (831) 755-1311, David E. Cameron,
Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC & Steven Kurt Vote, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Claudia Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Steven
Kurt Vote, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Lesli Guido, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Swanston,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Patrick Darryn Toole, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Steven
Kurt Vote, Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Manpower Inc./California Peninsula, Defendant, represented by
Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis
Lawrence Tobin, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James
Patrick Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul
Hastings LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart, P.C..

Manpowergroup US Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Spencer C.
Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence
Tobin, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick
Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul Hastings
LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, P.C..

Manpower Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobin,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen,
Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul Hastings LLP &
Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart,
P.C..

Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc.,, Defendant, represented by
Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis
Lawrence Tobin, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James
Patrick Allen, Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Paul
Hastings LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart, P.C..

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon David
Cantor, Dykema Gossett, LLP.

Manpowergroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC & Timothy Lloyd Johnson,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Arias' Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gladys Kessler denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled ROSA ARIAS
v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01258-GK
(D.D.C.).

Rosa Arias brings the action against the Defendant on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated.

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


MDL 2361: Court Partly Grants Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in case captioned IN
RE: SIMPLY ORANGE ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL CASES. MDL No. 2361,
Master Case No. 4:12-md-02361-FJG. (W.D. Mo.) and denying move for
Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiffs in this action assert that defendant, The Coca-Cola
Company (Coca-Cola), sells millions of containers of Simply
Orange, Minute Maid Pure Squeezed, and Minute Maid Pure Premium
(the orange juice products) to consumers each year throughout the
seven states at issue in this matter. Plaintiffs assert that
defendant has failed to disclose its use of added flavors in these
products, consisted with federal labeling regulations.

Plaintiffs further assert that defendant omits the proper
disclosures regarding added flavors, so that consumers are
deceived into paying a price premium for these products. Named
Plaintiffs are consumers from seven states (Alabama, California,
Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York) who seek to
certify a class.

Defendant denies that it adds flavoring which must be disclosed
under the federal regulations, as the add-backs it uses are 100%
made-from-the-orange products. Defendant further argues that both
Simply Orange and Minute Maid Pure Squeezed (MMPS) do not
consistently use add-backs year round.1 Defendant argues this
means tens of thousands of consumers suffered no injury and lack
Article III standing. Defendant also argues that only 1 in 25
consumers care about the add backs, according to its survey
expert, and therefore plaintiffs cannot demonstrate reliance on a
class-wide basis.

In the present motion, plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of
three classes: (1) all purchasers of Simply Orange orange juice in
Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and
New York during the class periods (hereinafter "Class Periods");
(2) all purchasers of Minute Maid Premium from concentrate orange
juice in Alabama from March 10, 2008 to the present; and (3) all
purchasers of Minute Maid Pure Squeezed Never From Concentrate
orange juice in Alabama from January 1, 2011 to the present.

In the alternative, Plaintiffs move to certify the following three
Classes: (1)(i)Plaintiffs, (ii) purchasers of Simply Orange orange
juice with proof of purchase during the Class Periods; or (iii)
purchasers of Simply Orange orange juice who purchased through
specified channels (namely, "member-only" retailers Costco
Wholesale, Sam's Club, or BJ's Wholesale Club) or using a retailer
loyalty card during the Class Periods; (2)(i) Plaintiff Albert J.
Veal; (ii) purchasers of Minute Maid Premium from concentrate
orange juice in Alabama from March 10, 2008 to the present with
proof of purchase; (iii) purchasers of Minute Maid Premium From
Concentrate orange juice in Alabama from March 10, 2008 to the
Present who purchased through specified channels (namely, "member-
only" retailers Costco Wholesale, Sam's Club, or BJ's Wholesale
Club) or using a retailer loyalty card; and (3)(i) Plaintiff
Albert J. Veal; (ii) purchasers of Minute Maid Pure Squeezed Never
From Concentrate Orange Juice in Alabama from January 1, 2011 to
the present with proof of purchase; and (3) purchasers of Minute
Maid Pure Squeezed Never From Concentrate Orange Juice in Alabama
from January 1, 2011 to the present who purchased through
specified channels (namely, "member-only" retailers Costco
Wholesale, Sam's Club, or BJ's Wholesale Club) or using a retailer
loyalty card.

For each of the classes, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule
23(b)(2) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, for certification of
an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4). Plaintiffs also seek
appointment of the named Plaintiffs as representatives of their
respective classes and appointment of Norman E. Siegel as Liaison
Class Counsel and Stephen A. Weiss, James E. Cecchi, and Kim
Richman as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g).

As the Court finds plaintiffs' proposed classes should be
certified, the Court adopts the following class definitions:

   (1) all purchasers of Simply Orange orange juice in Alabama,
California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York
during the class periods defined in note 2, above;

   (2) all purchasers of Minute Maid Premium from concentrate
orange juice in Alabama from March 10, 2008 to the present; and

   (3) all purchasers of Minute Maid Pure Squeezed Never From
Concentrate orange juice in Alabama from January 1, 2011 to the
present.

For each of these classes, the Court has certified an issues class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) to determine the following
questions: whether the orange juice products contain added flavors
not permitted by federal law; whether the orange juice products
omit disclosure of added flavors as required by federal labeling
laws; whether the orange juice products conformed to the
representations on the labels of the products; whether the orange
juice products omitted material information from the products'
labels; whether defendant warranted that the orange juice products
would conform to the label representations; and whether defendant
breached these warranties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7ahmngwfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Wieczorek, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Eli Siegel,
siegel@stuevesiegel.com Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP.
Paul Wieczorek, Plaintiff, represented by Parvin K. Aminolroaya,
Seeger Weiss LLP,77 Water Street, New York, NY 10005 pro hac vice,
Reginald Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, PO Box 13315,
Oakland, CA 94661, Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss LLP & Stephen A. Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice.

Cheryl D'Aloia, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke --
cburke@vlmglaw.com  -- Scott & Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
L. Davis, Davis & Taliaferro, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo,
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com Scott+Scott LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph
S. Silver, Silver & Agacinski, PA, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington Law
Group, LLP, 503 Divisadero StreetSan Francisco, CA 94117 Norman
Eli Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP & Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP.

John Albert Veal, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Herring,
Davis & Norris LLP, 801 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd N. Rm LL01,
Birmingham, AL 35203-2324, Jefferson County, Courtney L.
Peinhardt, Davis & Norris LLP, The Bradshaw House2154 Highland
Avenue SouthBirmingham, AL 35205, D. Frank Davis,
fdavis@davisnorris.com Davis & Norris LLP, pro hac vice, John E.
Norris,  jnorris@davisnorris.com Davis & Norris LLP, Norman Eli
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss
LLP & Wesley W. Barnett, Davis & Norris LLP.

Randall Davis, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Sternfield, Law
Office of David M. Sternfield, 17 N State St #1700, Chicago, IL
60602, USA,  Jamie Elisabeth Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC,. Jeffrey A.
Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Julie D. Miller, Complex Litigation Group
LLC, 513 Central Ave Ste 300, Highland Park, IL 60035 Norman Eli
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal
LLC & Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP.

Kirk Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Kim E. Richman,
info@richmanlawgroup.com The Richman Law Group, pro hac vice,
Michael Robert Reese, michael@reesellp.com  Reese Richman LLP,
Norman Eli Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Stephen A. Weiss,
Seeger Weiss LLP & Petra Renee Wicklund, Richman Law Group.

Jeremy M Dasaro, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower,
dbower@bowerlawgroup.com  Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Norman Eli Siegel,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP & Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP.
Carole Sovocool, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Bartlett,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., Donald A.
Ecklund, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart &
Olstein PC, Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Norman
Eli Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Sarah Nicole Westcot,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Scott A. Bursor, pro hac vice & Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP.

The Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Agnes Markarian
Sullivan, Gonzalez Saggio and Harlan LLP, Aileen Marie Fair,
Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Anthony R. Martinez, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Christy Thornton Nash, Burr & Forman, LLP,
Claudia Mercedes Rustad, Grippo & Elden LLC, Elizabeth Clare
Quirk, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Gary T. Lafayette,
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP, James M. Simpson, Friday, Eldredge &
Clark, John K. Sherk, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kade N. Olsen,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Kimberly Dickerson Young,
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Lynn Hagman Murray, Grippo & Elden,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Todd Steven
Keithley, Patterson Bilknap Webb & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Aron
R. Fischer, Patterson, Belknap, Webb, & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice,
Bryan O. Balogh, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Steven Alan Zalesin, Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice & Travis Jason Tu,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Simply Orange Juice Company, Defendant, represented by Aileen
Marie Fair, Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Anthony R.
Martinez, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Christy Thornton Nash, Burr &
Forman, LLP, Elizabeth Clare Quirk, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
LLP, Gary T. Lafayette, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP, John K. Sherk,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kade N. Olsen, Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Rik S.
Tozzi, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Todd Steven Keithley, Patterson Bilknap
Webb & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Aron R. Fischer, Patterson,
Belknap, Webb, & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Steven Alan Zalesin,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, pro hac vice & Travis Jason
Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

The Minute Maid Company, Defendant, represented by Aileen Marie
Fair, Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Anthony R. Martinez,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Elizabeth Clare Quirk, Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, John K. Sherk, Shook, Hardy & Bacon,
LLP, Kade N. Olsen, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Rebecca J.
Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Rik S. Tozzi, BURR & FORMAN
LLP, Todd Steven Keithley, Patterson Bilknap Webb & Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, Aron R. Fischer, Patterson, Belknap, Webb, & Tyler LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven Alan Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
LLP, pro hac vice & Travis Jason Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP.

Carole Sovocool, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Norman Eli Siegel, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP.


MDL 2665: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of Classes
--------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE:
MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., PEPPER PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2665 and Misc. No. 1:15-mc-01825-ESH
(D.D.C.), seek certification of several classes, their appointment
as class representatives, the appointment of Elizabeth A. Fegan,
Esq., of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Scott A. Kamber,
Esq., of KamberLaw LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and an order
directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the form of the
proposed notice to potential class members.

McCormick is reportedly the largest spice distributor in the
world, with over 20% of the global seasonings and spices market.
The litigation involves the alleged slack-filling of McCormick
black pepper products.

As to their claims for violations of state consumer protection
statutes against Defendants McCormick and Walmart, Plaintiffs
Deborah Esparza (California), Holly Marsh (California), Cynthia
Fernandez (Connecticut), Catherine Grindel (Missouri), Paula Jones
(DC), Carmen Pellitieri (Florida), Scott Bittle (Illinois),
Alexander Liberov (Illinois), Brenda Theis (Illinois) and Julia
Vladimirskiy (Illinois) seek appointment to serve as class
representatives for the Consumer Protection Multi-State Class
defined as:

     All persons residing in Arkansas, California, Colorado,
     Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,
     Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
     Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
     North Dakota, or Washington who purchased Slack Filled Black
     Pepper Products for their personal or household uses.

For their unjust enrichment claims, the Plaintiffs seek to certify
two classes.  The first class is against Defendants McCormick and
Walmart, and Plaintiffs Cynthia Fernandez (Connecticut), Paula
Jones (DC), Scott Bittle (Illinois), Alexander Liberov (Illinois),
Brenda Theis (Illinois), Julia Vladimirskiy (Illinois), and
Catherine Grindel (Missouri), seek appointment to serve as class
representatives for the Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-
State Class as defined as:

     All persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
     District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New
     Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, or West Virginia who purchased
     Slack Filled Black Pepper for their personal or household
     use.

The second class is against Defendant McCormick, and Plaintiffs
Deborah Esparza (California), Holly Marsh (California), Sandra
Robinson (Maryland), and Hubert Gerstnecker (Pennsylvania) seek
appointment to serve as class representatives for the Unjust
Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class as defined as:

     All persons residing in Alaska, California, Kansas,
     Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada,
     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
     Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, or Wisconsin who
     purchased Slack Filled Black Pepper, for their personal or
     household use.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek appointment to serve as
class representatives for single state classes under the consumer
protection and/or unjust enrichment law of Plaintiffs' respective
home states as follows:

     All persons residing in California who purchased Slack
     Filled Black Pepper for their personal or household use
     (Class Representatives Deborah Esparza and Holly Marsh under
     CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 12606, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
     Section 12606.2, and CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17200,
     and CAL. CIV. CODE Section 1770, and Unjust Enrichment Law
     against Defendant McCormick);

     All persons residing in Connecticut who purchased Slack
     Filled Black Pepper for their personal or household use
     (Class Representative Cynthia Fernandez under CONN. GEN.
     STAT. Section 42-110b, et seq., including Section
     42-110(a)(3), and Unjust Enrichment Law against Defendant
     McCormick);

     All persons residing in District of Columbia who purchased
     Slack Filled Black Pepper for their personal or household
     use (Class Representative Paula Jones under D.C. CODE
     Section 28 3901, et seq., including Section 28-3904 and
     Unjust Enrichment Law against Defendant McCormick);

     All persons residing in Florida who purchased Slack Filled
     Black Pepper for their personal or household use (Class
     Representative Carmen Pellitieri under FLA. STAT. Section
     501.201, et seq. against Defendant McCormick);

     All persons residing in Illinois who purchased Slack Filled
     Black Pepper for their personal or household use (Class
     Representatives Scott Bittle, Alexander Liberov, Brenda
     Theis and Julia Vladimirskiy under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.
     Section 501/1, et seq. and Unjust Enrichment Law against
     Defendants McCormick and Walmart);

     All persons residing in Maryland who purchased Slack Filled
     Black Pepper for their personal or household use (Class
     Representative Sandra Robinson under Unjust Enrichment Law
     against Defendant McCormick);

     All persons residing in Missouri who purchased Slack Filled
     Black Pepper for their personal or household use (Class
     Representative Catherine Grindel under MO. REV. STAT.
     Section 407.010, et seq. and Unjust Enrichment Law against
     Defendant McCormick); and

     All persons residing in Pennsylvania who purchased Slack
     Filled Black Pepper for their personal or household use
     (Plaintiff Hubert Gerstnecker under Unjust Enrichment Law
     against Defendant McCormick).

Excluded from any proposed class are (i) the Defendants, any
entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest or which
has a controlling interest, and (ii) the Court and its staff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XiHDpz6b

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Mark T. Vazquez, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  markv@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 248-5403
          Facsimile: (202) 580-6559
          E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          142 W. 57th St., 11th floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          401 Center Street, Suite 111
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (707) 820-4247
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

Defendant McCormick & Company, Inc., is represented by:

          David H. Bamberger, Esq.
          Edward S. Scheideman, Esq.
          Paul D. Schmitt, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          500 Eighth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 799-4500
          Facsimile: (202) 799-5500
          E-mail: David.bamberger@dlapiper.com
                  Edward.scheideman@dlapiper.com
                  Paul.schmitt@dlapiper.com

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrew G. Klevorn, Esq.
          Yoni Rosenzweig, Esq.
          Kristin L. Coveney, Esq.
          Patricia Warren, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60661-3693
          Telephone: (312) 902-5200
          Facsimile: (312) 902-1061
          E-mail: andrew.klevorn@kattenlaw.com
                  yoni.rosenzweig@kattenlaw.com
                  kristin.coveney@kattenlaw.com
                  patricia.warren@kattenlaw.com


MDL 14-2551: NHL Denied Leave to File for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order denying without prejudice Defendant's Motion for
Leave to File for Summary Judgment in the case captioned In Re:
National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation. This
Document Relates to All Actions. MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/BRT).(D.
Minn.).

Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.  In April 2017, when the National Hockey
League filed its memorandum and exhibits in opposition to the
class certification motion in this MDL, it also filed a summary
judgment motion in Leeman v. NHL, seeking judgment against
Plaintiffs Leeman and Nicholls, two of the six proposed MDL class
representatives.

In seeking leave to move for summary judgment, the NHL argues that
it is proper under these circumstances to seek dispositive relief
concerning the claims of Plaintiffs Leeman and Nicholls prior to
the Court ruling on class certification.

Under Rule 56, a party may move for summary judgment, identifying
each claim or defense, or portion thereof, on which summary
judgment is sought, but the rule is silent as to the number of
summary judgment motions that a party may file, or the timing of
such motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a). Rule 23, applicable to class
actions, states that decisions on class certification are to be
made at an early practicable time.

While consideration of class certification prior to summary
judgment is permissible, federal courts have noted problems with
piecemeal consideration of successive motions for summary
judgment.

The value of summary judgment motion practice would be lessened if
a party attempted to assert one theory in a motion for summary
judgment, and then, should that theory prove unsound, come back
long thereafter and fight on the basis of some other theory.

The Court does not ascribe any bad faith or an improper purpose to
the NHL's efforts to file its contemplated summary judgment
motion. The NHL correctly notes that their argument is not one of
adequacy, it is not designed to evade the Court's page limits, and
the record is complete on this issue.

Nevertheless, the Court finds, in its sound discretion, that the
most appropriate approach here is for summary judgment motions to
be filed on a consolidated basis, after the Court's consideration
of class certification.

Defendant may therefore refile its summary judgment motion, at a
later time and as part of a consolidated motion, at which time
Plaintiffs will have a full and fair opportunity to respond.

Defendant's Motion for Leave to File for Summary Judgment is
Denied without prejudice. Defendant shall withdraw its Motion for
Summary Judgment without prejudice, filed in Leeman v. NHL.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/y78ugpsdfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented
by Bradley C. Buhrow, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, pro hac vice. 14646 No.
Kierland BoulevardSuite 145Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented
by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, David M.
Cialkowski --  david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Hart L. Robinovitch --  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Janine D. Arno, 120 East Palmetto Park Road,
Suite 500Boca Raton, FL 33432, Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Kathleen L. Douglas, 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500Boca
Raton, FL 33432, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Leonard B.
Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, 120 East
Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Stephen G.
Grygiel -- sgryiel@mdattorney.com-- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN &
WHITE, Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com --
SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Stuart A. Davidson, 120 East
Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice & William N. Sinclair --
bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE.
Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by J. Scott
Andresen, --sandresen@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA, Jeffrey
D. Klobucar, --- jklobucar@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele & Lewis
A. Remele, Jr. -- remele@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Brian D. Penny --
penny@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Bryan L.
Bleichner -- bbleicher@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne
PA, Charles J. LaDuca, 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW Suite 200,
Washington, DC 20016, USA, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac
vice, Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Christopher P.
Renz crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Daniel
E. Gustafson, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A. Goodwin, 120 South 6th
Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
David I. Levine -- evined@uchastings.edu -- The Levine Law Firm,
James W. Anderson, 310 Clifton Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55403, USA,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Jeffrey D. Bores --
jborres@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Jeffrey
D. Klobucar, Bassford Remele, Joshua J. Rissman, 120 South 6th
Street Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Katelyn I. Geoffrion, Corboy & Demetrio, Mark S. Goldman, Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, PC, Michael R. Cashman, Hellmuth & Johnson,
PLLC, Richard M. Hagstrom, Hellmuth & Johnson, Robert K.
Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP, Thomas Joseph Byrne, Namanny, Byrne & Owens, APC,
Thomas A. Demetrio, Corboy & Demetrio, Vincent J. Esades, Heins
Mills & Olson, PLC, William T. Gibbs, Corboys Denetrio & Wm Dane
DeKrey, Zimmerman Reed, LLP.

National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D. Van
Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam M. Lupion, PROSKAUER ROSE,
LLP, Daniel J. Connolly, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Geoffrey M.
Wyatt, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, James A. Keyte,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jessica D. Miller,
Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP, John Herbert Beisner, SKADDEN
ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Joseph Baumgarten, PROSKAUER ROSE,
LLP, Joseph M. Price, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Linda S. Svitak,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Matthew Michael Martino, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Matthew Stein, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, LLP, Michael H. Menitove, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP & Shepard Goldfein, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom.

The Chubb Corporation, Respondent, represented by David Newmann,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Peter H. Walsh, Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Stephen Allen Loney, Jr., Hogan Lovells US LLP.

CTV, Movant, represented by Mark R. Anfinson, Anfinson Law Office.
Dennis Lang, Movant, represented by Mark R. Anfinson, Anfinson Law
Office & Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center, Movant, represented by
Kristin L. Bittinger, Boston University & Lawrence Elswit., Boston
University/Office of the General Counsel.


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Allow Plaintiffs Substitution in "Aviles"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion requesting leave to file a consolidated complaint that
substitutes Marilynn Martinez as Plaintiff in place of Jeremy
Aviles and Rachel Catala in the case captioned JEREMY AVILES and
RACHEL CATALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., a Missouri corporation;
and HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a Osceola Regional
Medical Center, Defendants, No. 4:16CV01138 ERW (E.D. Mo.), and
denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot.

Plaintiff Jason Martin initiated this lawsuit by filing a class
action complaint in this Court on July 13, 2016, against
Defendants Medicredit, Inc., HCA Health Services of New Hampshire,
Inc. doing business as Portsmouth Regional Hospital (HCA), and
Wentworth-Douglass Hospital (Defendants).  Plaintiff Martin's
action for damage arises under 47 U.S.C. Section 227, the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

An Amended Complaint was filed which named Jeremy Aviles and
Rachel Catala as Plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs moved to
substitute Marilynn Martinez as plaintiff in place of Jeremy
Aviles and Rachel Catala in the consolidated complaint, with
Plaintiffs Todd Hornberger and Eric Johnson remaining as
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Court believes Plaintiffs have good cause for seeking
substitution. This is the second time Plaintiffs are seeking to
substitute, but since discovery is still in the early stages, the
Court does not find this will result in prejudice towards
Defendants. Therefore, the Court will allow the substitution.

Because the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute, a
new amended complaint will be filed. Medicredit's Motion to
Dismiss will be denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
and  Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd8yv7s7from
Leagle.com.

Marilynn Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Sostrin,
KEOGH LAW, LTD., 55 W. Monroe St. #3390, Chicago, IL 60603
Todd Hornberger, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony E. LaCroix -- tony@lacroixlawkc.com --  LACROIX LAW FIRM &
Michael L. Greenwald, GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC. 5550 Glades Road,
Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33431

Eric Johnson, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by Anthony
E. LaCroix, LACROIX LAW FIRM & Michael L. Greenwald, GREENWALD
DAVIDSON PLLC.

Medicredit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick T. McLaughlin
-- pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP, Scott J.
Dickenson -- sdickenson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP &
Megan D. Meadows -- mmeadows@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP.


MICHIGAN: Judges Toss False Accusation Suit vs. UIA
---------------------------------------------------
Mardi Link, writing for Record Eagle, reports Alex Jarosz of
Traverse City said he will never forget what it felt like to see a
strange man standing across the street from his Hearthside Drive
home taking photographs.

"It was beyond infuriating."

That was in 2015, after Jarosz, 61, became one of as many as
46,000 Michigan workers ensnared in the state's Unemployment
Insurance Agency's computer tangle.

After being falsely accused of fraud by the UIA, the agency said
he'd been overpaid $3,331 in benefits and assessed him $13,324 in
penalties for that overpayment, billing him a total of $16,665.
Over a period of months the agency garnished thousands from his
paycheck, causing him to fall behind on his mortgage.

The presence of the photographer meant the bank was preparing to
foreclose.

"I'm disappointed in the state of Michigan," Jarosz said, who
managed to save his home. "When you have this kind of underhanded
stuff going on, they're abusing the common man."

Until on July 18, it looked like some relief might be made
available to those falsely accused, but that ended when a three-
judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to allow a
class action lawsuit, filed by Royal Oak attorney Jennifer Lord,
to move forward.

The Associated Press reported that the Michigan Court of Appeals
panel dismissed the potential class-action lawsuit against the
state because named plaintiffs had not filed within six months
"following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of
action," as required in suits seeking financial damages against
the state.

Claimants like Jarosz would have been automatically included in
the lawsuit since he was charged with fraud and experienced a
garnishment.

Traverse City attorney Mark Risk, who said prior to 2015 he'd
defended fewer than 10 unemployment fraud cases in his 30-plus
years practicing law, today has several dozen clients with stories
similar to Jarosz's. He estimated hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
northern Michigan workers have been falsely accused by the agency
of fraud.

"Every one of these people are hard-working, decent, tax-paying
citizens who lost employment for a short period," Risk said. "They
paid into the fund, it was their money, they were legally entitled
to it, and they just needed some short-term help. Instead, a
computer said they'd committed fraud."

Jarosz was club manager of the Traverse City Elks Club from 2008
to 2014 before being let go without severance.

After two months looking for a job, Jarosz found temporary part-
time employment as a bus driver, then full-time employment with
first Tom's Food Markets and then Lucky's Market. He'd only
applied for unemployment benefits for the two months he spent job
seeking.

The UIA's computer flagged his account and the agency inexplicably
charged him with fraud. On June 16 an administrative law judge in
Traverse City found in favor of Jarosz, and ordered the UIA to
return the money it garnished -- approximately $12,000 by Jarosz's
account -- within 30 days. As of July 18, Jarosz had not received
reimbursement.

"I've had upwards of 50 cases of claimants accused of fraud; I've
won every single hearing and I'm no Clarence Darrow," said Risk,
referencing the famous civil libertarian.

"There are good people at the UIA and I'd like to give them the
benefit of the doubt, but right now I'm struggling mightily with
that."

What Jarosz calls "underhanded" and what Risk says he is
struggling to understand, began in September 2013 when the UIA
brought its new $47 million computer, the Michigan Integrated Data
Automated System, or "MiDAS," online.

The UIA had laid-off approximately 400 full- and part-time agents
statewide and the computer was supposed to increase efficiency and
reduce fraud and waste.

Instead, MiDAS flagged any discrepancy in a claimants' application
for benefits as an intentional act of fraud, always on behalf of
the employee and never the employer, imposed a highest-in-the-
nation penalty of 400 percent of benefits paid, tacked on 12
percent interest monthly, garnished bank accounts and seized tax
refunds.

UIA data reveals between October 2013 and August 2015 the agency
reviewed 53,633 cases that MiDAS had flagged as fraudulent. Of
those, only 1,462 -- or less than 7 percent -- were found to
actually be fraudulent. There is no way to know how many of these
cases are in northern Michigan because county-by-county records
have not been released.

"There used to be on-the-ground inspectors, many who were
experienced detectives, but they replaced them with a computer,"
said retired judge James Sisk, who taught unemployment law at
Cooley Law School and worked as an administrative law judge from
1992 to 2010, spending some of that time assigned to Traverse
City.

Sisk said unemployment fraud in those years "wasn't all that
common" in his recollection.

"The computer made all these determinations without any human
contact with claimants," Sisk said.

Risk agreed.

"There are people in the agency who still don't think they've
messed up," he said. "When essentially what they did was bring in
a pricey computer to replace human beings and it failed
miserably."

The local UIA investigator at the Michigan Works office on
Garfield Avenue said she was not allowed to comment publicly.

UIA Communications Director in Lansing, Dave Murray, said the UIA
had offered an apology to those harmed unintentionally by the
agency and had made significant changes in how fraud is
determined.

"We know this has been a difficult time for people and we know
they are frustrated," said Director of the Michigan Talent
Investment Agency, Wanda Stokes, who now oversees the UIA. "UIA
continues to review every potential fraud case that was determined
during the period of adjudication, which ended in August 2015. We
are focused on making sure residents are treated fairly, and we
are issuing refunds when appropriate.

"It's important that we restore trust in the agency and help
people receive benefits they are entitled to during a stressful
time in their lives."

The Michigan Talent Investment Agency asked district court judges
to dismiss 186 bench warrants in Wayne, Genesee and Macomb
counties for those accused of unemployment fraud and pledged to
review each case file.

The UIA set up a toll free number for claimants with questions
about their fraud case: 1-800-638-6372, staffed Monday-Friday from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

But people are still getting bills in the mail.

Another of Risk's clients, Jeff Kelly, 57, of Lakeview, was a
maintenance tech for the Michigan Department of Transportation for
23 years before suffering a heart attack in 2009. Kelly applied
for and received unemployment benefits.

Michigan law allowed the MiDAS computer to comb records for
possible fraud going back as far as 2007, which was why Kelly's
2009 claim wasn't flagged until 2015. The UIA said Kelly owed the
agency $1,603.59; $312 of which was supposedly overpayment, $1,248
was penalties, and $43.59 in interest.

"That might not seem like much but when you're living on a fixed
income, it's the difference between lights and groceries, or
lights or groceries," Kelly said.

Risk could find no evidence Kelly committed fraud in paperwork
provided by the UIA.

At his hearing a representative from the agency could not identify
anything from Kelly's file that constituted fraud and a Detroit
judge ruled in Kelly's favor. This spring, however, the UIA still
sent Kelly a bill for $1,603.59, which he said he will not pay and
has filed in a manila envelope with a dozen other identical
documents.

On Jan. 11 a federal judge ordered the state to halt all
collection activity against claimants like Jarosz and Kelly within
45 days.

The agency reported it did so sometime in late March. The state
also agreed with the judge to make changes on how the UIA
determines fraud. A person -- not just a computer -- now has to
investigate and the claimant has to be properly notified. However,
the judge's order said nothing about sending out the kind of
correspondence Jarosz, Kelly, and thousands of others continue to
receive.

Risk said he worries some people might pay the state the money,
not realizing they are being billed for something they might not
owe. He even put some of UIA's standard correspondence through an
online linguistic evaluator, a tool that calculates how many years
of school a person would have to have completed in order to
understand a particular text. In this case, according to Risk, the
answer was 14 years -- the equivalency of an associate's degree.

And what about the people who may have already pleaded guilty to
false fraud charges, or agreed to give back alleged overpayments,
attorney Lord asked in an Associated Press report.

"It's just another example of how this is rotten from top to
bottom, and the state has ignored it," Lord said. "The elements of
harm that have impacted people are so wide and varied."

Plaintiffs intend to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the
Associated Press report said.

Meanwhile, the UIA's MiDAS computer system has dramatically
increased the balance on the UIA's "contingency" fund, the account
that stores all the fraud penalties, garnishments, and interest
money collected from Michigan workers by the agency.

At the close of 2011, its balance was $3.1 million. After three
years of combing through data, by September 2016 this same fund
ballooned to $154.7 million.

On Jan. 9, Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law a one-time transfer of
$10 million from the fund into the state's general fund. But then
in late March, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on General
Government submitted a draft budget that included two more
transfers, one for $15 million and one for $9.8 million, a move
that infuriated claimants.

"The money in that fund does not belong to the state," Lord said.
"We can trace every penny of that money to innocent claimants."

A legislative analysis of the transfer says that if needed, the
funds would be returned to the UIA.

State agencies like the UIA are generally immune from prosecution
except when they violate the state constitution, Lord said.

"If the state harms its own citizens, it can't hide behind
government immunity," she said. [GN]


MIDDLESEX CORP: Myrick Moves for Class Certification Under FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the case titled MARSHALL
MYRICK, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE MIDDLESEX CORPORATION, Case No. 8:17-cv-00261-JDW-
MAP (M.D. Fla.), as a class action pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The FCRA Section 1681b(b)(3) Putative Class is defined as:

     All natural persons residing in the United States (including
     all territories and other political subdivisions of the
     United States), who applied for an employment position with
     Defendant or any of its subsidiaries, and as part of this
     application process were the subject of a consumer report
     obtained by Defendant to whom Defendant did not provide a
     copy of the consumer report as stated at 15 U.S.C. Section
     1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) at least five business days before the
     date the employment decision is first noted in Defendant's
     records, and to whom Defendants did not provide a written
     summary of Fair Credit Reporting Act rights as stated at 15
     U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii) at least five business
     days before the date the employment decision is first noted
     in Defendant's records.

Mr. Myrick alleges on a class basis that Middlesex violated
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it
obtains and uses employment-purpose consumer reports without
meeting the conditions of use required by the FCRA when taking
adverse action against consumers (applicants/employees) based on
the contents of the procured reports.

Mr. Myrick also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, to appoint his counsel and their firm and members
as class counsel, and allow them to notify the Class members.

A copy of the Plaintiff's Memorandum filed in support of the
Motion for Class Certification is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2UTT7Sph

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Thompson, Esq.
          Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 428-5300
          Facsimile: (877) 634-7245
          E-mail: ethompson@grsm.com
                  rsymons@grsm.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Denies Certification in "Hernandez"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-11179 (N.D. Ill.).

Daniel Hernandez (Hernandez or plaintiff) moves to certify this
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692 et seq., case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

Midland Credit Management (defendant), served Hernandez with a
summons and a copy of a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.  Six days later, defendant sent him a
dunning letter (a form collection letter referred to here as the
October 5 letter).

Plaintiff alleges that the October 5 letter ran afoul of several
FDCPA prohibitions, In his motion for class certification,
plaintiff emphasizes one of his FDCPA theories: under Illinois
law, statutory court costs are not available before defendant
obtains a judgment.

Defendant's ascertainability challenge focuses on the language
limiting the class to persons to whom defendant sent one or more
letters or other communications similarly in the form of the
October 5th Letter in the proposed class definition.

In his reply, plaintiff asserts that the class's composition can
be objectively ascertained by looking to defendant's discovery
responses.  During discovery, defendant identified 3,160
substantially similar dunning letters sent to people in Illinois.

Rule 23(c)(1) gives the court discretion to alter a class
definition, but the court should not shift to itself the
plaintiff's burden to define the class objectively. Plaintiff does
not propose an alternative class definition or suggest that the
court should attempt to repair his proposed class definition.

The record also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
determine what defendant's objective criteria were. At her
deposition, Larsen did not know exactly what criteria were used to
create the list produced in discovery.

Again, the proposed class definition does not close until this
litigation comes to an end, so the time boundary on the criteria
defendant used means that the resulting list does not necessarily
cover every member of the proposed class. The court therefore
leaves to plaintiff the task, if he wishes, of attempting to
redefine the class in an ascertainable fashion.

Because plaintiff has failed to show that the proposed class's
composition is ascertainable using objective criteria, the court
ends its Rule 23 analysis and denies plaintiff's motion to
certify.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8tmmf7ofrom
Leagle.com.

Daniel Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Zamparo, Jr. --
info@zamparolaw.com -- Zamparo Law Group, P.C..

Daniel Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman PC, pro hac
vice & Jordan M. Sartell, -- jsartell@collinslaw.com -- Francis &
Mailman, P.C..

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather
L. Kramer -- hkramer@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLc, Theodore
Wilson Seitz -- tseitz@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Todd A.
Gale -- tgale@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC.


MONSANTO: Cancer Survivor County Commissioner Joins Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffeny Owens, writing for The Cullman Times, reports
it's been two years since Garry Marchman received the life-
changing diagnosis of lymphoma that very nearly killed him.

The Cullman County associate commissioner was briefly sidelined in
the first year of office when he began showing symptoms that
doctors would later confirm was non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He returned
to work in late January 2016 after taking six months off to
undergo treatment.

Marchman is healthy now, though he has to routinely monitor his
blood count. And now he's part of a class-action  lawsuit -- the
named plaintiff, in fact -- against herbicide manufacturer
Monsanto Co., alleging design defect and failure to warn users of
its harmful effects.

His sister, Delitha Marchman, came across information about people
exposed to RoundUp developing the specific form of cancer he was
diagnosed with, Marchman said.

"So I put my name down. I never thought they would put my name up
at the top," Marchman said. "I never thought anything of it. I've
use RoundUp all my life, in the military and on the farm."

The federal complaint  filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri alleges that Montesano failed
its duty to properly test, develop, design, manufacture, inspect,
package, label, market, promote, sell, distribute, maintain
supply, provide proper warnings and take the necessary steps to
ensure that its Roundup products did not cause users harm.

The lawsuit alleges that Marchman suffered injuries from exposure
to Roundup because the product contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, which
are dangerous to human health.

Doctors at UAB Medical Center in Birmingham diagnosed Marchman
with lymphoma in the summer of 2015 after he was admitted to St.
Vincent's Hospital suffering from symptoms similar to a common
cold along with back pain and swelling.

His condition rapidly deteriorated when his kidneys and liver
failed, and he had to be put on emergency dialysis. Doctors
thought he might need a liver transplant, and he was added to the
list. He suffered another setback when he had to be hospitalized
in UAB's intensive care unit for nine days when he developed a
high fever when complications arose after his first dose of
chemotherapy.

The lawsuit holds Monsanto responsible because it allegedly failed
to investigate, study, test or promote the safety or to minimize
the dangers to users and consumers of its product; failed to
exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangerous risks associated
with use; and exposure to the product and wrongfully concealed
information concerning the dangerous nature of Roundup.

Marchman's complaint seeks judgment for compensatory and economic
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs of proceedings. He is represented by Jacob A. Flint, Esq. of
Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville, Illinois, and Aimee H.
Wagstaff -- aimeewagstaff@andruswagstaff.com -- and David J. Wool,
Esq. -- david.wool@andruswagstaff.com -- of Andrus Wagstaff PC in
Lakewood, Colorado. [GN]


MONSANTO: New Suit Accuses Reps of Condoning Illegal Spraying
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Gray, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that as
suspected drift from dicamba took a toll on farmers the past two
growing seasons, Monsanto -- the Creve Coeur-based agribusiness
company that helped give the herbicide newfound prominence with
its introduction of dicamba-tolerant crop varieties -- publicly
urged growers not to spray illegal kinds of the product while new
formulations supposedly less prone to drift waited for regulatory
approval.

But a class-action lawsuit filed on July 19 in federal court in
St. Louis accuses company sales representatives of secretly giving
farmers assurances that using unauthorized or "off-label" spray
varieties would be all right.

"This was Monsanto's real plan: publicly appear as if it were
complying, while allowing its seed representatives to tell farmers
the opposite in person," the suit alleges, based on farmer
testimony. "Their sales pitch: assure purchasers that off-label
and illegal uses of dicamba would 'be just fine.'"

That's one of many allegations in the suit to place blame from
soaring complaints of dicamba damage on companies that produce the
weedkiller and accompanying seed varieties.

Monsanto, BASF, DuPont and Pioneer are the agribusiness and
chemical companies associated with the herbicide named as
defendants in the case. Plaintiffs include seven Arkansas farms
affected by alleged dicamba drift this year, though more may be
added, according to Paul Lesko, a St. Louis-based attorney with
Peiffer Rosca Wolf, the law firm representing the plaintiffs.

The suit outlines the shifting circumstances that have surrounded
suspected dicamba damage since Monsanto first released dicamba-
tolerant cotton in 2015 and brought resistant soybeans to market
the following year. Corresponding herbicides produced by the
defendants weren't available for either growing season, only
gaining approval since late 2016. Their absence led many growers
with dicamba-tolerant seeds to allegedly turn to more drift-prone
-- or volatile -- forms of the herbicide, leaving their fields
unharmed but putting nearby growers with nonresistant crops at
risk.

But even though the new, proper forms of the herbicide are now
available, alleged misuse of dicamba has shot to new heights in
2017. Hundreds of complaints have poured in to state officials in
Arkansas and Missouri alone, with reports of other suspected
damage emerging in places such as Tennessee, Mississippi, Kansas,
Illinois and Indiana.

Citing weed and crop science experts from affected states, the
suit claims this year's damage was a foreseeable consequence of
the "much larger rollout" of dicamba products, pointing to
continued concerns about their tendency to vaporize and drift,
even when applied properly.

"Following (the label instructions) as they are now is a Herculean
task. Talk about threading the needle -- you can't spray when it's
too windy. You can't spray under 3 miles per hour. You got to keep
the boom down -- there are so many things," said University of
Tennessee weed management expert Larry Steckel, in an excerpt from
the suit. "It looks good on paper, but when a farmer or applicator
is trying to actually execute that over thousands of acres
covering several counties, it's almost impossible."

The suit says the defendants "actually benefit" from rampant
drift, because it pressures farmers to adopt dicamba-tolerant seed
to avoid damage.

Monsanto officials said that the technology accounts for "one of
the largest launches" in company history. Those sales, the lawsuit
contends, amount to "illegal monopolistic behavior," as farmers
rush to adopt the product. "They're not necessarily buying a
product because it's better and meets their needs, they're buying
it because it's a defense mechanism," Lesko told the Post-
Dispatch.

Monsanto and BASF cited their efforts to educate growers about
correct application of dicamba.

"We remain confident in growers' ability to follow all application
requirements and abide by the law," Monsanto said in a statement.
"The (Environmental Protection Agency) spent nearly seven years
reviewing and analyzing data and research conducted before issuing
a label. The lawsuit is wholly without merit, and we will defend
ourselves accordingly."

DuPont declined to comment on the litigation, but said "this year
thousands of growers have used these products properly and
successfully."

Lesko, though, maintains that the cropping system skews benefits
to the companies, and not to farmers.

"It's kind of a cycle and it only benefits the defendants. As harm
increases, more farmers have to purchase the defendants'
products," said Lesko, adding that there's "already concern" about
a lack of diversity in agriculture.

"This cycle needs to stop," he said. "It's never good to have just
one type of crop out there." [GN]


MONSANTO: Farmers' Estimates of Herbicide Damage Top 122K Acres
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Steed, writing for Arkansas Online, reports complaints of
crop damage in Arkansas possibly caused by a herbicide topped 700,
and preliminary estimates put the damaged cropland at 122,000
acres, a subcommittee of the state Plant Board was told on July
21.

As of July 21 afternoon, the board had received 726 complaints
from 25 counties, mostly along the Arkansas Delta, where cotton
and soybeans are the primary crops. One month ago, the tally stood
at 207 complaints.

Plant Board inspectors investigating the complaints "have looked
at everything but 50 fields," Susie Nichols, manager of the
board's pesticide division, told a subcommittee of the board on
July 21. "I'd say that's impressive," she said.

Along with inspecting crop damage, the inspectors gather samples
for federal regulators and collect sales records from chemical
dealers and spraying schedules from farmers. Many inspectors have
been working seven days a week since the flood of complaints began
in early June.

The inspectors aren't allowed by law to estimate acreage possibly
damaged, Nichols said. The estimate of more than 120,000 acres
damaged was reached after Plant Board employees in Little Rock
called farmers and asked them for damage estimates.

Arkansas on July 11 implemented a 120-day emergency ban on the
sale and in-crop use of the herbicide dicamba. Until the ban, only
one dicamba herbicide -- BASF's Engenia -- had been allowed in the
state.

Similar complaints are rising in other states, including the Corn
Belt: 207 in Missouri, 68 in Indiana, 66 in Kansas, and 47 in
Nebraska. Officials in Tennessee and Mississippi reported a
combined 143 complaints.

As complaints mounted, Arkansas farmers on July 19 filed another
lawsuit in federal court against the makers of the chemicals.

Filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, the farmers seek class-
action certification on behalf of other possible plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs are Smokey Alley Farm Partnership in Earle, Amore Farms
in Marion, the Kenneth Loretta Garrett Qualls Farm Partnership in
Craighead County, and JTM Farms, Qualls Land Co. and the Michael
Baioni and McLemore Farms, all in Crittenden County.

Defendants are Monsanto, BASF and DuPont -- the makers of dicamba-
based herbicides allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency
for in-crop use this season on dicamba-tolerant cotton and
soybeans. Monsanto developed the new traits of seed to help
farmers fight pigweed and other weeds that have grown resistant to
glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup.

Lawyers for the farmers -- the Peiffer Rosca Wolf firm in St.
Louis and Paul James and Michael Smith, both of Little Rock --
contend that their clients have found dicamba damage on at least
7,000 acres, primarily soybeans that were not genetically modified
organisms, or GMOs, altered to be tolerant of dicamba.

A similar lawsuit was filed in federal court in Jonesboro by
farmers in Craighead and Monroe counties.

"This is not an anti-GMO lawsuit; it's a lawsuit about corporate
greed, a rush to market, and the resulting fallout," according to
the lawsuit.

Monsanto marketed the new dicamba-tolerant seeds -- cotton in
2015, soybeans in 2016 -- before having the accompanying herbicide
approved by the EPA, the lawsuit said.

For the 2017 crop season, Monsanto, BASF and DuPont began selling
dicamba herbicides that, according to the lawsuit were supposed to
be less volatile and less prone to drift than older formulations
of dicamba. "Despite being touted by defendants as safe for non-
target crops and plants, they are not," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit didn't specify an amount in damages being sought and
acknowledged that farmers won't know the extent of damage until
harvest this fall. [GN]


MSA SECURITY: Uses Dogs as Leverage, Handlers Claim
---------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello, writing for New York Post, reports that MSA
Security, which has a $24 million contract with the city and
patrols high-profile spots like the New York Stock Exchange, the
Staten Island Ferry terminals, the Empire State Building and
Rockefeller Center, use the canine coworkers "as a means of
retaliation" against workers who complain about low pay and lack
of overtime -- yanking the pups from handlers who spend a lifetime
training, living, bonding and working with them, according to a
lawsuit.

"The guys that work there take care of these dogs better than
anybody," a source said.

But that allegedly didn't matter to MSA, which would snatch the
dogs "at whim."

"MSA could, and did remove dogs from the physical possession of
[the handlers] for any reason or no reason" as a way to convey
"direct and indirect threats for purposes of squelching dissent,
maintaining 'order in the ranks,'" the handlers charge.

And when the firm wasn't snatching away the four-legged friends
from "problem" employees, it was dumping older dogs on handlers
without compensating them for escalating veterinary costs, the
suit charges.

The company, once known as Michael Stapleton Associates, retires
its explosives-detecting canines, usually Labrador Retrievers,
when the dogs turn 9 years old. The aging dogs average $20,000 in
medical needs.

"MSA avoided the obligation to financially support animals no
longer useful to them, and shifted this expense to the [handlers],
who cared for dogs they did not own because of the love they had
for their animals and the unique psychological and emotional ties
they had with them," according to the lawsuit.

Launched in 1987, MSA Security has become a global powerhouse in
the private and public sectors. Its 850 employees are led by CEO
Michael O'Neil, who headed the NYPD's first counterterrorism
division, and other retired NYPD and FBI brass.

The unhappy handlers -- Joseph Tallini, Michael Geidel, and 9/11
responders John Barrett, Bill Beauty, Joseph Belcastro, Peter
Brown, John Hansen, Joseph Nacarlo, Richard Narciso and Patrick
O'Connor -- are nearly all NYPD veterans. They are seeking class-
action status for the claims, which they believe could include
more than 250 handlers.

The handlers are paid just $30 an hour for eight to 12 hour
shifts, with unpaid breaks and no overtime or compensation for the
dog's care, meals, vet visits or training, they argue.

MSA's Explosive Detection Canines, which help keep crowds safe at
places like the Super Bowl, undergo extensive training that
includes being hand fed for each meal after they practice their
detecting skills.

The company brags about its "one dog, one handler" policy, which
it says leads to "optimum performance, and keeps our dogs happy,
healthy and effective."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as $5,000 for each
underpaid handler.

MSA Security declined comment on the allegations but said in a
statement it strives for a "positive working environment and the
well-being of our employee handlers and canines is our top
priority." [GN]


N.Y. LIFE INSURANCE: Class Action Waivers Are Unenforceable
-----------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that while pundits and practitioners eagerly
await the U.S. Supreme Court's looming decision on whether class
action waivers in employment-related agreements violate the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) -- which will not be issued
until 2018 -- one New York State court has decided to wade into
the fracas. On July 18, a New York State appellate court -- whose
jurisdiction covers Manhattan and the Bronx -- concluded in Gold
v. N.Y. Life Insurance Co. that contract clauses barring employees
from commencing class, collective, and other representative
actions against their employers are unenforceable and do indeed
violate the NLRA.

In Gold, the appellate court examined whether an employer can
force its employees to sign an agreement requiring that all legal
claims against the employer be brought only through arbitration
and, perhaps more importantly, only on an individual basis and in
separate proceedings.  After recognizing that "there is a recent
split among the Federal Circuit Courts regarding these types of
clauses," the Court answered this question with a resounding "no."

In the underlying case, a group of former New York Life Insurance
Company agents filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the
agency took illegal wage deductions and committed assorted
violations of the state minimum wage and overtime laws. One of the
agents, however, had signed an agreement upon joining New York
Life requiring her to arbitrate any claim or dispute with the
insurance agency.  Additionally, under the arbitration provision,
the agent agreed that no claim could be brought or maintained "on
a class action, collective action or representative action basis
either in court or arbitration."  Despite this, the insurance
agents nevertheless filed their wage case together in court and as
a proposed class action.  After New York Life moved to compel
arbitration, the claims of the agent who had signed the
arbitration agreement were ordered to be submitted to arbitration
on an individual basis.  The plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

On appeal, the Court examined the class action waiver and
determined that interference with an employee's right to pursue
work-related legal claims together, whether in arbitration or
other legal proceedings, violates Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA. In
explaining its rationale, the Court relied chiefly on a recent
decision by a federal appeals court in Chicago that likewise
invalidated a class waiver.  As the New York Court explained, such
waivers violate the NLRA because they interfere with employees'
"right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and
protection, and [are] therefore unenforceable. . . . [S]ection 7
of the NLRA provide[s] that employees have the right to engage in
concerted activities, and concerted activities 'have long been
held to include resort to . . . judicial forums.'"  Additionally,
the Court determined that the waiver was unenforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had the
right to proceed with their claims on a class action basis
(although, after dispensing with this issue, the Court did dismiss
most of the plaintiffs' substantive causes of action). This is the
first time that a New York State appellate court has directly
ruled on this particular issue, and aligns the Court with the
three federal Courts of Appeals that previously reached similar
conclusions.

                      Practical Considerations

In light of this ruling, and until the U.S. Supreme Court provides
more definitive guidance, employers in Manhattan and the Bronx may
see additional challenges to their arbitration agreements --
particularly agreements with class action waivers -- and should
take a careful look at them. As the focus on potential wage and
hour violations continues to increase in workforce popularity, now
is also a good time for employers to review their wage and hour
practices to minimize potential exposure to employment class
actions in this area. [GN]


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Drug Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Maese, writing for Washington Post, reports that a federal
judge in California dismissed the remaining claims in a wide-
reaching lawsuit filed by former football players alleging NFL
teams mistreated them with pain medication for years.

In his order on July 21, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said
the case could not proceed because the two former players whose
claims were still alive had previously sought relief through
workers' compensation claims. Alsup had previously dismissed a
similar case alleging improper administration of pain drugs in the
NFL, saying the collective bargaining agreement provided other
avenues for adjudication.

"Although workers' compensation and collective bargaining remedies
are not gold-plated remedies, they are at least remedies
recognized under the law," Alsup wrote in his order on July 21.
"The sweeping remedy sought herein by plaintiffs is not, on this
record, available under the law."

While the former players' case sought class-action status, it laid
out the claims of 14 defendants against all 32 teams. Alsup
dismissed the bulk of those claims in May, saying the players
failed to demonstrate that their present-day medical ailments are
tied to the medications they received during their playing
careers.

The allegations laid out in the lawsuit, much of it detailed in
transcripts and documents obtained through the discovery process,
drew widespread attention to the NFL's drug practices, prompting
questions from Congress and a grievance filed against the league
by the NFL Players Association. The Drug Enforcement
Administration also investigated the league and launched surprise
inspections of some teams shortly after the initial lawsuit was
filed in 2014, but never announced any wrongdoing.

"Through this litigation, the retired NFL players have
accomplished a significant victory in bringing the misuses and
abuses of Toradol and narcotics pain killers in the NFL to the
forefront of public attention," said Steven Silverman, the
Baltimore-based attorney who represented the former players, in a
statement. "This litigation has spurred positive action by the
DEA, NFLPA and Congress. As a result of these players' willingness
to make a stand, they have made the game safer. The decision of
one judge does not change the impact of the case."

An NFL spokesman declined to comment on the judge's decision.
Silverman said the former players would likely appeal Alsup's
decision.

"As we have said all along, these allegations were meritless and
the decision validates our position," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy
said on July 23.

A related case, filed in May 2014 and featuring Pro Football Hall
of Famer Richard Dent as lead plaintiff, is already under appeal.
While Alsup similarly dismissed the claims in the Dent lawsuit in
December 2014, he noted at the time that "player injuries loom as
a serious and inevitable evil. Proper care of these injuries is
likewise a paramount need."

In his order on July 21, the judge noted the gravity of the
allegations and the health and safety concerns laid out by the
former players. "This and other orders ruling against the theories
advanced by plaintiffs' counsel in these cases do not diminish the
seriousness of the national need to protect the health and safety
of our professional athletes," Alsup said.

The players alleged they were plied with pain medication to the
detriment of their own health to keep them on the playing field,
and contended teams didn't warn them about potential side effects
and broke federal law by improperly storing, distributing and
transporting controlled substances. The NFL said in a letter to
Congress that its teams followed DEA guidance on handling
controlled substances, and a DEA official told lawmakers that the
league has taken steps to address the agency's concerns in recent
years.

In dismissing the bulk of the case in May, Alsup said the ex-
players' attorneys hadn't adequately explained the health damages
the players suffered because of pain medication use and whether
their claims are barred by statute of limitation. He allowed just
two players' claims to proceed.

Reggie Walker, an NFL linebacker from 2009 to 2014, alleged that
the San Diego Chargers kept him and his injured ankle on the field
with regular injections of Toradol, a powerful nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug. Three years removed from his playing career,
Walker said he still continues to experience ankle pain. And
Alphonso Carreker, a defensive end who played from 1984 to 1991,
charged the Denver Broncos and Green Bay Packers with plying him
with pain medication, and as a result he required heart surgery in
2013.

While the teams argued that these remaining claims were barred
from proceeding because of previous workers' compensation claims,
the former players contended that the claims "fall within an
intentional harm exception."

In his order, Alsup said, "the mere culpability of such misconduct
. . . is not a basis for keeping in court a claim properly
subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of workers'
compensation laws." [GN]


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Struggle With Data Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Abril, writing for D Magazine, reports that Neiman Marcus
may have recently settled a $1.6 million class-action lawsuit
regarding its 2013 data breach, but its cybersecurity issues
didn't end there. The Dallas-based retailer has had at least two
other data breaches since 2013, with the most recent hitting
earlier this year.

On or about Dec. 26, 2015, hackers obtained customers' full
payment card numbers and expiration dates, as well as customers'
names, contact information, email addresses, and purchase history,
according to documents filed with the California Attorney General.
Then, on or about Jan. 17 of this year, hackers accessed
customers' names, basic contact information, email addresses,
purchases history, "but only the last four digits of payment
information," the documents say.

Neiman Marcus says the breaches collectively affected 15,200
customers.

In both cases, however, the company sent notifications of the
breaches to affected customers, which the retailer identified as
InCircle loyalty members or online shoppers. The notification says
that, in both instances, "unauthorized individuals began
attempting to access our InCircle, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf
Goodman, Last Call, CUSP, and Horchow websites (collectively the
'NMG websites') by trying various login and password combinations
using automated attacks."

The notification goes on to say that hackers also were able to
access InCircle gift card numbers as well as their "Circle Level,"
which determines customers' benefits based on how much they spend
at the retailer. Neiman's stated that "all indications" show that
the InCircle and Neiman Marcus Group's database of email addresses
and passwords are safe, and that the company's "cyber defenses
repelled the majority of the attacks."

In response to the two attacks, Neiman Marcus offered affected
customers one year of MyIDCare, a theft protection service offered
through ID Experts. The service includes credit and cyberscan
monitoring, a $1 million insurance reimbursement policy,
educational materials, and fully managed ID theft recovery
services. The deadline to apply for the services was July 12. The
retailer has also required a password reset for all affected
online accounts.

The data breaches followed the 2013 attack, which exposed the
credit card data of thousands of customers. A class action lawsuit
claimed that 350,000 customers were affected by that breach.
Neiman Marcus said the number was only 9,200. In March of this
year, Neiman Marcus agreed to pay $1.6 million. As part of the
settlement, it also agreed to appoint a chief security information
officer, create an information security unit, and to increase the
frequency and depth of cybersecurity reporting to executives and
its board, among other new security measures.

Neiman Marcus did not have a CISO during the time of the 2013
attack. But about 10 months after the breach, it hired Sarah
Hendrickson, who served in that role until exiting in June this
year. The company did not cite reasons for her departure but did
say it was working to replace her. [GN]


NEW YORK LIFE: Class Waiver Violates NLRA, Appellate Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels and Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, report that
a New York appellate court ruled on July 18 that a class waiver in
a contract between New York Life Insurance Co. and former agents
violates the National Labor Relations Act, though it kept in place
a lower court's decision to toss the agents' overtime and minimum
wage claims.

The long-running dispute between New York Life and the agents
dates back to 2007, spanning a federal action that previously saw
a Second Circuit panel affirm a decision to throw out the agents'
putative class action.  In a state court action, a Supreme Court
judge in September 2015 granted the insurance company's motion to
compel arbitration with plaintiff Melek Kartal, while also
dismissing three wage-related claims from all plaintiffs except
Kartal.

The New York appellate panel opened its decision on July 18 by
saying this particular court had yet to directly address the issue
of whether employees are obligated to arbitrate collective
disputes, such as class actions bringing wage claims. Kartal had
signed an agent contract that included a provision barring class
or collective actions, according to the court's decision, but the
appellate panel said the decision didn't square with the Federal
Arbitration Act.

"Upon consideration of the matter, we conclude that the better
view is that arbitration provisions such as the one in Kartal's
contract, which prohibit class, collective, or representative
claims, violate the National Labor Relations Act . . . and thus,
that those provisions are unenforceable," the court said.

In deciding to reject the class waiver, the opinion agreed with
the Seventh Circuit's findings in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. that
held that a class waiver in an arbitration agreement violated the
NLRA, versus the Fifth Circuit's ruling in D.R. Horton v. National
Labor Relations Board, which nixed the board's finding that such
waivers violate the NLRA.

"In all likelihood, the United States Supreme Court will resolve
this circuit split in due course," the opinion said.  "In the
meantime, we find the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Lewis more
persuasive -- far more than that of the Fifth Circuit."

The Fifth Circuit's decision doesn't explain why the FAA policy
favoring arbitration should trump the NLRA, the opinion said --
and the decision contradicts itself by saying employees'
collective claims cannot fit within the FAA's savings clause and
later saying there is not a conflict between the FAA and the NLRA.
The Seventh Circuit's decision, on the other hand, followed the
NLRB's repeated conclusions that the NLRA prevents arbitration
agreements with class waivers, the opinion said."

The New York panel's ruling also upheld the lower court's decision
to cut out the minimum wage, overtime and wage deduction claims by
affirming New York Life's summary judgment win and extending it to
all plaintiffs, including Kartal.  The decision said that Kartal
and fellow plaintiff Sheree Johnson weren't entitled to overtime
and minimum wage requirements because their jobs ultimately
rendered them outside salespeople who are exempt.

"Federal regulations, in turn, define 'outside salesman' as used
in the [Fair Labor Standards Act] as an employee whose primary
duty is making sales or obtaining orders or contracts and who is
customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer's place
of business while performing that primary duty (29 CFR 541.500),"
the panel said.  "Work incidental to or that furthers the
employee's sales efforts is part of the primary duty of making
sales."

Justice Richard T. Andrias, joined by Justice David Friedman,
dissented in part, saying he believes the class waiver provision
is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and not
prohibited by the NLRA.

The legality of class arbitration waivers is subject to a number
of challenges across the country. Supreme courts in California and
Nevada have upheld class waivers in employment arbitration
agreements, according to the July 18 decision, while the U.S.
Supreme Court in January granted certiorari to a trio of cases
that raise the issue -- including the Lewis and Horton matters.

Rich Rosenblatt of Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, who represents
New York Life, said on July 18 that they plan to appeal the
decision with respect to the arbitration portion of the decision,
but those proceedings could become delayed based on the pending
U.S. Supreme Court cases.  Still, he said he was pleased with the
court's findings over the substantive claims in the case.

"We are particularly pleased that the court accepted fully our
position that the manner in which these agents were paid fully
complied with New York law," he said.

The case still has one remaining claim -- one that alleges New
York Life made unlawful wage deductions for the agents' work
facilities -- that wasn't subject to the appeal, as New York
hadn't yet moved for summary judgment.  The panel noted on
July 18 that that claim will proceed in court rather than in
arbitration.

Sanford F. Young, who was appellate counsel for the plaintiffs,
said he and his clients are "extremely pleased" with the panel's
"bold and progressive" decision shutting down the arbitration
clause, especially because the issue is in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court.

"On the other hand, we are disappointed with the dismissal of the
wage deduction and overtime claims," Mr. Young said.  "We believe
that aspect of the decision eviscerates the clear meaning and
intent of the applicable statutes and regulations.  We are thus
weighing our options to seek further review of those issues by the
Court of Appeals."

Rolando T. Acosta, David Friedman, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Richard
T. Andrias and Karla Moskowitz sat on the appellate panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sanford F. Young of the Law
Offices of Sanford F. Young PC and John Halebian --
JHalebian@lshllp.com -- and Adam Mayes -- AMayes@lshllp.com -- of
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

New York Life Insurance Co. is represented by Sean P. Lynch --
sean.lynch@morganlewis.com -- and Richard G. Rosenblatt --
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

The case is Gold v. New York Life Ins. Co., Case No. 653923/12
(N.Y. App. Div.) [GN]


NEWFOUNDLAND: Faces Child Abuse Class Action
--------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the Newfoundland and Labrador government
over alleged abuse at provincial facilities for young offenders
and neglected children.

The suit, filed by the Morris Martin Moore law firm in Mount
Pearl, alleges that children were physically, sexually and
emotionally abused while in the care of the government at
custodial and child welfare facilities between 1955 and 1989.

Lawyer Lynn Moore said the lawsuit not only alleges that abuse
took place, but also that the government knew about the abuse at
the time and ignored it.

"The really striking thing about this is that we're alleging that
the government knew and that they turned a blind eye," she said.
"They were more interested in staying out of the news then they
were in protecting children."

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the province could not
discuss the case.

"Out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, and
because this is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics of this case," Amy Stoodley said in an
email.

Meanwhile, Moore said her law firm uncovered alleged suppression
and concealment by government officials, interspersed with
disclosures of abuse.

The three decades covered in the lawsuit are bookended by two
inquiries into the abuse of children at provincial facilities: the
Magisterial Inquiry in 1955 and the Hughes Inquiry in 1988. In
1972, a former employee was convicted of abuse.

The lawsuit filed in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court
alleges that abuse happened at facilities in a number of
communities, including Whitbourne, St. John's and Torbay.

The size of the class is not yet known, but Moore said hundreds of
children went through the institutions over the span of more than
three decades covered in the lawsuit.

"We know that there were between 50 and 70 children in these
institutions per year," she said.  "There are hundreds of children
that went through these institutions throughout the years. How
many of them were abused is difficult to say, but we believe the
numbers are significant."

The children ranged in age from 10 to 17.

While some children ended up in the facilities because of trouble
with the law, Moore said other children were neglected.

"These were places where children were living either because they
couldn't be controlled in the community from criminal activity or
because they were neglected in their homes," she said, noting that
the facilities were later replaced with youth centres under the
Young Offenders Act and foster care homes.

She alleges that staff instigated a cycle of abuse by physically,
sexually and emotionally abusing children who would then go on to
abuse younger or new children arriving at the facilities.

"We do have people who have told us that when they were younger
they were abused by older boys," Ms. Moore said.  "We believe that
those older boys in turn were abused by the guards."

Ms. Moore said once the province files a defence, a date will be
set for a judge to hear arguments on whether the class should be
certified. [GN]


OCULAR THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased
Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. ("Ocular Therapeutix") (NASDAQ:OCUL)
securities between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Ocular Therapeutix's management has
been misleading investors about DEXTENZA manufacturing issues,
including that more than 50% of lots manufactured by Ocular
Therapeutix contain bad product; (2) such manufacturing issues
could impact the approval of DEXTENZA by the FDA; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading.

If you suffered a loss in Ocular Therapeutix you have until
September 5, 2017 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. To obtain additional
information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sb/ocular-therapeutix-inc?wire=2.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


PHILADELPHIA: To End Use Of Forfeiture Funds For Law Enforcement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Moran, writing for Philly.com, reports that in a bid to end
a class-action lawsuit against the city, Philadelphia officials
are seeking a federal judge's approval of a voluntary permanent
ban on the controversial use of civil-forfeiture proceeds to fund
police and prosecutors.

With one exception, the city has voluntarily stopped using
property seized in criminal cases to fund the District Attorney's
Office and the Police Department.

City lawyers late July 21 afternoon filed a request with U.S.
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno to approve a permanent
injunction on Philadelphia's using the proceeds for law
enforcement, arguing that it would satisfy a stated demand by the
plaintiffs for such prohibition. As part of the order, the city
would deny liability and that it violated the constitutional
rights of the plaintiffs or anyone else in the class-action suit.

Kathleen Martin, first assistant for the District Attorney's
office, said in a statement that the funds would instead be used
to pay for drug treatment, drug-abuse prevention, and to alleviate
blight in communities ravaged by the drug trade.

"By agreeing to discontinue the expenditure of forfeiture proceeds
on law enforcement needs in the District Attorney's Office and
Police Department -- even though that is permitted by statute --
we eliminate once and for all any concern of improper motives for
forfeiture," Martin said.

Lawyers at the Institute for Justice, the Virginia-based nonprofit
that filed the suit in 2014 on behalf of plaintiffs in
Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment on July 21 night.

According to the city's court filing, the city offered two months
ago to resolve the suit with the permanent injunction, but the
plaintiffs rejected the proposal.

In an opinion piece published on July 19 in the Inquirer, Milad
Emam, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, wrote that the
organization was continuing its class-action suit because
Pennsylvania law still allows for proceeds from forfeitures to be
used by law enforcement "to pad their budgets and salaries," and
that the law allows for people to lose property to forfeiture
without ever being charged or convicted of a crime.

The plaintiffs in the Philadelphia case include Chris and Markela
Sourovelis. "After police officers arrested their youngest son for
selling $40 of drugs without their knowledge, police returned to
seize their home and evict them," Emam wrote in his opinion piece.

"The Sourovelises had no warning or ability to contest eviction.
In order to return to their home, prosecutors in the Philadelphia
District Attorney's Office forced them to sign an agreement
permanently banning their son from their home and waiving their
rights to challenge the DA's actions in court," Emam wrote.

Gov. Wolf recently signed into law forfeiture reforms, but Emam
said the changes fall short.

"As long as forfeiture proceeds can fund Pennsylvania law
enforcement's salaries and other benefits, forfeiture will
continue to be out of control," Emam wrote. [GN]


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Nazario Seeks to Certify Class of Citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ELIAJALYN NAZARIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation, and
LEHIGH HMA, LLC d/b/a LEHIGH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
2:16-cv-00772-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), seeks certification of this
class:

     (i) All Florida citizens (ii) who were the subject of a
     counterfeit lien recordation by LEHIGH REGIONAL and/or
     PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC. (iii) in an attempt to
     collect a debt incurred for medical bills (iv) from 2 years
     prior to the filing of the initial complaint, October 18,
     2016, to the date of class certification.

The Defendants have concocted a scheme of creating, filing and
recording counterfeit "hospital liens," Ms. Nazario alleges.  She
tells the Court that these liens are filed into the public record
to create fictional priority "lien" claims against any available
insurance, whether it is third party liability, uninsured motorist
or any other available insurance benefit.

Ms. Nazario also asks the Court to designate her as representative
for the class, and to appoint the law firm of Viles & Beckman,
LLC, as lead counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria R. Alaimo, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Court
          Fort Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: Maria@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alan David Lash, Esq.
          Lorelei J. Van Wey, Esq.
          Michael L. Ehren, Esq.
          LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
          Miami Tower
          100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131-2158
          Telephone: (305) 347-4040
          Facsimile: (305) 347-4050
          E-mail: alash@lashgoldberg.com
                  lvanwey@lashgoldberg.com
                  mehren@lashgoldberg.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Health Minister Calls for OxyContin Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Howlett, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins is calling on the federal
government to prosecute the pharmaceutical giant whose pain pill
triggered Canada's deadly opioid epidemic.

"As we continue to work together to address problematic opioid use
in Canada, it is important that Purdue Pharma be held accountable
for any inappropriate or potentially illegal activities in the
marketing of OxyContin in Canada," Dr. Hoskins says in a letter to
federal Health Minister Jane Philpott, a copy of which was
obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The Stamford, Conn.-based company has acknowledged in the United
States that its marketing of OxyContin was misleading, but it has
not made a similar admission in Canada.  The company's marketing
encouraged doctors to prescribe opioids more widely for everything
from back pain to fibromyalgia.  Canada is the world's second-
highest per-capita user of prescription painkillers.

On July 19, an Ontario court approved a $20-million settlement in
a class-action lawsuit against Purdue brought by Canadians who
became addicted, or their families.

A spokesman for Dr. Philpott said the minister is in regular
contact with her provincial and territorial counterparts to
discuss any actions that will assist in "turning the tide" on the
opioid crisis.  "We will continue to explore our options when it
comes to addressing past and current causes of this opioid and
overdose epidemic," Andrew MacKendrick said in an e-mail.

Dr. Hoskins is urging Ottawa to use its powers under the federal
Food and Drugs Act (FDA) to prosecute Purdue.  In the United
States, Purdue and three of its executives paid $634.5-million
(U.S.) in 2007 to settle criminal and civil charges against them
for misbranding OxyContin as less addictive than other pain
medications.

"As you know, the FDA prohibits the selling or advertising of a
drug 'in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive,'"
Dr. Hoskins says in the letter.

Settlement of the long-standing class-action lawsuit could make it
difficult for the Ontario government to pursue its own legal
action to seek compensation from the company for health-care
costs, lawyers say. The $20-million (Canadian) to settle the
lawsuit includes $2-million for the provinces and territories,
which were parties to the agreement.

The settlement also must be approved by the courts in
Saskatchewan, Quebec and Nova Scotia before it becomes final.  It
is not an admission of liability by Purdue.

"If the settlement is approved, there is an argument to be made by
Purdue that the compensation question has been resolved in the
$20-million settlement," said Ray Wagner, a Halifax lawyer whose
firm launched the class action in 2007.

Grant Perry, vice-president of corporate and government affairs at
Purdue, declined to comment on whether the provinces would have
any further legal recourse against the company.

In response to Dr. Hoskins's push for federal action, Mr. Perry
said Purdue markets its products in Canada in compliance with "all
relevant rules, regulations and codes, including the Food and
Drugs Act."

Dr. Hoskins says "serious consideration" of a prosecution is
warranted under one of three sections of the FDA, including 31.4,
which says anyone who "knowingly or recklessly causes a serious
risk of injury to human health" is committing a crime.  Under
recent revisions to the act, section 31.4 carries the highest
maximum penalties: five years in prison plus a fine left to the
court's discretion, with no cap on the financial penalty.  A
Health Canada spokeswoman said these penalties could not be
applied to situations that arose before the act was strengthened.

The proposed class-action settlement would cap a legal battle that
began a decade ago between the company and lawyers representing as
many as 1,500 Canadians who became addicted to OxyContin after
their doctors prescribed it.  The average payout to each of the
1,000 to 1,500 claimants would range from $13,000 to $18,000.
OxyContin generated $31-billion (U.S.) in revenue for Purdue.

The class-action accuses Purdue of knowing that anyone who took
OxyContin would be at risk of becoming addicted to it and suffer
withdrawal symptoms if they stopped. But at no time were these
risks disclosed.

Canada's opioid epidemic traces its roots to the introduction of
OxyContin 21 years ago.  Until the mid-1990s, opioids were used
primarily for terminal cancer patients.  In 1996, Health Canada
approved OxyContin to relieve pain that was moderate to severe.
Purdue distinguished OxyContin from its rivals by promoting its
time-release formula -- the pill was designed to be digested over
12 hours.

Company sales reps persuaded doctors to expand their use of
opioids beyond treating cancer pain by pushing the notion that
OxyContin posed a lower threat of abuse and dependence than other,
faster-acting painkillers, the class-action suit alleges. The drug
was the top-selling long-acting opioid in Canada for more than a
decade.

OxyContin also became a lightning rod in the early 2000s, as
reports of opioid dependence and overdoses exploded.  Purdue
pulled OxyContin from the market in 2012, shortly before the
patent was to expire.

A host of other, stronger drugs filled the void when OxyContin was
taken off the market, including illicit fentanyl, which began
appearing on the streets in Canada in 2012, leading to a sharp
spike in opioid-related deaths. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Could Face Potential Suit Over Opoiod Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Ryser, writing for News Times, reports that a national law
firm's interest in getting Danbury and Ridgefield to take legal
action against the pharmaceutical industry is part of an effort to
make drug companies take responsibility for the opoiod crisis in a
way tobacco companies were forced to do nearly two decades ago.

"I regard this as the 21st-century version of the tobacco
settlement on steroids," said attorney Paul Hanly, who is leading
a fight against the pharmaceutical industry. "Opioids are the
scourge of the 21st century, but just like big tobacco, these
pharmaceutical companies will never come to the table to fix the
problem they caused unless there are hundreds if not thousands of
individual lawsuits around the country."

That number might sound like a stretch, but Hanly's firm once
filed 1,000 separate lawsuits on the same day against Purdue
Pharma, the Stamford-based maker of the opioid painkiller
OxyContin. As a result, Purdue wound up paying a $75 million in
2006 to settle allegations of fraudulent marketing.

So far Hanly has 10 counties in New York and one city in
Connecticut -- Waterbury -- signed up for a class action he
estimates at least 500 cities and counties across the country must
join to be successful.

Waterbury plans to file its lawsuit against the country's largest
pharmaceutical companies next week, said Mayor Neil O'Leary.
O'Leary has lobbied Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, Ridgefield First
Selectman Rudy Marconi and other top elected leaders across
Connecticut to join him.

Marconi and Boughton said they intend to meet with Hanly soon to
discuss the complaint he has prepared for Waterbury, and to review
a lawsuit filed last summer in New York on behalf of the towns
along the Long Island Sound in Suffolk County.

That lawsuit accuses major drug makers of misleading the public
about the addictive risks of opioids to "expand the market for
opioids and realize blockbuster profits." It also accuses drug
makers of saddling towns with "increased health care costs as well
as a dramatic increase of social problems, including drug abuse
and (black market drug distribution), and the commission of
criminal acts to obtain opioids..."

Boughton said the crisis is acute in greater Danbury.

"We have had our tragedies and horror stories here where people
have overdosed and died, and where people have migrated from
opioid pain killers to heroin and other substances," Boughton
said. "It's a social cost for us as more and more people are
addicted and more and more people are on the streets."

For advocates who battle addiction every day, it is not clear that
the opioid epidemic would wane in the event of a successful class-
action lawsuit against big pharmaceutical companies.

"If you look at what happened with the tobacco settlement, and all
the money Connecticut gets, a very small percentage of that gets
used" for smoking treatment and cessation programs, said Richard
Radocchia, the chief clinical officer for the Midwestern
Connecticut Council of Alcoholism, which provides substance abuse
programs in greater Danbury. "Most of that money gets funneled
right back into the general fund because of Connecticut's budget
crisis."

The tobacco settlement ended 800 claims brought against the
largest cigarette manufacturers in America, and locked in annual
negotiated payments to states, who agreed to give up future legal
claims.

Hanly said the case against opiate makers is similar to the
tobacco case, where consumers used cigarettes as directed and got
sick.

"There are literally hundreds of thousands of patients who have
become addicted to opioids after following their prescriptions,"
Hanley said. "We have kids who are dropping dead at high school
parties."

                      The Toll of Opioids

Connecticut's senators convened an opioid summit to document an
epidemic of 917 drug overdose deaths statewide in 2016 -- more
than the number who died from homicides, suicides and car
accidents combined. Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal sent
the summit report to President Trump's Commission on Combating
Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis.

Nationally, opioid-related deaths have quadrupled to 33,000 since
2000, according to federal statistics.

In response, opioid manufacturers are being taken to court to
answer allegations of misleading marketing about brand-name
painkillers such as OxyContin and Percocet.

The lawsuits have multiplied since 2007, when Purdue and three of
its executives paid $635 million in penalties to the Department of
Justice for misrepresenting OxyContin's addictive risks.

In this year alone, for example, lawsuits have been filed against
Purdue and other opioid manufacturers by the states of Tennessee,
Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma; by counties in Illinois
and West Virginia; and by the Washington city of Everett.

Purdue, which generates billions in annual revenue from its top-
selling OxyContin, has refused to comment on allegations that its
fraudulent messaging and aggressive marketing is leading to
thousands of overdose deaths.

The company has denied the allegations, and said it shares public
officials' concerns about the epidemic.

"We have dedicated ourselves to working with policymakers, public
health officials and law enforcement to address this public health
crisis, which include developing abuse-deterrent technology,
advocating for the use of prescription drug monitoring programs,
and supporting access to Naloxone," the company said in mid-June,
in response to the Tennessee lawsuit.

Naloxone is an overdose-reversal drug that can save lives. The
National Sheriffs' Association credits a Purdue-funded initiative
that gives officers overdose reversal kits with helping save 120
lives since 2015.

Purdue did not respond on July 21 to requests for comment about
Hanly's plans for a class-action lawsuit.
Hanly, who said he was looking forward to meeting with interested
cities and towns in Connecticut, noted that he was having similar
discussions with counties in Illinois, Missouri and Texas.

"I am going to be filing these cases all over the country," he
said. "At some point the political, social and economic pressure
will bring these companies to the table and they will have to
resolve these cases. These cases are not going to go away." [GN]


R.L. POLK: Del. Ch. narrows Defendants merger dispute
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS, L.P., a
California Limited Partnership and MITCHELL PARTNERS L.P., a
California Limited Partnership, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R. L. POLK & CO., INC.,
STEPHEN R. POLK (individually and on behalf of a Defendant Class
of similarly situated persons), NANCY K. POLK, KATHERINE POLK
OSBORNE, DAVID COLE, RICK INATOME, CHARLES MCCLURE, J. MICHAEL
MOORE, RLP & C HOLDING, INC., RLP MERGER CO., STOUT RISIUS ROSS,
INC., and HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Defendants. C.A.
No. 9250-VCG, Class Action (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor Glasscock
of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Non-
Polk, SRR and Honigman, and denying the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss as to the rest of other Defendants.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' Complaint here -- they sold stock
of R. L. Polk and Co., Inc. (Polk or the Company) to the Company
in a self-tender, and received less than stockholders who did not
tender received approximately two years later in a cash-out
merger.

Plaintiff Buttonwood Tree Value Partners, L.P., is a California
limited partnership that held shares in Defendant Polk at all
relevant times.  Buttonwood tendered 1,048 shares into the self-
tender.

Defendant Polk is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Michigan.  The Company has been majority owned and controlled by
the Polk Family since its founding in 1870.

Defendant Stephen Polk is the great-grandson of the Company's
founder and served at all relevant times as Polk's Chairman, CEO,
and President.

The Non-Polk Family Directors (or the NP Directors), that is, the
directors not members of the Polk Family, consist of Defendants
David Cole, Rick Inatome, Charles McClure, and J. Michael Moore.

Defendant Stout Risius Ross, Inc. (SRR) is a Michigan company that
is a global advisory firm that specializes in investment banking,
valuation & financial opinions, and dispute advisory & forensic
services.

In 2008, the Polk Board began exploring the possibility of a self-
tender. To that end, the Board engaged SRR to provide a fairness
opinion. In a Board meeting on September 11, 2008, after receiving
an oral fairness opinion from SRR and a presentation by Honigman,
the Board approved a self-tender at $850 per share.  The Company
committed $30 million for purchasing the shares in the self-
tender.

The 2010 Subchapter S and Short-Form Merger Exploration

In August 2010, Polk considered engaging SRR to explore strategic
alternatives. In a meeting on November 11, 2010, the Board
conducted a lengthy discussion of the benefits and detriments of
converting the Company to Subchapter S status. To convert to
Subchapter S status, a company must have no more than 100
shareholders. The Company at this time had approximately 127
shareholders. The Board appointed a committee of Non-Polk Family
Directors Cole, Inatome, McClure, and Moore to examine the
Subchapter S election more closely (the Subchapter S Committee).

The Sale of the Company and the Special Dividend

In December 2012, before consummating the sale, the Board declared
an extraordinarily high special dividend in the amount of $240 per
share. To do so, the Company borrowed $60 million on a line of
credit, liquidated $25 million of marketable securities, and paid
out $32 million in cash.  The Company also had declared two
additional extraordinary dividends of $25 per share in the months
leading up to hiring Evercore.

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Verified Class Action
Complaint. Count I is a claim against the Individual Defendants
and the Polk Family Class for breaching their fiduciary duties of
care and loyalty by, among other things, standing on both sides of
the 2011 Self-Tender, self-dealing.

Count V is a claim against Honigman for aiding and abetting the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Individual Defendants,
Merger Co., and Holding Co. in consideration of the short-form
merger and in connection with the 2011 Self-Tender and the false
and misleading disclosures contained in the Offer to Purchase and
the First Supplement to the Offer to Purchase.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for the breaches of fiduciary duties
alleged above.

The Defendants moved to dismiss all Counts and the Court heard
arguments.

The Polk Family and the Polk Family Directors

The record contains references to the Polk Family as a block,
sufficient to make the Polk Family's status as a control block
reasonably conceivable.  The Court finds it reasonably conceivable
that the Polk Family, together with the Polk Family Directors,
acted as a controlling block comprising over 90% of Company stock.
Other inferences could be drawn, but the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have met their minimal burden here.

It alleges that those who tendered forwent, as a result,
extraordinary dividends amounting to over one-third of the sale
price they received, together with merger consideration in an
amount three times the Self-Tender price, within a period of
around two years. These facts adequately allege, at the pleading
stage, that the transaction was not entirely fair to the
Plaintiffs.

The Non-Polk Family Directors

While the standard on a motion to dismiss is lenient, the Court
will not accept conclusory allegations unsupported by specific
facts. The Plaintiffs' allegations against the NP Directors lack
such sufficient factual support. Effectively, the allegations here
are that the NP Directors approved the Self-Tender, failed to
adequately disclose the facts leading up to the Self-Tender,
including facts regarding the contemplated freeze-out merger, the
fact that the freeze-out was nixed by Stephen Polk on behalf of
the Polk Family, and facts concerning SRR's involvement in
consideration of the freeze-out.

The Plaintiffs, according to the Court, fail to plead facts
supporting a rational inference that the NP Directors harbored
self-interest adverse to the minority Polk stockholders or acted
to advance the self-interest of the Polk Family. The Plaintiffs
have also failed to plead specific facts that, if true, implicate
bad faith on the part of the NP Directors. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the claims against the NP Directors must be dismissed.

SRR and Honigman are Not Liable for Aiding and Abetting

To reiterate, Honigman was the legal advisor, and SRR the
financial advisor, to Polk with respect to the Self-Tender.

To state a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty, plaintiffs must allege facts demonstrating a fiduciary
relationship, a breach of the fiduciary's duty, knowing
participation in that breach by the defendants, and damages
proximately caused by the breach. The standard for aiding and
abetting is a stringent one, one that turns on proof of scienter
of the alleged abettor.

That is, a claim for aiding and abetting often turns on meeting
the knowing participation element. Therefore, there must be
factual allegations in the complaint from which knowing
participation can be reasonably inferred.

Because the Court does not find it reasonably conceivable that SRR
or Honigman knowingly provided substantial assistance to any
fiduciaries' breach of duty, they must be dismissed.

The Motions to Dismiss are granted as to the NP Directors, SRR,
and Honigman, and otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of Vice Chancellor Glasscock's July 24, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycfxjglc
from Leagle.com.

R. Bruce McNew -- bmcnew@coochtaylor.com -- of COOCH AND TAYLOR,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and THE MCNEW LAW FIRM, LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

David A. Dorey -- Dorey@BlankRome.com -- of BLANK ROME LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Christopher M. Mason, of NIXON
PEABODY LLP, New York, New York, 437 Madison AvenueNew York, NY
10022-7039, Carolyn G. Nussbaum, of NIXON PEABODY LLP, Rochester,
New York, 1300 S Clinton Ave, Rochester, NY 14604, USA Attorneys
for Polk Defendants.

Michael F. Duggan -- mduggan@moodklaw.com -- and Matthew R.
Hindley -- mhindley@moodklaw.com -- of MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN,
DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
Defendant Stout Risius Ross, Inc.

Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- Anne C. Foster --
foster@rlf.com -- Kevin M. Gallagher -- galagher@rlf.com -- of
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys
for Defendant Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP.


REACH AIR: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance
------------------------------------------------
Eric Dietrich, writing for Bozeman Daily, reports that a Gallatin
County family who says they were billed more than $109,000 for an
air ambulance trip to Denver after their 6-year-old son was
diagnosed with a brain tumor have filed a class-action lawsuit
against REACH Air Medical Services, saying the service overcharged
them after failing to tell them how much the trip would cost.

A representative of the California-based company, VP of business
relations Anna Blair, declined to comment on the filing on July
21, saying the company's legal department hadn't yet had a chance
to finish reviewing the case.

"We will address it appropriately," she said.

The plaintiffs, Stan and Rainy Wagner, are represented by Bozeman
attorneys Matt Kelly, Margaret Weamer, Travis Kinzler and Daniel
Buckley. Certifying the suit as a class action, the attorneys say,
will let them seek damages for other air ambulance clients in
similar situations.

Air ambulance services saw substantial scrutiny at the Montana
Legislature this year, following a number of situations where
patients were billed financially crippling amounts. Multiple
regulatory measures were ultimately signed into law, including
Senate Bill 44, which aims to protect Montanans from out-of-pocket
charges in situations where air ambulance services aren't fully
covered by their insurance.

According to details provided in the initial legal filing, the
Wagners took their 6-year-old son to his pediatrician in August
2015, after the boy suffered headaches, vomited and had trouble
walking. A CT scan indicated the child was suffering from a life-
threatening brain tumor, and the doctor recommended he be
immediately transported to the Children's Hospital in Denver for
treatment.

The Wagners say they agreed to have their son transferred from
Bozeman to Denver via a REACH air ambulance dispatched by Bozeman
Health Deaconess Hospital. However, they say, the contract they
agreed to didn't specify the cost for the one-way flight.

The following February the family says REACH billed them for
$109,590 -- a $15,965 base rate and a $175-per-mile charge for 535
miles in a fixed-wing aircraft.

Their insurer, BlueCross BlueShield of Montana, paid $22,933 of
the bill and tried to charge the family for a balance of $40,057 -
- including late fees but reflecting a lower per-mile rate of
$81.96 a mile, the lawsuit says.

"The amount sought... exceeds reasonable amounts typically charged
in Montana for similar air-ambulance transport and the charges do
not represent the reasonable worth of the services rendered,"
write the Wagners' attorneys.

The Wagners and their attorneys argue that REACH, which owns
Summit Air Ambulance, should re-examine the bills it has sent its
customers, reducing them to a fair value. They also say the
company should be required to specify its billing rates in its
contracts up front or charge more reasonable rates. [GN]


RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Class Action Over Move Free Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that consumers
are suing Reckitt Benckiser LLC, a New Jersey business, citing
alleged negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition.

Gordon Noboru Yamagata and Stamatis F. Pelardis filed a complaint
on June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the New Jersey business made false
claims regarding the effects of their product, Move Free Products,
which is a supplement that reportedly offers benefits to users'
joints.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely
advertised product.  The plaintiffs holds the defendant
responsible for allegedly making false representations regarding
its health supplements that it purportedly claimed would benefit
their joints' health.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek restitution and
disgorgement of all profits, injunctive relief, damages, engage in
an corrective advertising campaign, all legal fees, interest and
any other relief this court deems just.  They are represented by
Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-03529-JCS
[GN]


ROTI RESTAURANTS: "Lindner" Remanded to Illinois State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned COOPER LINDNER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ROTI RESTAURANTS, LLC, d/b/a Roti Modern
Mediterranean and d/b/a Roti Mediterranean Grill, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-935 (N.D.
Ill.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and  denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Roti Restaurants,
LLC's motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs Cooper Lindner's and Kim
Smith's motion to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) for lack of
federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Cooper Lindner made a purchase at one of Defendant's
restaurants in downtown Chicago, Illinois. He used a credit card
for the transaction and received a receipt that contained the
first six and last four digits of his card's numbers printed on
it.

Lindner filed a putative class action, alleging that Defendant's
receipt violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g), a provision of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended by the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which prohibits
printing more than five digits of a credit card number on an
electronically printed receipt.

Lindner filed an amended complaint, adding Kim Smith as Plaintiff.
Smith had made a purchase at one of Defendant's restaurants in
Vernon Hills, Illinois. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, incorporating and expanding on their
amended federal complaint and simultaneously moved for class
certification.

Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs had not
included sufficient facts in their complaint to plead that
Defendant's alleged violation of the FACTA was willful.  Instead
of addressing the merits of Defendant's motion to dismiss,
Plaintiffs moved for remand on the ground that they lack Article
III standing.

Here, while Plaintiffs also received a non-compliant receipt, they
do not allege that the information on this receipt was exposed to
any outside party, making their risk of harm equally implausible,
the Court held.

This Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not suffered injury-in-
fact sufficient to establish Article III standing.  Therefore,
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
claims.

If the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction in the state court
turns on a debatable application or interpretation of state law, a
federal district court should remand the case to that court,
despite a party's contentions that remand would be futile. Having
failed to identify a clear path through state law, this Court can
venture no further into the doctrinal thicket. Dismissal on
futility grounds is not warranted.

The final issue is Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and
costs based on Defendant's removal of this case.  Moreover, the
jurisdictional jousting in this case has been a shared endeavor,
as this dispute has ferried back and forth between state and
federal court repeatedly over the past year. In these
circumstances, each side deserves to bear its own fees and costs.
Plaintiffs' motion to remand is granted and Defendant's motion to
dismiss is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/yd72b56jfrom
Leagle.com.

Cooper Lindner, Plaintiff, represented by Karl G. Leinberger,
Markoff Leinberger LLC, 134 N LaSalle Street Suite 1050 Chicago,
IL 60602

Cooper Lindner, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Markoff, Markoff
Leinberger LLC, 134 N LaSalle Street Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60602
Kim Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Karl G. Leinberger, Markoff
Leinberger LLC & Paul F. Markoff, Markoff Leinberger LLC.

Roti Restaurants, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Hohn -- chohn@thomsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn Llp, Todd A.
Rowden -- trowden@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP,
Aleksandra M.S. Vold -- avold@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP & Felicia R. Williams -- fwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com
  -- Thompson Coburn Llp.


RUBY CORP: Judge Approves $11.2MM Ashley Madison Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Haynes, writing for UPI, reports that a federal judge on
July 21 approved a $11.2 million settlement for a class-action
lawsuit against Ashley Madison after hackers accessed users'
personal information on the dating website.

Hackers published the credit card data, account details and
usernames of at least 32 million Ashley Madison customers in
August 2015.

Personal information contained on the website is particularly
sensitive because Ashley Madison markets itself as a cheating
website. For years, its tagline was, "Life is short. Have an
affair."

Plaintiffs accused Ashley Madison of misleading customers about
security measures on the website. The site, which is run by
Toronto-based Ruby Corp., disagreed with the accusations but said
it is settling in order to avoid the expense of continued
litigation.

Final approval of the settlement is expected to happen at a Nov.
20 hearing.

Ruby Corp. agreed to pay $1.6 million to the Federal Trade
Commission after federal regulators said the company failed to
protect the personal information of the users. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Lil' Man Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
LIL' MAN IN THE BOAT, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00904-JST (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Lil' Man In The Boat, Inc., owns and operates a licensed
commercial charter Motor Vessel 'Just Dreaming' that provides
transportation and hospitality services on the San Francisco Bay
both for locals and visitors from all over the globe.  Just
Dreaming has operated out of the Port of San Francisco, and, by
local regulation, must load and unload its passengers at the North
Side Dock of Pier 40's South Beach Harbor.

Defendants insisted on a written landing rights agreement (the
2016 Landing Agreement) between Defendant City and all commercial
charter operators like Plaintiff who wished to land at the Port.
Despite paying these fees, vessels like Just Dreaming may only use
a small portion of the North Side Dock.  Plaintiff alleges that
the excessive fees imposed on commercial vessels have resulted in
a profit to Defendants, far in excess of the costs to maintain the
North Side Dock.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges four causes of action arising out of
the 2016 Landing Agreement.  First, Plaintiff brings a Section
1983 claim based on violations of the Tonnage Clause, the Commerce
Clause, the Rivers & Harbors Act, and the First Amendment.
Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Bane Act.
Third, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.  And
fourth, Plaintiff brings a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Court denies the motion to dismiss with respect to the Tonnage
Clause, DCC, RHA and First Amendment claims, and grants it with
respect to the Bane Act claim.

At the motion to dismiss phase, the Court agrees with Plaintiff
that the fact of the overall Harbor surplus, together with
Plaintiff's allegations that the North Side Dock is small,
unsecured, and poorly maintained, raise a plausible inference that
the landing fees are going to general revenues and not to provide
services at the dock.  Given these allegations, Plaintiff's
Tonnage Clause claim survives the motion to dismiss.

All Plaintiff must do is plausibly allege that the landing fees
are excessive when compared with the benefit commercial operators
receive in exchange.  At the motion to dismiss phase, it has met
that burden.

To show discrimination, Plaintiff states that "the Port imposes
the Landing Fee, however, only on these commercial charter
vessels; recreational vessels are not being subjected to this
imposition.  Because commercial vessels are more likely to be
engaged in interstate commerce, Plaintiff's argument goes,
charging them and not recreational vessels discriminates against
interstate commerce.

Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that one of the three of the
factors identified by the Supreme Court in Northwest Airlines is
not satisfied here, and has therefore stated a claim under the
DCC.

Defendants next argue that even if Plaintiff has plausibly alleged
that the landing fees do not pass muster under the three-prong
Northwest Airlines test, the DCC should still be dismissed because
Defendants charge the fees as a market participant.

Defendants market participant argument ultimately fails because
there is an exception to the exception: where the state has a
monopoly over the services at issue, the market participant
exception does not apply.

Without access to the North Dock, Plaintiff claims it is locked
out of South Beach Harbor (and, in reality, the City and County of
San Francisco) for purposes of conducting their business.

Defendants respond Plaintiff can use Pier 39 or the San Francisco
Marina, but at the motion to dismiss phase, the Court must take
the allegations in the Complaint as true. The Court concludes that
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged Defendants occupy a monopoly
position such that the market participant exception does not
apply. The motion to dismiss is denied as to the DCC claim.

Plaintiff argues that the landing fees violate the Rivers and
Harbors Act (RHA).  Defendants cannot claim that the landing fees
are calculated based on the amount of docking space Plaintiff
occupies, as was the case in Brusco Towboat. And although a per
passenger fee is not the same as a gross revenue fee, both are
most plausibly categorized as "use" charges, rather than
permissible lease or rental fees.

Therefore, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that Defendants "proposed assessment [], however labeled,
is a charge exacted specifically for the use of navigable waters.
Alaska Riverways, Inc., 232 P.3d at 1221. Plaintiff has stated a
claim under the RHA.

Plaintiff claims the Agreement's requirement that commercial
vessel operators waive every claim for damages against the
Defendants" places an unconstitutional condition on Plaintiff's
First Amendment Right to Petition.

The waiver here is overly broad and fails to meet the close nexus
test. In order to gain use of the North Side Dock, Plaintiff had
to waive the right to bring "any Claim based upon this License.
Particularly at the motion to dismiss phase, the Court will not
assume without support Defendants' claim that the government
commonly and lawfully inserts broad waiver provisions in
commercial contracts.

The Bane Act prohibits a person from interfere[ing] by threat,
intimidation, or coercion, or attempt[ing] to interfere by threat,
intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any
individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state.

The Act makes clear that speech alone is not sufficient to support
[a Bane Act claim], except upon a showing that the speech itself
threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons
Because Plaintiff challenges speech only, it must also allege
violence or a threat of violence. Plaintiff makes no attempt to
satisfy this requirement, focusing instead on the unsuccessful
argument that Defendants engaged in coercive acts, not just
speech.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Bane Act claim without prejudice.

Given the Court's finding that Plaintiff plausibly alleged claims
under the Tonnage Clause, DCC, RHA, and First Amendment,
Plaintiff's derivative claims for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and restitution survive the motion to dismiss. The Court
denies the motion to dismiss as to these claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Memorandum
and Order is available http://tinyurl.com/yb7xuk2pfrom
Leagle.com.

Lil' Man in the Boat, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David
Raymond Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC.
City and County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by Tara
M. Steeley -- tara.steeley@sfgov.org --  San Francisco City
Attorney's Office.

San Francisco Port Commission, Defendant, represented by Tara M.
Steeley, San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Elaine Forbes, Defendant, represented by Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Peter Daley, Defendant, represented by Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Jeff Bauer, Defendant, represented by Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Joe Monroe, Defendant, represented by Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office.


SEARS HOLDING: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
Sears Holding is facing an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class action lawsuit filed by employees who allege the
company used its own stock as an investment option in the 401(k)
plan, despite knowledge that the company was in in "extremely poor
financial condition."

According to the complaint, Sears' stock had been "predictably
declining since 2010."  However, the employees allege that 401(k)
fiduciaries continued to purchase and hold the retailer's stock.

The allegations state that in 2014 the plan's stock fund lost a
massive $4.5 million and in 2015 it lost a further $12.9 million.
It wasn't until December 2016 that the fiduciaries took action and
froze future purchases of Sears stock, which essentially amounted
to "far too little, far too late," the employees state in their
complaint.

A report by Bloomberg notes this is the second ERISA class action
brought against Sears.  The earlier lawsuit also alleged the
national retailer held its own declining stocks in the company's
401(k) plan.  In that first lawsuit, Sears ended up paying $14.5
million to settle the allegations.

Employee benefits are an important form of compensation offered by
many employers.  When employers violate ERISA laws, employees may
be able to file a lawsuit to recover money lost from their
employee savings plan, employee stock options plan or other
benefits plans covered by ERISA.

ERISA covers health plans, retirement plans and employee stock
options plans, in which employees are given the opportunity to
purchase shares of a company's stock at a certain price, often
lower than the actual or anticipated market price of the shares.

Under ERISA laws, the people responsible for overseeing employee
benefits plans (often referred to as fiduciaries) must follow
specific guidelines.  These include acting in the best interests
of the plan participants; providing participants with plan
information, including information about plan features and
funding; and providing a grievance and appeals process for
participants.  Breaches of fiduciary duty can result in a lawsuit
being filed against plan fiduciaries. [GN]


STATE FARM: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Durant" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Brett Durant v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01710-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 19, 2017, the
Court denied the Defendant' motion for reconsideration and motion
to strike but granted Plaintiff's motion to certify questions to
the Washington Supreme Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Brett Durant v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 17-80146, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent BRETT DURANT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Tyler K. Firkins, Esq.
          VAN SICLEN, STOCKS & FIRKINS, P.S., INC.
          721 45th Street NE
          Auburn, WA 98002
          Telephone: (253) 859-8899
          E-mail: tfirkins@vansiclen.com

Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY is represented by:

          Frank Falzetta, Esq.
          Jennifer Marie Hoffman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617-4194
          E-mail: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com
                  jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Gregory Scott Worden, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 436-2020
          E-mail: Gregory.Worden@lewisbrisbois.com


STATION CASINOS: "Coyne" Stayed Pending Decision in "Neville"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting parties' Stipulation staying the case captioned
ARTHUR F. COYNE., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STATION CASINOS LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company, RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01603-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.), and tolling the statute of limitations
for Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a stipulation to stay all
proceedings pending the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in
Neville, Jr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Terrible Herbst, Inc.)
Supreme Court Case No. 70696.

The purpose of the requested stay is to promote judicial economy
and allow the District Court to more effectively control the
disposition of this action with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and the litigants.

Resolution of the question presented in Neville may impact the
Nevada wage and hour law issues in the present case.

Accordingly, the Parties agree to and stipulate as follows, inter
alia:

   (1) Plaintiff sets forth various allegations and claims arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Nevada Wage and Hour
law, and Nevada contract law (Plaintiff's Claims);

   (2) Plaintiff asserts his claims on behalf of himself and a
group of allegedly similarly situated employees as a collective
action under the FLSA and a Rule 23 class action under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (3) Defendants dispute and deny Plaintiff's Claims, including
whether the proposed lawsuit can be maintained as either a Rule 23
class action or a FLSA collective action, and specifically contend
that Plaintiff does not have a private right of action to assert
his Nevada wage and hour law claims for the reasons set forth in
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

   (4) The Parties agree to stay all proceedings until the Nevada
Supreme Court issues a decision in Neville (the Stay Period).

That the Parties' Stipulation stay this action and to toll the
statute of limitations for Plaintiff's FLSA claims is granted.
This case is stayed until further order of the court.

That, once the Nevada Supreme Court has issued the remittitur in
Neville, Jr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., Case No. 70696, either
party may move to lift this stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7raq8a7from Leagle.com.

Arthur F. Coyne, Plaintiff, represented by Charles A. Jones, Jones
Law Firm. JONES LAW FIRM, 9585 PROTOTYPE COURT, SUITE B, RENO, NV
89521, PHONE: 775-853-6440

Arthur F. Coyne, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, The District at Green Valley, 170 S Green
Vally Pkwy Henderson, NV 89012, USA, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP. Theirman Law Firm, PO Box 912, Zephyr  Cove,
NV 89448, Phone: 310-486-4127

Station Casinos LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher D.
Kircher -- christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com -- Semenza Kircher
Rickard, Lawrence J. Semenza, III, Semenza Kircher Rickard, 1061
Park Run Drive,Suite 150, Las Vegas NV 89145 & Robert Brett Bader
-- rbader@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP.

Red Rock Resorts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher D.
Kircher, Semenza Kircher Rickard, Lawrence J. Semenza, III,
Semenza Kircher Rickard & Robert Brett Bader, Sacks, Ricketts &
Case LLP.


TEMPUR SEALY: Faces New Suit Over Mattress Firm Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that the world's largest
bedding manufacturer, Tempur Sealy International Inc., was hit on
July 21 in Kentucky federal court with another putative
shareholder class action over its failed dealings with a large
U.S. mattress retailer, alleging Tempur Sealy's directors and
officers mismanaged agreements with the retailer after it was
acquired by another company.

The Tempur Sealy investors, in a shareholder derivative complaint
filed by lead plaintiff Paul Onesti, accused top executive Scott
L. Thompson and other defendants from the Lexington, Kentucky-
based company of making recklessly misleading statements in a
press release on July 28, 2016, that failed to disclose how
retailer Mattress Firm Inc.'s impending acquisition by Steinhoff
International Holdings NV would disrupt Tempur Sealy's business.

"In the July 28 press release, the company failed to disclose that
Mattress Firm had been engaged in active negotiations to be
acquired, and its acquisition was reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on Tempur Sealy's operating results for
the third and fourth fiscal quarters of 2016," the investors said.

On Aug. 7, 2016, Steinhoff agreed to acquire Mattress Firm for
approximately $2.4 billion, with the acquisition becoming
effective on Sept. 16, according to the shareholders' lawsuit.
Prior to the merger deal, Mattress Firm had been Tempur Sealy's
largest customer, accounting for approximately 25 percent and 21
percent of the company's overall net sales for 2015 and 2016,
respectively, the suit said.

Tempur Sealy's management also failed to disclose their
discussions with Mattress Firm about modifications to long-term
supply agreements between them, and that Mattress Firm sought
"significant economic concessions" from the company, according to
the investors, who cite a similar federal securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed March 24 against Tempur Sealy in the Southern
District of New York.

The investors' 63-page complaint goes on to outline additional
press releases and conference calls, accusing Tempur Sealy's
officers and directors of continuing to hide their knowledge of
Mattress Firm's merger talks with Steinhoff until they revealed
all in a Jan. 30 press release that caused a precipitous drop in
Tempur Sealy's stock price.

On Jan. 30, the suit alleged, prior to the opening of the market,
Tempur Sealy issued a press release announcing that
representatives of Steinhoff and the senior management of Mattress
Firm had notified Tempur Sealy of their intent to terminate all
U.S. contracts with Tempur Sealy if the company didn't agree to
"significant economic concessions" and "further considerable
modifications" to the existing agreements between Mattress Firm
and Tempur Sealy.

"Moreover, the press release stated that after a resolution of the
matter was not able to be reached by the parties, Tempur Sealy
issued formal termination notices, effective Jan. 27, to Mattress
Firm for all of Tempur Sealy's brands, and that the company
expected to end business with Mattress Firm in the first fiscal
quarter 2017," the suit alleged.

On this news, according to the shareholders, the price per share
of Tempur Sealy stock fell $17.70, or more than 28 percent, from
its closing price on the previous day the market was open, to
close at $45.49 on Jan. 30.

The suit alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of
corporate assets.

It asks the court to award Tempur Sealy restitution from the
individual defendants in a jury trial and to order the company to
reform its corporate governance and internal procedures, possibly
with a provision to permit the shareholders of Tempur Sealy to
nominate at least four candidates for election to the board.

Representatives for Tempur Sealy and its directors and officers
did not immediately respond on July 21 to requests for comment.

Legal counsel for the shareholders did not respond to a request
for comment.

The shareholders are represented by Erik D. Peterson, Esq. --
contact@austinmehr.com -- of Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial
Lawyers PLLC, Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- of
The Rosen Law Firm PA and Timothy W. Brown, Esq. --
tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net -- of The Brown Law Firm PC.

Legal counsel information for Tempur Sealy was not available.

The case is Onesti v. Thompson et al., case number 5:17-cv-00305,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The other shareholder suit is Buehring v. Tempur Sealy
International Inc. et al., case number 1:17-cv-02169, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]


TEXAS: Judge Orders Help for Inmates to Overcome Extreme Heat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kamala Kelkar, writing for PBS News Hour, reports that a federal
judge in Houston ordered a geriatric prison in Texas to help
inmates overcome extreme heat and rising summer temperatures,
referencing climate change in a groundbreaking ruling.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison deemed it cruel and unusual that
state corrections are aware of dangerous and lethal heat risks --
at least 23 men in Texas prisons have died from the heat in the
last 20 years -- yet have failed to impose safeguards.

Ellison slammed the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for
continuously violating the Eighth Amendment by subjecting inmates
at the Wallace Pack Unit south of Navasota to heat indexes that
regularly exceed 100 degrees in summer.

Texas has the largest state-run prison system in the country, with
over 150,000 inmates, approximately 18,000 of them over the age of
55, having expanded from 18 prisons in 1978 to the current 106. Of
those, 28 have air conditioning in all housing areas while the
rest often only have it for staff, if at all, according to
corrections.

The six plaintiffs in the case testified that they get headaches
and excessively sweat, become lethargic and are debilitated, some
while working and some with health issues and on medications that
prevent their bodies from adjusting to high temperatures.

"The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to
provide 'humane conditions of confinement'," Ellison wrote in a
100-page ruling. "Plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk of
serious injury or death as a result of the conditions at the Pack
Unit."

While he does not use the words "climate change" in his order, he
refers to a report called "Heat in U.S. Prisons and Jails,
Corrections and the Challenge of Climate Change," by Columbia Law
School.

The reference comes as a footnote after the sentence, "The Court
and the parties have no way of knowing when a heat wave will
occur, but it is clear that one will come."

"I understand this is prison and I've paid my dues for my crime,
but does that justify me being subjected to live in unsanitary
conditions?" -- Keith "Malik" Washington, Texas inmate
Michael Gerrard, a professor at the law school, who teaches about
climate and environmental law and supervised the report, said that
he believes it is the first time a judge has referred to the
threat climate change poses to inmates.

"The next lawsuits about heat in prisons will probably cite this
decision, both in general and in support of the proposition that
heat will get even worse moving forward," Gerrard said.

This is the second preliminary ruling in the class-action lawsuit,
which followed a record-breaking heat wave in 2011 that killed 10
people inside state prisons.

About one year ago, the court ordered corrections to provide safe
drinking water for inmates at the Pack unit after tests revealed
arsenic in the water at two-to-four times the standard level
permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Inmates recently filed a similar complaint at the state's oldest
maximum security prison, the Eastham Unit in Lovelady. Eastham was
built on top of land where slaves were forced to work before the
Civil War. After the war, it was maintained by many newly-freed
slaves who were convicted of crimes during the Jim Crow era and
leased back to landowners, according to the book "Texas Tough" by
historian Robert Perkinson.

People at Eastham are claiming in federal court that the water
there is foul, that it smells and leaves gritty residue in their
mouths and has caused untreatable and relentless stomach problems,
as well as black mold in their cells.

"I understand this is prison and I've paid my dues for my crime,
but does that justify me being subjected to live in unsanitary
conditions?" wrote Keith "Malik" Washington, an inmate at Eastham
who is helping with the case, in a letter to the NewsHour Weekend.

The suit cites "boil water" notices that have been posted in the
facility by the state's environmental agency and reminds the court
that inmates are not allowed to boil the water and are forced to
drink it in the scorching heat during summer months.

But the judge in that case said the claims are "rather routine"
and did not permit the plaintiff a lawyer to represent the case,
significantly decreasing the chances it will play in their favor.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice denies that water is
unsafe at any of its facilities and has stated it will appeal
Ellison's ruling.

And in an interview before the ruling, vice president for offender
health services Dr. Owen Murray also denied that there are any
water or heat-related health issues.

These issues in Texas prisons have been under a scrutinous eye
since the summer of 2011. In the middle of the state, more than
100 days were 100 degrees or more, shattering all previous records
dating back to 1907, according to the National Weather Service.

Inside facilities, which are rarely air conditioned, it feels a
lot hotter because massive groups of people are confined to small
spaces with little ventilation. This makes the heat index -- the
combination of temperature and humidity that projects what the
weather feels like -- skyrocket.

And while county, juvenile and federal prisons as well as states
such as Alabama, Ohio and Delaware all have regulations on heat,
Texas state corrections does not.

Lance Lawry, the president of a union representing 4,000
correctional officers statewide, described the inside of state
prisons during the summer as "hell on earth."

"They're kind of like a big bathroom, they have toilets, they have
sinks, showers going and there's a lot of humidity produced in
there," Lance said. "It's not uncommon for them to get 120 or 130
degrees in there with the high degree of humidity."

A senior medical director in August of 2011 had also written in an
email to colleagues after two inmates had to be airlifted, "With
our aging and sicker population, we really need a better long term
strategy for dealing with this type of weather."

Several families of inmates who died have also issued wrongful
death lawsuits related to heat, supported by the union.

In Ellison's ruling, he was taken aback that corrections had not
made any new substantive policies about heat wave since then. He
also said that indifference has permeated all aspects of handling
extreme heat -- from refusing to consider air conditioning to
using cooling units that can sometimes make humidity worse.

"In some cases Defendants' actions have risen beyond indifference
to obstruction, such as when, after this lawsuit was filed, [the
warden] ordered his staff to stop measuring the indoor heat index
during the summer months," he wrote.

He ordered that the inmates who are most vulnerable to heat-
related illnesses be housed in units that do not exceed 88 degrees
on the heat index.

An expert for Texas corrections testified that it could cost $1.2
million to air condition for three months or $22 million to
install a permanent system at Pack, but Ellison pointed out flaws
in the testimony, saying it was "needlessly high and does not
accurately reflect the true cost."

Inmates can buy a fan for about $20 at their commissary, but not
all facilities have the proper outlets and the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend them above heat
index of 95 degrees because using them can make people even
hotter.

Still, Joan Covici, who runs a nonprofit that allows people to
donate fans to inmates, said, "There have been many years we have
not been able to serve all the people on the waitlist." [GN]


TICKETMASTER: Releases List of Events for Ticket Fee Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
WGRZ reports that Ticketmaster and Live Nation have released an
updated list of events that customers can attend using vouchers
awarded by a class-action lawsuit.

As part of the settlement announced in June 2016, around 50
million Ticketmaster customers were eligible for Ticketmaster
discount codes and vouchers to certain events.  Six of those
concerts are at Darien Lake.

Those who signed up for notifications got an e-mail on July 18
around 4 a.m. Eastern time encouraging them to visit Live Nation's
website for an 'updated list of eligible events.'

Because the tickets available for eligible events are on a first-
come, first-served basis, there's no telling how long this latest
batch will be around.

You can visit settlement.livenation.com to see the full list of
eligible shows and whether you have any vouchers. [GN]


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: White Appeals Ruling in "Low" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor Leeland O. White filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Sonny Low, et al. v. Trump
University, LLC, et al., Case Nos. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG and 3:13-
cv-02519-GPC-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, an objector
has appealed from the $25 million settlement entered into by the
parties in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as SONNY LOW; J. R. EVERETT; JOHN
BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated;
ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New
York limited liability company, AKA Trump Entrepreneur Initiative;
DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants-Appellees v. LEELAND O. WHITE,
Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant, Case No. 17-56051, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- August 21, 2017 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- September 19, 2017 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- October 30, 2017 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- November 30, 2017 -- Appellees' answering brief and
      excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
      FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule
      Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.
      See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.[BN]


TWILIO INC: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that a Washington federal judge, Robert S.
Lasnik, dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
action against Twilio Inc. (Twilio) based on the finding that a
text message did not constitute telemarketing if the text message
completes a transaction.

The class action alleged that Twilio violated the TCPA by sending
consumers text messages without prior express written consent as
required by the TCPA. Lead plaintiff, Noah Wick, claimed that he
saw an online advertisement for a free nutritional supplement and
clicked the link to the supplement's website, entered his contact
information, but then discovered that no free sample existed so he
closed the webpage. Soon after, Wick received a text message and a
phone call, allegedly initiated by Twilio, encouraging him to
divulge the remainder of his payment card information to complete
the transaction.

Judge Lasnik, however, found that the text message was sent in
response to a purchase negotiation that Wick himself started, and
not sent as a means to sell him more products, and thus, did not
violate the TCPA. Judge Lasnik determined that Wick provided his
name, address, phone number and e-mail address, agreed to the
offer's terms and conditions and clicked on "Rush My Order" before
closing the webpage, and said, "Whatever [Wick's] subjective
intent regarding making a purchase, the text message he received
was aimed at completing a commercial transaction that he had
initiated and for which he had provided his phone number." Judge
Lasnik said, "Plaintiff must raise a plausible inference that the
message was somehow unfair or deceptive. He has not done so." [GN]


UBER: Discriminates Against Riders With Disabilities, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winnie Hu, writing for New York Times, reports that all around
Valerie Joseph, there is a fleet of Uber cars rolling by on New
York City streets.

But though she could really use the ride-hailing app, Ms. Joseph
said she does not bother because Uber has so few wheelchair-
accessible cars to dispatch. "It's plain unfair," said Ms. Joseph,
41, who relies on a wheelchair.

Now, Ms. Joseph is part of a class-action lawsuit accusing Uber of
discriminating against New York City riders with disabilities by
providing scant access to wheelchair-accessible cars at a time
when ride-hailing apps are becoming a common alternative to public
transit in the city. The lawsuit was filed on July 18 in State
Supreme Court in Manhattan by Disability Rights Advocates, a
nonprofit organization.

While Uber offers wheelchair-accessible cars through its UberWAV
service, the lawsuit claims that these special cars, which
typically have lifts and ramps for mobility devices, account for a
tiny fraction of the 58,000 for-hire cars dispatched by Uber in
New York City's five boroughs. Moreover, this already limited pool
of cars can be used for other riders, and vehicles may be
unavailable when needed by those with disabilities, the lawsuit
said.

The result is that "even when an UberWAV vehicle is technically
available, because so few exist, there are typically frequent and
lengthy delays," the lawsuit stated. It added, "As such, people
who use wheelchairs and use UberWAV must contend with missed
appointments, being late for events and other stress and
inconvenience."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a coalition of advocacy groups
and individuals, including the Brooklyn Center for Independence of
the Disabled, Taxis for All Campaign and Disabled in Action of
Metropolitan New York. It follows two other discrimination
lawsuits involving handicapped travelers filed this year against
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over the scarcity of
elevators and electric lifts in the subway system.

The Taxis for All Campaign previously led a similar discrimination
lawsuit over yellow taxis, which resulted in a settlement that
requires half of all yellow taxis to be wheelchair accessible by
2020.

Today, there are 1,859 yellow taxis and 655 green taxis, which
primarily serve northern Manhattan and the other boroughs, that
are wheelchair accessible. Last week, the city's Taxi and
Limousine Commission proposed broad new requirements for
wheelchair-accessible service for the entire for-hire industry,
which would include Uber and the other ride-hail companies. These
requirements, which will be reviewed at a public hearing in
September, would have to be approved by the commission's board
before they could go into effect.

Alix Anfang, a spokeswoman for Uber, said the company had already
voluntarily taken steps to serve riders with disabilities. In
2016, it started a pilot program for wheelchair-accessible cars
that has since expanded to nearly 200 vehicles. (The lawsuit filed
against Uber said there were fewer than 100 accessible cars, based
on city data.)

Ms. Anfang said the company had offered incentives to drivers of
wheelchair-accessible cars, including offering $10 for each
completed trip, $500 after completing 40 trips in the first week,
and reduced commissions paid to Uber. The company has also called
for a city law that would add a 5-cent "accessibility fee" on all
black car and livery car trips to raise money for a fund, which
would be administered by the city, to provide financial incentives
for companies and services that provide rides in wheelchair-
accessible cars.

"Uber's technology has expanded access to reliable transportation
options for all riders," Ms. Anfang said. "While there is
certainly more work to be done, we will continue advocating for a
solution that offers affordable, reliable transportation to those
who need a wheelchair accessible vehicle."

Still, it is not enough for some riders with disabilities and
their advocates. Ms. Joseph, who lives in Queens and works in
Brooklyn, said she had friends and colleagues who had tried to
hail an Uber car, only to find long wait times if the car arrived
at all. She said she was limited by having few other good options
for getting around the city.

"I feel frustrated because I have to plan my day," she said. "I
can't do things on a whim. I have to plan it days in advance."

The lawsuit claims that Uber, in discriminating against riders
with disabilities, has violated the city's human rights laws; the
plaintiffs ask that the court require Uber to "develop and
implement a remedial plan to ensure full and equal access to its
services for riders who require accessible transportation."

"Uber claims it's a revolutionary company, but it's engaged in
old-fashioned discrimination against people with disabilities from
its first day in New York City," said Joe Rappaport, executive
director of the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled.
"Our lawsuit against Uber's discrimination makes it clear: It's
2017, not the 1950s, when it comes to equal access to
transportation."

The lawsuit is the latest challenge for a troubled company, whose
chief executive, Travis Kalanick, was forced out amid widespread
criticism over the company's handling of sexual harassment,
executive misbehavior and its internal culture. Uber, which has a
fraught relationship with its drivers, recently reversed course to
allow passengers to tip their drivers through the Uber app. [GN]


UNITED STATES: DOJ Enjoined From Deporting Iraqis
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Petitioners' Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned USAMA J.
HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners, v. REBECCA ADDUCCI, Respondent, Case
No. 17-cv-11910 (E.D. Mich.).

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Petitioners ask the
Court to halt temporarily their deportation to Iraq, until they
can make their case in the immigration courts that their removal
is legally prohibited.

On June 11, 2017, agents from United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting Detroit-based Iraqi
nationals subject to final orders of removal. ICE's operation
ultimately resulted in the arrest of 114 Iraqi nationals who have
since been transferred to federal facilities in Michigan, Ohio,
Louisiana, and Arizona, where they await removal to Iraq. This
operation was part of a nationwide effort to remove Iraqi
nationals who have been subject to longstanding final orders of
removal, resulting from criminal convictions or overstaying visas.
On June 15, 2017, Petitioners filed both a habeas corpus class
action petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order
and/or stay. The motion sought to prevent their removal until an
appropriate process has determined whether, in light of current
conditions and circumstances, they are entitled to mandatory
protection from removal.

After Petitioners filed an amended habeas corpus class action
petition and class action complaint, along with a motion to expand
the stay, the Court entered an order expanding the stay to a
nationwide class of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of
removal.

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Petitioners argue
that it is unlawful to remove them prior to an adjudication of
their motions to reopen by the immigration courts and the filing
of a petition for review with the courts of appeals.

The grounds that they will urge in those courts and, if necessary,
in the federal courts of appeals will be that returning them to
the lawlessness and senseless religious hatred that engulfs much
of Iraq would subject them to persecution, torture, and possible
death.

To determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a district
court must consider: (i) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on
the merits; (ii) whether the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm
absent the injunction; (iii) whether granting the injunction will
cause substantial harm to others; and (iv)the impact of its
decision on the public interest.

In these singular circumstances, a federal district court is armed
with jurisdiction to act as a first responder to protect the writ
of habeas corpus and the allied right to due process, by allowing
an orderly filing for relief with the immigration courts before
deportation, thereby assuring that those who might be subjected to
grave harm and possible death are not cast out of this country
before having their day in court.

The first statutory ground identified by Petitioners is 8 U.S.C.
Section 1231(b)(3)(A), a subsection of the INA, which implements
the non-refoulement obligation' reflected in Article 33 of the
Refugee Convention  The principle of non-refoulement, codified in
the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees (Refugee Convention), restricts the ability of countries
to send individuals fleeing persecution to countries where they
would be further threatened.

The Government's view ignores the compelling confluence of
extraordinary circumstances presented here. Without warning, over
1,400 Iraqi nationals discovered that their removal orders -- many
of which had lain dormant for several years -- were now to be
immediately enforced, following an agreement reached between the
United States and Iraq to facilitate removal. This abrupt change
triggered a feverish search for legal assistance to assert rights
against the removal of persons confronting the grisly fate
Petitioners face if deported to Iraq.

Petitioners' claims are far from speculative. Each Petitioner
faces the risk of torture or death on the basis of residence in
America and publicized criminal records; many will also face
persecution as a result of a particular religious affiliation.
While cost and efficiency in administering the immigration system
are not illegitimate governmental concerns, such interests pale to
the point of evaporation when weighed against the potential lethal
harm Petitioners may suffer.

A relatively brief delay in the removal process to assure that
Petitioners have a meaningful opportunity to invoke the process
Congress established is a small price to pay in service to the
public interest in fundamental fairness.

The above factors mandate issuance of a preliminary injunction.

The Court grants Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court orders, inter alia, Respondents Adducci, Homan, Kelly,
and any other federal officials and personnel involved in the
removal process, as well as all acting in concert with them, are
preliminarily enjoined from enforcing final orders of removal
directed to any and all Iraqi nationals in the United States who
had final orders of removal on June 24, 2017, and who have been,
or will be, detained for removal by ICE.

This preliminary injunction will remain in effect unless modified
by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 24, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available http://tinyurl.com/ya6cr62wfrom Leagle.com.

Usama J. Hamama, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan,966 Woodward Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan, 48201

Usama J. Hamama, Petitioner, represented by Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, 966 Woodward Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan, 48201, Kimberly L. Scott --
scott@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union, 966 Woodward Avenue, Detroit,
Michigan, 48201.  Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties
Union Fund of Michigan, 966 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan,
48201,  Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan, 966 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, 48201,  Nadine
Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., 27321 Hampden St., Madison Heights,
MI, 48071-3113,  Nora Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney &
Harrington, Susan E. Reed, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/
Michigan Poverty Law Progr, Wendolyn W. Richards, W Jefferson Ave
Ste 2500Detroit, MI, 48226-4415 Miller, Canfield, Margo Schlanger
-- mschlan@umich.edu -- & William W. Swor.

Atheer F. Ali, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller,
Canfield, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora
Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed,
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/ Michigan Poverty Law Progr,
Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.

Ali Al-Dilami, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller,
Canfield, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora
Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed,
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/ Michigan Poverty Law Progr,
Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.

HABIL NISSAN, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller,
Canfield, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora
Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed,
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/ Michigan Poverty Law Progr,
Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.

Jihan Asker, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Michael J. Steinberg,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Miriam J.
Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Nadine
Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger,
Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed, Michigan Immigrant Rights
Center/ Michigan Poverty Law Progr, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller,
Canfield, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.
Moayad Jalal Barash, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller,
Canfield, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora
Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed,
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/ Michigan Poverty Law Progr,
Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.

Sami Ismael Al-Issawi, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A.
Kitaba, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss,
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L.
Scott, Miller, Canfield, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American
Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid,
Inc., Nora Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Susan E.
Reed, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/ Michigan Poverty Law
Progr, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield & Margo Schlanger.
Abdulkuder Hashem Al-Shimmary, Petitioner, represented by Kimberly
L. Scott, Miller, Canfield & Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller,
Canfield.

Qassim Hashem Al-Saedy, Petitioner, represented by Kimberly L.
Scott, Miller, Canfield & Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield.

Thomas Homan, Defendant, represented by August E. Flentje, U.S.
Department of Justice, Briana Yuh, United States Department of
Justice, Jennifer L. Newby, U.S. Attorney, Michael Celone, United
States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States
Department of Justice.

John F Kelly, Defendant, represented by August E. Flentje, U.S.
Department of Justice, Briana Yuh, United States Department of
Justice, Jennifer L. Newby, U.S. Attorney, Michael Celone, United
States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States
Department of Justice.

Rebecca Adducci, Respondent, represented by August E. Flentje,
U.S. Department of Justice, Briana Yuh, United States Department
of Justice, Jennifer L. Newby, U.S. Attorney, Michael Celone,
United States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United
States Department of Justice.

The Chaldean Community Foundation, Amicus, represented by Carl M.
Levin -- clevin@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn
LLP, Gabriel E. Bedoya -- gbedoya@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller
Schwartz & Cohn LLP & Sarah E. Waidelich --
swaidelich@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP.

Current and Former U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Amicus,
represented by Elisa J. Lintemuth-- elintemuth@dykema.com --
Dykema.


VOLVO CARS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rear Camera Glitch Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on July 18 kept alive a proposed class action alleging Volvo
Cars of North America LLC equipped certain vehicles with defective
rear cameras, saying the court needs more information before
making a ruling.

U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty denied Volvo's bid to toss the
allegations because the court must further investigate issues such
as whether references in the complaint to "Volvo's" knowledge of
the defect refers to Volvo Cars of North America LLC or the dealer
that sold the vehicle and whether the company merely had "general
knowledge" of the purported defect or was specifically notified of
it.

"I do not suggest how the issue should be resolved; I state only
that the facts require further development in advance of any
dispositive ruling," the court said.

David and Jacquelyn Obergfell of Texas filed the proposed class
action in January alleging Volvo has knowingly sold cars since at
least 2014 with rear cameras that display on the screen either
frozen images or no image at all.  The Obergfells said they
brought their new Volvo XC90 back to the Park Place Volvo
dealership where they had purchased it for repairs, but claimed
the dealer was unable to fix the problem.

The court noted July 18 that the Obergfells would have been
required to notify the "seller" of the defect before making a
breach of warranty claim, but said that it is unclear whether the
"seller" refers to the local dealership where the Obergfells
bought the vehicle or to Volvo Cars of North America.  The
dealer's materials included the Volvo logo, and the dealer
indicated on multiple occasions that "Volvo" was aware of the
defect, according to the filing.

"Other, more subtle issues remain to be explored," the court said.

These include questions about relationships between organizations
in the distribution chain, documents indicating whether Volvo Cars
of North America had "actual knowledge" of the defect and the
apparent shared responsibility of dealers to perform repairs
covered by Volvo's warranty, according to the filing.

Counsel for the Obergfells declined to comment. Counsel for Volvo
didn't respond on July 19 to a request for comment.

The Obergfells are represented by Christopher Markos and Michael
J. Quirk -- mquirk@wcblegal.com -- of Williams Cuker Berezofsky
LLC, Marc R. Stanley and Martin Woodward of Stanley Law Group and
Dean Gresham of Steckler Gresham Cochran.

Volvo is represented by Oliver Beiersdorf --
obeiersdorf@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is David Obergfell et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00161 (D.N.J.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Kevin McNulty.  The case was filed January 10, 2017. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Second Shareholder Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge on July 19 refused to dismiss a second shareholder
class action against Volkswagen, finding its failure to warn
investors about its use of emissions-cheating software in 11
million vehicles was "misleading."

In a May 2014 offering memo to major investors, Volkswagen focused
heavily on its development of emissions-reducing technology and
the need to comply with government regulations. U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer found the company's failure to mention that
it was also using defeat devices to skirt environmental laws
painted an inaccurate picture for investors.

"Together, the inference that arises from these statements is that
Volkswagen was a good investment because of its commitment to
emissions-reducing technology," Judge Breyer wrote in his 31-page
ruling.  "That inference was misleading because Volkswagen was in
its fifth year of a massive fraud to cheat emissions standards."

A retirement fund for Puerto Rico's government employees is the
lead plaintiff in one of two U.S. securities class actions against
Volkswagen and its former top executives.  The retirement fund
seeks to represent a class of institutional investors that
purchased $8.3 billion in bonds from Volkswagen between May 2014
and May 2015.

Judge Breyer declined to consider other financial reports and
statements issued by Volkswagen in his ruling because the May 2014
offering memo stated that investors "should only rely on the
information contained in" the memo.

The judge also refused to dismiss securities fraud allegations
against Volkswagen's former CEO Martin Winterkorn.  The company
argued Mr. Winterkorn had nothing to do with drafting or approving
the offering memo at issue.  But Judge Breyer found
Mr. Winterkorn's role as head of the company and involvement in
its day-to-day operations "plausibly support" that he had ultimate
authority over the memo.

Judge Breyer also found it was reasonable to infer that
Mr. Winterkorn knew of the company's fraudulent behavior in May
2014.  The judge found it plausible that Mr. Winterkorn received a
letter from Robert Bosch GmbH, maker of the defeat devices, in
2007, warning that the emissions-cheating software would be
considered illegal.  The plaintiffs say Mr. Winterkorn was also
put on notice by an internal whistleblower in 2011.

"Together, these allegations give rise to a strong inference that,
by May 2014, and likely much earlier, Mr. Winterkorn knew that
Volkswagen was using an illegal defeat device in its 'clean
diesel' vehicles," Judge Breyer wrote.

However, the judge dismissed securities fraud allegations against
former Volkswagen Group of America CEO Michael Horn, who started
his job in January 2014 and received a letter about Volkswagen's
non-compliance with U.S. emissions standards on May 15, eight days
before the retirement fund's purchase of Volkswagen bonds was
finalized.

The May 2014 email from Oliver Schmidt in Volkswagen's U.S.
Regulatory Compliance Office warned that 500,000 to 600,000
vehicles in the U.S. "could be affected by the diesel scandal,"
making the company liable for fines of $37,500 per car, and an
extra $5,500 per car in California.

Judge Breyer said managers must be given a reasonable period of
time to consider, digest and investigate information before they
have to disclose it to the public.

"Here, it would have been reasonable for Horn to have obtained the
Schmidt email and to have considered and investigated the issue
for more than a week before disclosing the information to
potential bondholders or the public," Judge Breyer wrote.

Judge Breyer dismissed the claims against Horn, and claims against
Volkswagen Group of America based on his conduct, with leave to
amend.  The plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Last month, Judge Breyer refused to dismiss claims against
Volkswagen in a separate class action brought by U.S. investors
who purchased Volkswagen shares in the form of level 1 American
Depository Receipts, or ADRs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed to the public on
Sept. 18, 2015, that Volkswagen used illegal defeat devices to
mask nitrogen oxide pollution during emissions tests.

Volkswagen pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy and obstruction
of justice, and agreed to pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil
penalties.  It also has struck three settlements with U.S. car
owners, regulators, and dealerships, totaling more than $17
billion.

Volkswagen spokesman Pietro Zollino did not immediately respond to
an email seeking comment on July 19. [GN]


WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies FCRA Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahern, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that a California Superior Court Judge has granted a motion for
class certification for two certified Classes of job applicants in
a lawsuit that claims Disneyland background checks for employment
did not comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
according to a report from Top Class Actions.

Top Class Actions reports Judge Ann I. Jones gave plaintiffs Roger
Culberson II and Edward Joseph III "a substantial advantage" in
their lawsuit that claims Disneyland made adverse employment
decisions based on background checks without giving applicants
proper notifications required under the FCRA.

Top Class Actions reports Culberson was denied employment at
Disneyland when his background check showed a conviction for
battery in 2010 when the actual conviction date was in 1998 and
2010 was the date the conviction was expunged. He could not
correct the error before Disneyland denied him a job.

The FCRA requires employers to make disclosures to job applicants
so they have a chance to contest any erroneous information in
their background check. Under the FCRA, employers must give
applicants a copy of the report and a summary of their rights
under the FCRA before taking any adverse action.

The plaintiffs claim Disneyland violated the FCRA by sending the
required notice to applicants after -- not before -- making a "No
Hire" determination and by not having a "clear and conspicuous"
disclosure in a stand-alone written document that consists solely
of the disclosure, Top Class Actions reports.

Judge Jones certified two Classes that cover Disneyland job
applicants affected under one of the two FCRA issues, Top Class
Actions reports, and members from both Classes are U.S. residents
who were the subject of a background check for Disneyland
employment between November 1, 2011 and the present.

The "Pre-Adverse Action Notice Class" includes people subjected to
a "No Hire" recommendation made on the basis of the background
check report while the "Defective Disclosure Class" covers people
who were the subject of background checks and executed a consent
form identical to the one at issue.

The FCRA class action lawsuit against Disneyland is Roger L.
Culberson II and Edward Joseph III v. The Walt Disney Co., Case
No. BC526351, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. [GN]


WAYNE, MI: Appeals Ruling in Retirees' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Wayne filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled CITY OF WAYNE RETIREES ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF
WAYNE, Case No. 17-009118-CK, in the Wayne Circuit Court.

The appellate case is captioned as CITY OF WAYNE RETIREES
ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF WAYNE, Case No. 339373, in the Michigan
Court of Appeals.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case stated that answer is
due on August 14, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CITY OF WAYNE RETIREES ASSOCIATION, JOHNSON
CHRISTOPHER, REYNOLDS TIMOTHY, ENGLISH ROBERT, ROTHFELDER EDMUND,
HAMANN DANIEL and FISHER CHERYL/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are
represented by:

          Gregory T. Gibbs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY T. GIBBS
          717 S. Grand Traverse Street
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 239-9470
          Facsimile: (810) 235-2468
          E-mail: greggibbs51@sbcglobal.net

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF WAYNE is represented by:

          Thomas L. Fleury, Esq.
          KELLER THOMA, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          26555 Evergreen Road, Suite 1240
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (313) 965-0857
          Facsimile: (313) 965-4480
          E-mail: tlf@kellerthoma.com


WELLS FARGO: Trainee Settlement Sheds Light on Rivals' Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Braswell, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a $3.5
million class action settlement by Wells Fargo Advisors is
shedding light on hardball practices that many brokerage firms
have imposed on industry newcomers.

Wells's private client group of more than 11,000 brokers agreed to
end its policy of requiring people in its training programs who
leave voluntarily or involuntarily within five years to pay as
much as $55,000 to cover what it said was the cost of its
training.

Edward Jones continues to have a mandatory reimbursement policy
while Merrill Lynch ended a similar requirement in last year's
fourth quarter, company spokespeople said.

"Edward Jones believes the training provided to our financial
advisors is among the best in the industry," spokesman John Boul
wrote in an emailed statement.  "Depending on the circumstances,
we will pursue reimbursement of these costs when a new financial
advisor leaves Edward Jones for a competing firm."

Morgan Stanley ended its contractual reimbursement requirement
with people entering its advisor training program "years ago," a
spokeswoman said.

Wells Fargo was sued by four plaintiffs on behalf a class
estimated at around 2,000 people who worked for its brokerage unit
at various times between 2009 and the end of 2016.  The firm has
established a $300,000 fund to reimburse former trainees who paid
the bills for the two-year training program and will pay $3.2
million to trainees who can prove they were eligible for unpaid
overtime before they were given production numbers entitling them
to conventional payouts.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged that Wells violated federal and
certain state labor laws by failing to pay overtime and by
overstating the value of training that employees received.

To be sure, some firms that hired emigres from Wells and other
firms' trainee programs have covered Wells' dunning notices, said
Linda Friedman, a partner at Stowell & Friedman in Chicago, which
represented the trainees who filed the class-action lawsuit in
March 2014. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Quinlan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled BRICE QUINLAN & LAURA
WILLIS, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00186-FJG (W.D.
Mo.), moves for an order conditionally certifying their Fair Labor
Standards Act claims as a collective action.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order:

   1) authorizing their proposed notice to be mailed, within 45
      days, to all members of each subclass consisting of Sales
      Representatives, Carrier Representatives, and other persons
      with similar job titles, duties, and compensation
      structures, employed by Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc.
      and/or XPO Logistics of Delaware, Inc., within three years
      from the date of certification, to the present, who were
      not paid all straight time and overtime compensation due
      and owing;

   2) requiring the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs the
      following within 10 days of the Court's Order: a list in
      electronic and importable format of the first and last
      names, last-known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
      address, dates of employment, location of employment, last
      four digits of the individual's social security number, and
      date of birth of all members of the putative class;

   3) requiring the Defendants to post the Notice of this lawsuit
      in conspicuous locations where it employs its Sales
      Representatives, Carrier Representatives, and others with
      similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures;

   4) permitting them to send a reminder postcard and electronic
      mail notice to putative class members 30 days before the
      opt-in deadline, which shall be set as 120 days from the
      Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
      certification;

   5) tolling the statute of limitations for putative class
      members from the date of the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the
      opt-in period;

   6) designating Plaintiffs Quinlan and Willis as class
      representatives; and

   7) approving the Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


YAZAKI NORTH: Sutka Seeks to Certify Class of Resident Engineers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TODD SUTKA, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-10669-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court
to conditionally certify this class:

     "All current and former Resident Engineers who were employed
     by Yazaki at any time from March 3, 2014 to the present."

Yazaki is an automotive component maker and supplier doing
business across the United States and around the world.

The Plaintiff currently works as a Resident Engineer/Senior
Engineer for Yazaki.  He alleges that during the "Relevant Time
Period," from March 3, 2014, through the present, Yazaki requires
him and other Resident Engineers in its employ to work a
substantial amount of overtime hours, without paying overtime
compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Sutka also asks the Court to:

   -- order Yazaki to produce a list of names, last known
      addresses, and last known e-mail addresses, and telephone
      numbers for all current and former Resident Engineers, who
      worked for Yazaki during the Relevant Time Period;

   -- authorize dissemination of the suggested notice to
      potential members of this collective action; and

   -- order a 60-day notice period following complete production
      of the aforementioned employee contact information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z8enSEbe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C.
          280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 407
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 647-9300
          E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Paul A. Caligiuri, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          200 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48322
          Telephone: (248) 936-1900
          E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  paul.caligiuri@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          10701 Parkridge Blvd., Suite 300
          Reston, VA 20191
          Telephone: (703) 483-8300
          E-mail: DeCampP@jacksonlewis.com


ZENCO COLLECTIONS: Benson's Cert. Bid Stricken; Hearing on Aug. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 19, 2017, in the case titled
Thomas D Benson, et al. v. Zenco Collections LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-05220 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to continue is stricken as moot;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is stricken without
      prejudice to reinstate or to file a new motion at a later
      date;

   -- Plaintiffs have timely filed their motion for class;

   -- Initial status hearing is set for August 16, 2017, at
      9:00 a.m.;

   -- At least four working days before the initial status
      hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference
      and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to
      exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint
      Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to
      this Court's Courtroom Deputy in room 1908; and

   -- The Court's standing orders on the Initial Status Report
      and Joint Jurisdictional Status Report maybe obtained from
      Judge Der-Yeghiayan's web page or from the Court's
      Courtroom Deputy.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YdCvIj90


ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Suit Over Falsification of Profit Margins
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Goh, writing for Reuters, reports that Chinese courier ZTO
Express (ZTO.N) and the underwriters of its New York stock market
listing have been sued by a U.S. pension fund that alleges the
firm exaggerated its profit margins to lure investors into its
$1.4 billion initial public offering.

Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), which
spearheaded ZTO's IPO, are named in the class-action suit filed in
Alabama state court by the city of Birmingham's pension fund which
says that they failed to do adequate due diligence.

ZTO's listing was the largest U.S. listing in 2016 and was the
biggest by a Chinese company since the $25 billion IPO of e-
commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd (BABA.N) in 2014.

Shares of Shanghai-based ZTO closed on July 20 at $15.68, about 20
percent below its IPO price of $19.50.

"We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously," a ZTO spokeswoman said in an e-mail to
Reuters on July 21.

In the lawsuit dated May 16, the Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System said ZTO had issued "untrue statements" and omitted
"crucial realities" in its registration statement. It also said
ZTO inflated profit margins by keeping certain low-margin segments
of its business out of its financial statements.

"ZTO used a system of 'network partners' to handle lower-margin
pickup and delivery services, while maintaining ownership of core
hub operations. By keeping the 'network partners' businesses off
its own books, the company was able to exaggerate its profit
margins to investors," it said.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment. Goldman did not immediately
respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

In ZTO's pre-IPO filings to the stock exchange it said it had
achieved operating profit margins of 15.4 percent and 25.1 percent
in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

In unaudited results for the quarter ended March published on May
17, ZTO posted a 48 percent jump in net income from a year ago and
a 34 percent spike in revenue.

The lawsuit also names the ZTO IPO's smaller underwriters China
Renaissance Securities, Citigroup (C.N), Credit Suisse (CSGN.S)
and J.P. Morgan (JPM.N). All the underwriters declined comment.

Individual defendants, including ZTO's chief executive officer and
chief financial officer, were also named.

The lawsuit against ZTO comes at a time when Alibaba-backed
Chinese logistics company, Best Inc, is preparing to raise up to
$750 million from an IPO in the United States.

Reuters was not immediately able to reach Greg L. Davis, the
lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the city of Birmingham
pension fund, for comment outside usual office hours.

According to an annual financial report published on the city of
Birmingham website, the Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
had assets of $1.05 billion at the end of June 2015.

The case is City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. ZTO
Express (Cayman) Inc., 01-cv-2017-902004.00, Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama (Birmingham). [GN]


* Congress Could Pass Resolution to Revoke CFPB Rule Within Weeks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Schroeder, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Congress could act within weeks to kill a new rule that bars
financial companies from blocking consumers who wish to file
class-action lawsuits, according to a key Republican senator.

Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Senate Banking Committee
writing legislation to tackle the rule, said on July 19 he was
optimistic that Congress could pass a resolution revoking the new
regulation authored by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) within weeks.

"I'm going to do all I can to repeal this regulation in the next
three weeks of this congressional session," he said at an event
hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Cotton is drafting legislation that would repeal the CFPB's
new ban on mandatory arbitration clauses often found in financial
contracts.  Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass
legislation repealing any new regulations with a simple majority.

Mandatory arbitration clauses, found across a range of financial
contracts, require consumers to resolve any disputes through
arbitration instead of joining together in class-action lawsuits.

Consumer advocates have hailed the CFPB rulemaking, arguing that
the fine print frequently found in financial contracts unfairly
bars consumers from seeking that option.

If Republican majorities in the House and Senate rally around the
bill, they would be able to eliminate the new rule, which the CFPB
formally finalized.

Cotton said he was working with Senate Banking Committee Chairman
Mike Crapo on the bill, and was optimistic it would garner broad
support.

He went so far as to predict "half a dozen or so" Democrats in the
Senate could join Republicans in eliminating the rule, although
Democrats are generally supportive of the CFPB's regulatory work
and no Democratic senator has publicly criticized the rule.

The House is expected to move first on a repeal bill, passing a
measure this week, according to Mr. Cotton.

Republican efforts to repeal the regulation via legislation is one
of several fronts in an attack on the CFPB initiative.

Other financial regulators could consider challenging the rule,
and business groups have indicated a legal challenge is on the way
as well.

"The agency has shirked its obligation to properly study the
arbitration issue, as it was mandated by Congress," said Lisa
Rickard, president of the Chamber of Commerce's Institute for
Legal Reform.  "The courts will have their say." [GN]


* Consumer Advocates Back CFPB Gamble on Class-Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lawler, writing for Washington Examiner, reports Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray rolled the
dice with a measure of top importance to consumer advocates, but
they say they are happy with his bet and optimistic it will pay
out.

By finalizing a rule meant to facilitate class-action lawsuits in
consumer finance, Cordray allowed for the possibility that the
Republican-led Congress could overturn it through the
Congressional Review Act. For fans of the new rule, such a repeal
would be worse than no rule at all: Under the Congressional Review
Act, the agency could not write another rule on the same issue
unless Congress passed a law allowing it to.

From the perspective of consumer groups, Cordray effectively
wagered that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not be
able to hold his caucus together to repeal the rule. He did so
under threat of contempt proceedings from a top House Republican
and amid increasing speculation that he may soon leave the agency
to run for governor of Ohio.

Although Republicans have been successful in repealing 14 Obama-
era regulations through the Congressional Review Act, consumer
advocates are happy with the gamble.

"You can't win a fight that you don't enter," said Ira Rheingold,
executive director of the National Association of Consumer
Advocates, casting the move as a no-brainer after years of
groundwork laid by consumer advocates.

Rheingold called the bureau's arbitration rule an "essential part
of consumer protection." The regulation would prevent banks and
other financial firms from inserting clauses into contracts that
force customers into private arbitration to resolve disputes.
Crucially, that prohibition would mean that consumers would be
able to join in class-action lawsuits.

That's a priority for consumer advocates, who fear that Wall
Street has grown in power by inserting mandatory arbitration
clauses in customer contracts. They are quick to cite the
experience of Wells Fargo customers who suffered through the fake
accounts scandal.

Those are the kinds of customers at issue. People who suffered
harm amounting to tens or hundreds, not thousands of dollars,
don't have the ability to hold giant corporations accountable on
their own, consumer groups say, but can do so through class
action.

House Republicans, who held a press conference at the Capitol on
July 20 to announce the resolution to stop the rule, charged that
it would benefit trial lawyers, not consumers.

Under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution can reach
President Trump's desk with 51 votes in the Senate. Still,
McConnell could lose at most two Republicans and pass the
resolution, assuming that no Democrats join it.

"I'm worried about the fight, but I like our chances," said Lauren
Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center.

Advocates see possible "no" votes among moderate Republicans.

On July 20, every Republican member of the Senate Banking
Committee expressed support for the resolution disapproving the
rule, with the conspicuous absence of Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy.
He is still reviewing the measure, his office said on July 21.
[GN]


* Consumer Class Actions to be Introduced in Korea Next Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Bae Hyun-jung, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that after
some two decades of disputes, class action suits for basic
consumers may be introduced next year, according to the top 100
policy plans announced by the Moon Jae-in administration on July
19.

The tool to allow consumers who have suffered damage from products
to benefit en mass from compensation rulings without directly
participating in a legal battle has always been a hot potato for
the preceding governments and legislators.

Despite President Moon Jae-in's determination to promote
consumers' rights, however, the class action system is continuing
to cause a stir among skeptical observers, some doubting the
efficiency and others concerned about possible cases of abuse.

In announcing the five-year policy plan, the State Affairs
Planning Advisory Committee said it aims to realize a "vibrant and
fair economy," vowing to enhance monitoring capacities for fair
trade and to strengthen consumer damage relief -- the latter
including a class action system in the consumer field.

A class action or representative action is a type of lawsuit, more
typically effective in the US, allowing a group of people to be
represented collectively by a specific member or a subset.

Under the system, victims of mass consumer good damages may
receive the same amount of compensation as the winning plaintiffs
who participated in a lawsuit, should they meet the prerequisites
of the corresponding damage.  The lawsuit model was introduced in
South Korea in 2005 but was limited to securities-related cases
only.

Seeking to draft an implementation plan within the year and
effectuating a related law next year, the government may either
seek to revise the securities-related class action act or
legislate a separate law for the consumer-related class action,
according to the presidential advisory panel.  Relevant bills
coming to law, however, are likely to entail an expansive
political standoff between the ruling and opposition parties.

Rekindling the long-pending talks on the consumer class action was
the case of toxic humidifier disinfectants, which were blamed for
scores of deaths and irreversible injuries to product users.

While the first cases of deaths were reported in 2011 and the
first lawsuit raised in 2012, the corresponding case is still
ongoing at the appeal court, likely to drag on for more years.

Even if the 64 victims and families were to win their case, the
effect of the final court ruling would only reach those listed as
plaintiffs, with no class action suit system to weld all of the
victims into a collective group.

Another recent case adding to the debate on consumer class action
was that of a 4-year-old child who experienced a critical kidney
failure after consuming a hamburger at fast-food chain McDonald's.

The child's hemolytic uremic syndrome, which left her with a
lifetime of dialysis, was attributable to an undercooked burger
patty, according to her family.

Though this was the first suit to be filed against a food
manufacturer related to HUS, it is possible that other suits may
follow as a number of consumers have been claiming to have eaten
undercooked products at McDonald's.

Past administrations had made attempts to expand the class action
suit to the consumer sectors, especially whenever a major food
product defect scandal broke out.

In 2008, former President Lee Myung-bak called for a class action
system for food damage victims and his successor Park Geun-hye
also vowed to expand the securities class action onto all other
sectors during her 2012 election campaign. Both moves were
thwarted by a fierce backlash from the related industries, which
cited the likeliness of malicious lawsuit abuses.

The Korea Economy Research Institute, affiliated with the
Federation of Korean Industries, reiterated such concerns earlier
this year.  In a report released in January this year, the
institute asserted that class action suits fundamentally involve
dangers of abuses which may consequently lead to social and
economic losses.

Consumers and civic groups mostly cheered for the government's
latest move, but also called for improvement, pointing out to the
flaws of the current securities class action system.

"It took 12 years for the first winning case of securities class
action could take place, mostly due to the complicated
procedures," the Citizens Coalition of Economic Justice said
through a statement on July 19.

"The whole point of the class action system is to offer a more
efficient relief solutions for victims of mass damages." [GN]


* ESOP Class Action: An Existential Threat to the ESOP Community
----------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports in recent years, many sponsors and trustees had
to defend investigations from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
in connection with transactions in which company shares were sold
to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). In certain cases,
these investigations have resulted in DOL-initiated lawsuits
seeking to recover damages allegedly suffered by the ESOP
participants because of, among other things, supposed
"overpayments" by trustees for company stock.

A new and potentially more dangerous threat is posed by lawsuits
now being filed by attorneys representing plan participants in
connection with certain ESOP transactions. Although DOL-initiated
litigation has changed the manner in which ESOP transactions are
conducted, these participant class action lawsuits may have far
more serious implications for sponsors and trustees and their
business partners.

The DOL lawsuits are aimed at a relatively few specific
transactions where the DOL has determined that the ESOP trustee
has overpaid for the shares. However, the class action suits have
a broader focus, which is to find errors in the implementation or
operation of the ESOP in order to obtain the highest possible
dollar recovery.

What makes this so significant is that the plaintiff's bar obtains
access to the ESOP's books and records by claiming the loss in
share value constitutes a breach in fiduciary duty. This loss,
however, is a necessary part of every leveraged ESOP transaction.
In essence, an ESOP transaction is a leveraged buyout of all or
part of the company. Debt is placed on the company to finance the
sale, as it would be in any management buyout. The debt (and the
associated drop in share value) is a normal and expected part of
the transaction. The company's intrinsic value does not change; it
has merely converted some of its equity into debt.

In these cases, the plaintiff's bar asserts that the ESOP trustees
have breached their fiduciary duties as a result of the loss in
the stock value without action to divest the shares. These
allegations are based upon a line of so-called "stock drop" cases
involving public company stock held by ESOPs and other similar
plans.

From a litigation perspective, factually based allegations are
more problematic because these type of allegations are not easily
susceptible to motions to dismiss, which are motions arguing that
the plaintiff has no legal claim even if the facts he or she
alleges are presumed to be true. Once a fact-based set of
allegations survives a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff typically
has a right to commence far-ranging discovery. When litigation has
entered the discovery phase, it becomes very labor intensive and
expensive to litigate. In addition, the federal discovery rules
are liberally construed and open the entire operation and
administration of the ESOP to examination by the plaintiff.

This poses a threat to ESOPs by creating a situation where some
plaintiffs' attorneys may feel there is an incentive to bring
multiple lawsuits in the belief that ESOPs may enter into
expensive settlements simply to avoid litigation costs. The
ultimate result may be unaffordable fiduciary liability insurance
and fewer ESOP transactions.

The situation is far from hopeless. There are multiple strategies
available to ESOP sponsors and trustees that enable them to
minimize or eliminate the threat. ESOP fiduciaries and the ESOP
community, in general, are well advised to take this threat
seriously and to move aggressively to adopt some or all of these
strategies.

A full analysis of all of the options available to ESOP sponsors
and fiduciaries is far beyond the scope of this alert. However,
the strategies can be divided into four basic categories: (1) plan
document amendments; (2) enhanced release forms; (3) pre-discovery
litigation strategies; and (4) additional litigation strategies.

For example, plan document strategies might include amendments to
the plan to add impediments to litigation such as contractual
statutes of limitations and mandatory arbitration clauses, but
other techniques aimed more directly at class action and
derivative type lawsuits are also possibilities.

Another pre-litigation strategy is to potentially require releases
for all participant distributions. These releases need to be
specifically crafted and appropriately tailored in the hope of
precluding further claims relating to fiduciary breaches as well
as further claims for individual benefits.

The courts are split as to what language constitutes an effective
release of claims against a fiduciary, and look at the specificity
of the provision and the sophistication of the parties involved.
They often reject plaintiffs' claims of ignorance when the
language is clear and unambiguous.

In the event that litigation has already commenced, it is
possible, with proper planning, to defeat the litigation on a
motion to dismiss if without disputing the facts presented by the
plaintiff the drop in share price can be demonstrated as an
expected outcome of the transaction. The ESOP community can be
helpful in educating the courts about this aspect of ESOP
transactions. It may also be prudent to deliver a forward-looking
prospectus to all beneficiaries to put them on notice that
trustees and fiduciaries need not be prescient about future stock-
value movements -- an idea often forgotten but repeatedly affirmed
in the courts. Full disclosure to participants regarding the
mechanics and the amount of an expected drop in value in the
Summary Plan Description and other documents would enhance the
position of any potential defendant.

Finally, in the event that the complaint survives a motion to
dismiss, the defensive strategy should involve aggressively
limiting discovery to issues raised in the complaint to the extent
possible. More importantly, in the event of other issues with
individual benefit claims, defendants should always require
administrative exhaustion via the plan's claims procedures.

Of course, the key to defending any claims is advance planning
with the assistance of knowledgeable ESOP transactional and
litigation counsel. [GN]


* Irish Data Protection Bill Fails to Address Class Action Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Irish Times reports much coverage of the General Data
Protection Regulation has focused, understandably, on the
potentially gigantic fines that might be levied on companies and
non-compliant data controllers.

But an issue which hasn't had much focus here is the question of
class actions, where the rights of large numbers of citizens (data
subjects in the digital lingo) have been breached.

Legal experts are of the view that if national legislation on data
protection regulation currently being drafted does not implement
two optional parts of it relating to representation in so-called
class actions, the downstream impact will be felt in lengthy court
lists.

The situation where hundreds of cases are pending in the courts
here against Volkswagen Group over the emissions scandal might be
dwarfed by a data breach involving the health or financial records
of thousands of people, for example.

In a submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice on
the general scheme of the Data Protection Bill, which will
implement the EU regulation, Digital Rights Ireland said there
were "practical and principled reasons" for implementing the
optional provisions.

Chair of the group Dr TJ McIntyre said if individuals were not
able to nominate a representative body to bring an action for
damages on their behalf, there would be "a multiplicity of claims
being brought . . . that the courts simply are not equipped to
address".

The other optional provision allows not-for-profits to bring an
action on their own initiative even where no individual has come
forward.

"Individuals who find sensitive medical records leaked, for
example, or like with the Ashley Madison case, those who find
information relating to their sexual life has been leaked, would
be very often unwilling to become the public face of the issue for
very understandable reasons," Dr McIntyre said.

Separately, a high-profile case involving a worldwide "privacy
class action" against Facebook by Austrian lawyer Max Schrems
opened on July 19 before the Court of Justice of the European
Union.

It centres on two questions: whether Mr Schrems is a private
individual with consumer status to take such an action, and
whether he can he bring a class action in Austria even though many
of the other claimants are based elsewhere in the EU.  A final
judgment is expected by the end of the year. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indonesia Asked to Ban Asbestos Use
----------------------------------------------------
Netralnews.com reported that Canadian health professional Prof. Yv
Bonnier Viger asked the Indonesian government to ban the use of
asbestos as has been done by governments in 55 other countries in
the world.

"Canadian political parties are beginning to care and support the
abolition of asbestos use. In December 2016, the Canadian
government has banned the import and use of asbestos," Viger said
in a discussion held by Indonesia Ban Asbestos Network (INA BAN)
in Jakarta on July 26.

According to a press release from INA BAN, Viger has been actively
campaigning for asbestos ban. Viger's arrival to Indonesia is part
of a campaign in several countries. In addition to Indonesia,
Viger also campaigned in Myanmar, Cambodia and Thailand.

Viger actively campaigned against the asbestos ban after finding
his wife suffered from pleural mesothelioma or lung cancer in 1999
and died three years later due to exposure to asbestos.

In Indonesia, asbestos is still widely produced and used for
building materials, brake pads, gaskets, pipe coatings, and yarns
which are widely used as fire fighting suits.

Viger said the asbestos-refusal group in Canada had produced a
video in 2010 telling the export of hazardous materials from
Canada to India. The video awakened the awareness of medical
groups, trade unions, and the public to stop the production of
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Battle Erupts Over Budd's Deposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that a Texas
appellate court will soon consider whether to reverse a district
judge's ruling that her court did not have jurisdiction to unseal
testimony given by renowned plaintiff's attorney Russell Budd on
the "Terrell memo."

The Terrell memo, considered by some to be a "cheat sheet,"
purportedly revealed how Baron & Budd attorneys coached up clients
on how to identify asbestos products and exposures that they might
not actually remember and might never have been exposed to in the
first place.

Late last year, Christine Biederman, a Dallas lawyer and freelance
journalist working on behalf of a documentary filmmaker,
intervened in a 24-year old asbestos suit filed in Travis County,
seeking to unearth the deposition of Budd, the current president
of Baron & Budd -- a Dallas-based law firm specializing in toxic
torts.

Biederman and her client, Paul Johnson Films, suspect the
testimony has relevancy to ongoing asbestos litigation and could
play a role in Johnson's documentary "UnSettled," a film seeking
to cast light on the business of asbestos lawsuits.

Baron & Budd fought back against Biederman's efforts to unseal
and, as previously reported, on Jan. 31 Judge Orlinda Naranjo,
419th District Court, ruled the court did not have jurisdiction
over the case.

"We believe the judge is wrong on the law," Biederman told the
Record. "Wrong doers always want to hide wrong doing from prying
eyes, especially from people like journalists and historians."

While briefs have not yet been submitted, Biederman says the
appeal will argue that the trial court did in fact have
jurisdiction to determine that Budd's deposition was not properly
sealed under Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The rule states that a document may be sealed if the substantial
interest clearly outweighs presumption of openness and any
probable adverse effect that sealing will have upon the general
public health or safety.

Biederman says Rule 76a has no time limit and grants court's
continuing jurisdiction to unseal improperly sealed records.

And while the case in question is decades old, there's a
possibility Budd's deposition could be relevant to the 2014
Garlock Sealing Technologies case, which exposed attorney "double-
dipping" in bankruptcy asbestos trusts.

"I don't know what's in the deposition -- sources have told me
it's relevant to issues that were raised in some of the litigation
surrounding Garlock," Biederman said. "I don't know whether that's
true or not. I just know that's what I've been told, so therefore
I'd like to see the deposition."

The issue is currently before the First Court of Appeals in
Houston.

Austin attorneys Charles Herring and Jason Panzer, malpractice
lawyers who have counseled some of Texas' most high-profile
attorneys, represent Baron & Budd.

Case No. 01-17-00263-CV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofing Co. Convicted for Poor Asbestos Disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Culture reported that a Brisbane roofing company has been
fined $100,000 for failing to handle and safely dispose of
asbestos.

In 2015, the company was engaged to remove a storm damaged roof at
a building leased by Trade Tools when several people were exposed
to asbestos dust.

Head of Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, Dr. Simon
Blackwood said notices were issued to clean up the site because of
widespread contamination throughout the main showroom.

"Trade Tools closed their doors to the public for two months and
spent lots of money on remediation work to fix the problem," said
Dr. Blackwood.  "However, Roofmasters unnecessarily exposed their
own workers, Trade Tools employees and members of the public to
asbestos because they didn't do things properly.

Magistrate Robert Walker considered the defendant's failure to
implement any controls on site exposing people to potentially
serious illness. It was also noted that there was a serious lack
of training in the handling and removal of asbestos.

"This is about proper risk management and making sure you are not
exposing your employees, or anyone else for that matter, to the
dangers associated with asbestos," said Dr. Blackwood.  "If you do
the wrong thing, chances are we will find you, and where
necessary, you will face the full consequences of the law."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Some Capital Spaces
------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Wickline, writing for Arkansas Online, reported that a
state House committee learned that asbestos was found in two
meeting rooms and in adjoining offices that will be renovated in
the next several months at the state Capitol.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Firms Settle Over Illegal Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Terreri Ramos, writing for Boston Globe, reported that the
contractor in charge of razing the former South Shore YMCA
building in downtown Quincy three years ago and a consultant hired
to monitor the work have paid a total of $180,000 to settle a
state lawsuit alleging that they caused or allowed illegal
asbestos work at the site.

General contractor Callahan Inc., of Bridgewater, and
environmental consulting firm Axiom Partners, of Wakefield,
settled the lawsuit in a consent judgment entered in Suffolk
Superior Court.

But the suit, filed by Attorney General Maura Healey's office June
30, will continue against a third company involved in the work,
Plymouth demolition firm J. Kerrissey Inc., according to Healey's
office.

The lawsuit alleges that Callahan and Axiom violated the state's
clean air law and regulations during the 2014 demolition of the
former YMCA building. It contends the companies caused or allowed
J. Kerrissey to demolish about 45,000 square feet of ceiling
plaster containing asbestos without properly sealing the area, not
using proper protective equipment, and not following work
practices required to limit asbestos exposure.

The old building was located in busy Quincy Center near Quincy
High School and the new YMCA building.

During the demolition, Healey's lawsuit alleges, clouds of dust
could be seen, and workers dropped asbestos-containing debris from
a second-floor window into an unlined trash receptacle next to the
sidewalk.

"Asbestos can pose serious health risks to workers and the public
when not handled properly in compliance with law," Healey said in
a press release. "Companies must ensure construction and
demolition work involving asbestos is done safely and legally, and
we will take action against those who endanger their workers and
local residents."

In a statement, Callahan maintained that it did not knowingly
violate any environmental regulations during the demolition of the
former YMCA building, and that contractors used appropriate
procedures based on the information it had.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Probes on Asbestos in Marco Polo Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Mangieri, writing for KHON2.com, reported that two state
agencies are now taking action over asbestos at the scene of the
massive fire at the Marco Polo building.

It's an issue Always Investigating has been looking into following
the blaze. Several firefighters and residents told us of concerns
they were exposed to the hazardous material at the fire scene, and
they questioned if proper measures were taken to ensure safety.

Eleven days after the fire dislodged the hazardous material,
there's still not yet an asbestos abatement plan in authorities'
hands. The state Department of Health has taken oversight, and the
state Department of Labor's workplace safety division is
investigating.

Meanwhile residents say they've not been warned about the
materials.

Trade winds whip straight through the Marco Polo's charred tunnels
of debris and destruction left in the wake of the July 14 fire. An
overflowing dumpster of waste from smoke and water-soaked floors
sits open by the sidewalk.

This building contains asbestos, potentially dangerous and deadly
when dislodged and frayed.

"The units that were heavily affected by a lot of debris and
everything like that. I didn't see any of the fire inspectors or
people wearing masks at all," a Marco Polo resident who wished to
remain anonymous told Always Investigating, "and therefore I don't
think that residents were probably aware. Because they didn't see
them with masks on, that probably deterred them from thinking that
they even needed that."

The firefighters union says its workforce wasn't warned going in
and still hasn't been cautioned by management.

"I have not seen anything from HFD in regards to addressing the
asbestos issue at all," said Bobby Lee, president of the Hawaii
Fire Fighters Association. "Pretty much from firefighters out
there, there hasn't been any talk about asbestos. It's just the
general direction of cleaning your turnouts when you get to the
station."

We asked the Honolulu Fire Department what precautions its
personnel are taking at the scene and back at the stations at this
time, and if any additional health notices, screenings or services
are being provided to firefighters who worked the fire. An HFD
spokesman responded that they continue to use appropriate
protective equipment and did not provide more specifics other than
to say they are following established protocols and procedures.

Always Investigating reviewed HFD decontamination procedures and
found nothing specific to asbestos, which is what Honolulu Fire
Chief Manuel Neves told the Honolulu Fire Commission: "There's no
difference. We have a decontamination process, and if we determine
the turnouts are not usable then we take them out of service."

The union reached out to the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health
Division (HIOSH) with concerns about firefighter asbestos
exposure.

"Once our firefighters got out of the building, they should have
collected their personal protective equipment, bagged it on scene
and taken it to the storeroom to be properly dealt with," Lee
said. "Instead what happened was our firefighters ended up jumping
back into their trucks, contaminating the trucks or the potential
contamination of our trucks, going back to our station,
contaminating the stations and passing this contamination to the
other watches coming into the stations."

He said the 20 companies that responded returned to at least a
dozen stations.

The state Labor Department Director Linda Chu Takayama told Always
Investigating "HIOSH inspectors are conducting an investigation in
conjunction with an open case file on this issue. They have also
been in contact with DOH staff regarding the asbestos component."

Always Investigating asked the state Department of Health, which
regulates asbestos, what it did and when. DOH said that three days
after the fire, the department began "working with the building
association, consultant and contractor to ensure the proper
identification and handling of asbestos in an expedited manner."

That's news to many residents.

"You see where the brown box is up there," resident Barbara Hudman
said, gesturing up to a boarded-up unit, "that's me right next
door to the left."

Always Investigating asked, when she went in, did anybody warn her
to take any kind of precautions on asbestos?

"No," Hudman said.

Always Investigating asked, does that concern you now that you
know there are state investigations into it?

"Well I guess so," Hudman said. "I mean to be honest, we should
have been warned."

Health officials say their oversight includes ensuring certified
asbestos inspectors, air monitors and abatement workers are used
at Marco Polo and that they follow proper protocols including
disposal, plus clearance activities for re-occupancy.

We pressed for more details and the health department told us air
and debris samples "showed asbestos containing fire damaged debris
on the 26th, 27th, and 28th floors with recommendations to isolate
those floors from the rest of the building."

The state still has not been given a final abatement work plan but
said it expects the building's consultant will be turning it in to
the condo association and the department in a few days.

The Board of Directors Marco Polo AOAO told Always Investigating
in a statement: "The board is taking all appropriate action as
recommended by the environmental testing company and the State of
Hawaii Department of Health."

That does not yet appear to include visual warnings to residents,
vendors, and authorities coming and going from the building.

"It's worse for the immediate outcome for the people on the 26th,
27th and 28th," said the resident who did not want to be named,
"but the people on the lower floors are going to be on the flooded
floors, and those around are affected by the debris and everything
else around, they may even think that they don't need protection."

For more information on asbestos and mesothelioma, visit
Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance's website.

Honolulu Fire Department Q&A

Always Investigating: What protocol and precautions are HFD
personnel taking at the scene at this time?

HFD: Honolulu Fire Department personnel continue to utilize the
appropriate personal protective equipment.

Always Investigating: What protocol and precautions are being
taken for the people, materials and equipment used at the scene
and taken back to the various stations, and also at each station?

HFD: HFD personnel shall continue to follow established protocols
and procedures as required.

Always Investigating: Are any additional health notices,
screenings or services being provided to firefighters who worked
the scene that day?

HFD: HFD personnel shall continue to follow established protocols
and procedures as required.

The HFD takes the safety of its members very seriously and has
procedures and training in place to ensure their safety.

The Marco Polo incident is still under review, and it would be
premature for HFD comment on the incident before that review has
been completed.

Department of Health statement and Q&A

"DOH is involved with providing the guidance and regulatory
oversight for the handling of asbestos at the Marco Polo building.
The building association has hired an environmental consultant (a
certified asbestos project designer) to prepare the asbestos
cleanup work plan. Our department has not yet received the final
plan, however, we are working with the building association,
consultant and contractor to ensure the proper identification and
handling of asbestos in an expedited manner. DOH oversight
involves ensuring certified asbestos inspectors, project
designers, air monitors, abatement workers and supervisors are
used, as well as proper abatement work practice standards,
material disposal and clearance activities for re-occupancy. The
final abatement workplan will likely be submitted to the building
association and DOH by the consultant in a few days."
Always Investigating: Was there any DOH presence, actions or
warnings to residents and workers on the day of or immediately
after the fire regarding the presence of asbestos at the scene?

DOH: The fire occurred on Friday afternoon, July 14. DOH became
involved on Monday, July 17 with coordination with building
management. The management had assumed the presence of asbestos in
the ceiling materials and acted with that in mind.

Always Investigating: How is protection against the hazardous
material at and around the building currently being handled in
advance of the final abatement plan?

DOH: The environmental consultant sampled air and debris in
various areas/floors of the building. Preliminary information
showed asbestos containing fire damaged debris on the 26th, 27th,
and 28th floors with recommendations to isolate those floors from
the rest of the building.

Always Investigating: With any building with a history of
asbestos, does DOH work with any other authorities or agencies
(i.e. Fire Department, EMS, etc) to keep them notified of
hazardous materials on any site in case of future
fire/disaster/rescue?

DOH: Yes. Since most buildings of all types contain some asbestos-
containing materials (particularly those built prior to the
1980s), emergency response personnel have hazardous waste
operations training as required by OSHA.

Always Investigating: Generally speak to the dangers of
asbestos -- in what volume is it dangerous -- and what people who
were potentially exposed to it on the day of or after the fire
should be doing in the mean time for their health?

DOH: DOH in cooperation with U.S. EPA regulate demolition and
renovation activities which may disturb materials containing
greater than 1 percent (hence, prior inspection is typically
required with normal demolition/renovation). In this situation,
likely the smoke inhalation is a much greater immediate concern
and individuals should check with their doctor about their health
condition. Individuals who have been exposed (or suspect they have
been exposed) to asbestos fibers on the job, through the
environment, or at home via a family contact should inform their
doctor about their exposure history and whether or not they
experience any symptoms.

Always Investigating: How many asbestos abatements have been done
in the past at the Marco Polo?

DOH: Upon review of our database, there were twelve (12)
notifications of asbestos removal received from abatement
contractors for work at the Marco Polo building since 2001. Most
of the notifications were for work in individual units (none of
the units on the 26th, 27th, and 28th floors) scattered about the
building and a couple on the roof. According to news reports, the
Marco Polo building has 586 apartment units in the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvey Norman Issued Demand Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Inman, writing for Canberra Times, reported that Harvey
Norman has handed over documents about an asbestos scare at the
retail giant's Fyshwick warehouse after a demand from the ACT's
work safety watchdog.

A Harvey Norman spokeswoman confirmed the retailer had complied in
full to the demand from WorkSafe ACT before the 3pm deadline.

WorkSafe ACT confirmed it had received the documents and would now
assess if the demand for information had been fully met.

The work safety watchdog issued the demand for documents, saying
it had not yet received a comprehensive asbestos assessment for
the warehouse from Harvey Norman.

Work Safety Commissioner Greg Jones said WorkSafe ACT said a risk
assessment -- of how goods currently stored in the warehouse, or
those that were stored in the warehouse and now sold or moved
since February 2017, are to be managed -- had also been
outstanding at the time of the demand.

WorkSafe ACT in June slapped a prohibition notice on the warehouse
after recent upgrades to the warehouse ceiling damaged some
sections of bonded asbestos roof panels, causing them to become
friable.

The notice is still in force.

It is understood the products potentially impacted by asbestos
were large white goods, including washing machines and fridges,
some furniture, and carpet products.

WorkSafe ACT said it issued the notice under the Work Health and
Safety Act for Harvey Norman to provide documents and a risk
assessment plan for managing potentially contaminated goods.

Mr. Jones said he was disappointed that the notice had been issued
as WorkSafe ACT had sought to work collaboratively with Harvey
Norman's corporate office and the Fyshwick franchise since
becoming aware of contamination.

"Our priority and focus at WorkSafe ACT is safety at all times,"
Mr Jones said.

"This includes safety of our community and also for the workers
who may be impacted by contamination at the site.

"We have been asking for . . . a comprehensive asbestos assessment
for the warehouse by Harvey Norman as well as a risk assessment of
how goods currently stored in the warehouse, or those that were
stored in the warehouse and now sold or moved since February 2017,
are to be managed."

A Harvey Norman spokeswoman said: "Harvey Norman and its
representatives have, and will continue to, work cooperatively
with WorkSafe ACT.

"The safety of customers, staff and suppliers is Harvey Norman's
highest priority."

Mr Jones said Access Canberra was also watching the response from
Harvey Norman carefully from a fair trading and product safety
perspective to ensure customers are provided with information and
any necessary action in response to purchased goods.

"We want to ensure Canberrans are kept informed of this important
safety issue and that they can have confidence that goods
purchased are safe."

Harvey Norman said concerned customers could contact the Fyshwick
store on 1800 572 011 or fyshwick.enquiries@au.harveynorman.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Asbestos Found in Cranleigh Water Pipe
------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Kamenou, writing for Get Surrey, reported that Thames Water
has found blue asbestos in Cranleigh's water pipes.

Cranleigh Civic Society revealed on July 24 that Thames Water had
sent a section of a drinking water pipe for independent testing
and that the presence of blue asbestos was subsequently found.

The pipe was tested after being replaced in the Hitherwood area of
Cranleigh where the fibres were discovered.

The news was heard at a meeting held in public and called by
Guildford MP Anne Milton.

Adrian Clarke, speaking on behalf of Cranleigh Civic Society,
said: "Thames Water found that there was blue asbestos in
Cranleigh which is highly dangerous.

"The almost 70-year-old asbestos pipes in Cranleigh should be
renewed before any further planning for development."

The blue strand of asbestos, named crocidolite, is thought to be
more hazardous than white asbestos.

Inhaling asbestos fibres is generally considered to be dangerous
but the society also claimed that international research suggests
that drinking the fibres could be a risk to health.

Councillor Liz Townsend said: "This is not about the money it is
about people's health.

"These pipes have come to the end of their life and it is about
time that they are replaced."

Asbestos cement pipes are a common occurrence across the UK with
792km of asbestos cement pipes out of a network of 31,500km water
mains.

Many of these pipe networks were used across Britain during the
1970s and 1980s.

Representatives from both the Drinking Water Inspectorate and
Thames Water sought to reassure the public that Cranleigh's
drinking water is safe.

Sue Pennison, from the Drinking Water Inspectorate, said: "I
understand people's concerns but within regulations there are a
number of things that are listed that cannot be in water and
asbestos is not one of those.

"However there is another ruling within the regulations that says
that a water company cannot supply you with anything that could be
harmful to your health.

"So now we judge whether it is harmful to your health and for that
we go to our colleagues at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and
if there is not anything in that then we would go to our
colleagues at Public Health England.

"What we suggest is that we ask WHO to look into asbestos next
year."

Cyril Mitkov, local and regional government liaison at Thames
Water, said: "The water for the Cranleigh area is not taken from
Cranleigh water itself or indeed any water that comes from the
Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works.

"So hopefully this will provide some reassurance for people."

The asbestos discovery formed a key part of discussions at a flood
forum at Cranleigh's Village Hall.

A subgroup was set up to address the asbestos issue in more detail
and another meeting will be held this autumn.

Mrs Milton said: "It was excellent to see so many people turn out
for the first Cranleigh Flood Forum meeting.

"As with every Flood Forum I set up, the meetings are held in
public so local people get a chance to keep up to date with the
issues that have been raised and hear the comments from the
statutory agencies.

"A sub group has been set up to look at the issue of asbestos in
manufacture of water pipes.

"There was some discussion about the evidence base and so this
will be the focus of a sub-group's attention and will allow
residents to discuss in more detail with both Public Health
England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

"The subgroup will report back in the autumn."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Issue Worries Parents at Berg MS
----------------------------------------------------------
David Dolmage, writing for Newton Daily News, reported that Berg
Middle School parents remain concerned about asbestos issues in
the existing building and are concerned that Newton Community
School District administrators aren't doing enough to address the
issue. However, the contractor hired by the school district says
there's no cause for alarm.

In June of this year, the school board voted to remove the
existing carpet from 48 classrooms at Berg in order to perform an
abatement process designed to remove asbestos from the building.
After Lucinda Sinclair, a special education teacher at Berg posted
on Facebook about the removal of carpet from her classroom,
parents have expressed concern over their children's exposure to
asbestos.

Asbestos, the name given to a group of minerals that are resistant
to heat and corrosion, was commonly used in construction projects
before it's dangerous effect on humans. Asbestos is cancerous, and
prolonged exposure to the fibers has been shown to damage lung
tissue. The location of the asbestos that's being removed from the
school is part of the mastic, or glue, used to set the tile floors
in the classrooms.

Courtney Grogan, a parent of a sixth-grader and an eighth-grader
who attend Berg said that she and other parents feel out of touch
with the district. Grogan said no one notified her about the
asbestos removal, or that many of the classrooms would be without
carpet when the school year begins.

"I just don't like the fact that kids are going to go there if
there's asbestos," Grogan said. "I guess I've never dealt with it
before, but if it happened in my house, I'd replace everything."

While she doesn't think Sinclair tried to undermine the district
by posting on Facebook about the lack of flooring in her
classroom, Grogan said she doesn't think the teacher handled it
the right way.

"I think she was probably doing it from the good of her heart,"
Grogan said.

Fellow Berg parent Mike Schwartz said he wants to see the carpet
replaced in the middle school. If not carpet, then Schwartz said
the district needs to let parents know what other flooring options
are available for the classrooms.

"Honestly, it wouldn't be a bad thing to put carpet back in, we
pay taxes for a reason," Schwartz said.

Schwartz feels like the lack of carpet will create "distractions
in a learning environment," and he would like to see the district
find a solution. Like Grogan, he expressed disappointment in what
he feels is poor communication between the NCSD and parents at
Berg.

Chuck Woodworth, who owns Environmental Property Solutions, the
contractor hired to handle the asbestos abatement at Berg Middle
School says there's nothing for parents to be concerned about.
Woodworth said that technicians take special care to limit
exposure to the fibers, and their work is overseen daily by a
third-party regulatory agency that checks the air quality.

The project is in it's final stages although Woodward said that
the big blue dumpster out in front of the school, with it's clear
warnings about asbestos, will remain until the final air quality
checks have been completed.

"We don't mess around with this stuff," Woodward said. "The people
who work for me are my friends, we want them to be safe."

While Woodward can understand the concerns that parents might
have, he pointed out that in buildings built before 1990, the use
of asbestos based materials is common. The Environmental
Protection Agency regulates the use of asbestos, and in order to
limit exposure any asbestos product is required to be
encapsulated, a process which prevents the asbestos from becoming
airborne. Woodward said the NCSD has always been at the forefront
of asbestos safety.

"There's nothing airborne or fibrous in this material, and that's
a fact," Woodward said. "They [NCSD] were very proactive in the
early days, they went after the pipe insulations and adding
carpet."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nuke Worker Takes Valve Makers to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for CVN.com, reported that an attorney for a
former Duke Energy worker who inspected asbestos-containing valves
in nuclear power plants told a South Carolina state court jury
that the valve's manufacturers are responsible for his client's
mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

73-year-old Dale Jolly claims he developed mesothelioma, which
affects the lining of the lungs, as a result of years working with
thousands of valves used in various Duke plants. Jolly's lawyers
allege that while Duke took proactive steps to protect workers
from asbestos exposure, valve manufacturers Fisher Controls
International LLC and Crosby Controls International LLC chose to
continue using asbestos despite being aware of its health risks.

Simona Farrise, who is of-counsel to lead plaintiffs firm Dean
Omar Branham LLP told jurors during her opening statement that
Jolly's exposure came specifically from the asbestos-containing
gaskets inside the valves. Ms. Farrise is also the founder of The
Farrise Law Firm based in California.

"So where did the asbestos come from? It came from within, if you
will, the literally hundreds if not thousands of valves that
Crosby made, designed, and sold to Duke at these various plants,"
Farrise told jurors, according to a Courtroom View Network webcast
of the trial.

New Call-to-action

Jolly received his mesothelioma diagnosis in January 2016 and sued
dozens of companies the following April, including Georgia
Pacific, Union Carbide, Pfizer and General Electric. Only Fisher
and Crosby remained as defendants when the case went to trial.
Jolly worked for Duke from 1979, when he began as a pipe fitter,
until 2003, when he retired as an ultrasonic quality control
inspector.

It was during these regular inspections of valves and their
asbestos-containing gaskets that Jolly inhaled asbestos, Farrise
said. She put special emphasis on his 1979 start date, telling
jurors that by then the health risks of asbestos were well-known,
and that the federal government had been involved in asbestos
regulation as early as the 1930's.

Farrise did not ask jurors for a specific amount of damages during
her opening statement, but plaintiff verdicts in asbestos cases
often reach into the millions of dollars, and Jolly's attorneys
are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, according to
court filings.

The defendants' attorney, Timothy Bouch of Leath Bouch & Seekings
LLP told jurors that while there was no dispute that Jolly's
cancer is the result of asbestos exposure, there is no way to
prove the asbestos came specifically from Fisher and Crosby's
valves.

"All pancakes have two sides," Bouch said, arguing to jurors that
the two companies did not recommend or sell the "flange gasket"
that Farrise claims was the principal cause of asbestos exposure.

During Jolly's tenure with Duke, Bouch said he worked at numerous
power plants and could have been exposed to asbestos from a wide
range of sources. He pointed to Jolly's deposition testimony, in
which Bouch told jurors that Jolly never mentioned Fisher or
Crosby and claimed to have "never worked with a valve in his whole
career."

The trial before Judge Jean Toal, a former chief justice of the
South Carolina Supreme Court who came out of retirement
specifically to preside over asbestos trials throughout the state,
is expected to last up to two weeks.

The full proceedings will be webcast live and recorded gavel-to-
gavel by CVN.

Jolly and his wife are represented by lead counsel Jonathan Holder
of the Texas-based firm Dean Omar Branham LLP and local South
Carolina counsel Theile McVey and John Kassel of Kassel McVey,
Attorneys at Law.

The defendants are represented by Timothy Bouch, Yancey McCleod II
and Amy McLeod of Leath Bouch & Seekings LLP.

The case is Beverly Dale Jolly et al. v. General Electric Company
et al., case number 2016-CP-42-01592 in the Court of Common Pleas
for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
woman is suing various corporation, citing alleged negligence in
using asbestos.

Dorothy Bush filed a complaint on July 14 in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against A.W. Chesterton Company, AGCO
Corporation, Allied Paint & Wallpaper Company, Inc., et al.,
alleging that they wrongfully included asbestos fibers in their
products when they should have known that it was toxic and harmful
to individuals.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
plaintiff found out that she had developed asbestos-related
diseases, including mesothelioma on May 2, 2017, and later learned
that the disease was due to her exposure to asbestos-containing
products. As a result, Bush claims she suffered physical pain,
mental anguish, loss earnings and incurred medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for allegedly
including asbestos fibers in their products when adequate
substitutes were readily available and for failing to provide
adequate warnings and instructions on how to safely work with
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks for actual
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, including costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as
the court deems appropriate. She is represented by Brian J. Cooke
and Ryan Dickherber of Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Ill.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10778


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mom Pulls Son Out of Daycare Due to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faiza Amin, writing for CityNews, reported that a meeting got
underway to address concerns over a daycare operating inside a
school while an asbestos abatement project was in the works.

Janice Ricci says she pulled her son out of Ascot Avenue Community
Daycare, which operates in the basement and first floor of Regal
Road Public School near Dufferin Street and Davenport Road.

"We're just not happy with this, we just feel like there should be
no level of exposure to the kids whatsoever," Ricci told CityNews.

Ricci's son had been attending the daycare for school kids for
about two years. The family says he stopped going after July 7th,
when the daycare sent parents an email saying asbestos was
discovered inside the building.

Asbestos is a carcinogen that was once commonly used in the
construction of buildings. If disrupted, as could happen during
removal, it poses health hazards.

"As much as the daycare and the TDSB [Toronto District School
Board] can say there is no risk for the kids, I feel like there is
a risk," Ricci said. "The fact that they're in a school when there
is an active abatement happening, there is a risk so why not just
pick the kids up, and put them at a different location."

Reporters weren't allowed inside the meeting, which the board says
it organized after receiving a handful of concerns from the
daycare.

"In this specific case they're replacing the heating system in the
school by putting in a new boiler," TDSB spokesperson Ryan Bird
told CityNews. "When they were doing some of the prep work to get
ready for that project, they did notice that asbestos was
present."

Bird says asbestos exists at most of the TDSB's 585 buildings,
given the age of the buildings. He also says the daycare was
notified of the upcoming project, and the possibility that
asbestos could be discovered.

The work, which is done when the building is completely empty, is
completed by trained staff and contractors, and the TDSB says
provincial guidelines are strictly followed.

"We have done multiple air tests to ensure that everything is
okay, and each of those tests have come back with no concerns what
so ever," Bird explains. "We've also had Toronto Public Health and
the Ministry of Labour following up, and they too have not
identified any concerns."

Though the TDSB says it communicated the work to the daycare,
Janice says there was a lack of communication. She filed a
complaint with Toronto Public Health, the Ministry of Labour and
the Ministry of Education.

"We did speak with a representative with the Ministry of
Education, who did call us and told us that they were very
concerned with what was happening," Ricci said. "They said that
this was a serious situation, and they were already in the works
to move the daycare outside of the school within 48 hours."

Parents tell CityNews there was a last minute proposal to move
students to Oakwood School, where Ascot was also operating another
daycare, but as time went by, Ricci said it was clear the students
wouldn't be relocated.

The Ministry of Education didn't give details on that
conversation, but a spokesperson tells CityNews the school boards
are responsible for ensuring their facilities are in good
condition, and comply with provincial health requirements and
guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Labour.

"When the ministry became aware of this issue, we immediately
contacted public health officials to conduct an investigation.
Public health officials are in the best position to determine
whether a site is suitable from a health perspective. Since the
investigation, the ministry has been working to support the child
care to relocate to another location within the school, which was
determined to be suitable by public health. It is our
understanding the board and child care are hosting a meeting with
parents this evening to provide more information and address any
concerns. Please contact the school board or child care for more
information," a Ministry of Education spokesperson said in an
email.

The school board says work on two of the four floors has been
completed, and the project is expected to wrap up in about a
month. Plans to relocate the daycare on another floor in the
building are currently being finalized.

Ricci is questioning guidelines used to deal with asbestos, asking
if the province and the country's regulations are on par with the
rest of the world.

"If the World Health Organization has stronger guidelines, then we
should be looking at that and seeing what we could do as a
country," she said.

CityNews contacted the Ascot Avenue Community Daycare, but calls
for comments were not returned. Toronto Public Health wasn't able
to meet the deadline for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Crimes Continue to Expose Americans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The negligence of asbestos companies and their role in the
mesothelioma deaths of countless people stands above nearly all
others except perhaps the tobacco industry. Throughout most of the
20th century, companies that provided and manufactured asbestos-
contaminated products were aware of the carcinogenic nature of the
material, yet put profit over the health of their employees and
other people and chose not to provide warnings or protections
against its dangers. As a result, they have been required to pay
out enormous sums of money to victims. Since that time the public
has become aware of asbestos' dangers, but that has not stopped
unethical business people from continuing to place people in
harm's way. The most recent example of this can be seen in the
city of Cleveland, where businessman Christopher Gattarello has
been fined $7.8 million and faces five years in prison as a result
of his illegal asbestos actions involving a property that he owns.

Gattarello has been found guilty of violating the Clean Air Act,
as well as several other illegal actions that led to innocent
victims being exposed to the risk of mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases. After leasing an abandoned, asbestos-
contaminated factory for years, he later purchased it with the
idea of demolishing it and selling its materials for scrap. He
undertook those actions without first following the regulations
established by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding
inspection and asbestos mitigation, and in the process released
dangerous asbestos fibers into the nearby environment. Those
exposed to the carcinogen include the staff and students of a
nearby school and a residential neighborhood.

Asbestos is a mineral that was used in the long-ago construction
of the building that Gattarello owned. Though it was commonly used
in construction and industrial settings, in the mid-1970s the
Environmental Protection Agency revealed that it can cause serious
health problems and its use was largely curtailed. At the same
time, laws were passed regarding the disposal and removal of the
material in order to safeguard the health of those doing the work
and in the vicinity. Speaking of Gattarello's negligence in his
handling of the asbestos in place in the building he owned, acting
U.S. Attorney David A. Sierleja said, "Mr. Gattarello created a
garbage dump in a residential neighborhood near a school, which
remains an environmental hazard. He has caused irreparable harm
and deserves this punishment." Gattarello has also been told to
pay $800,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, TMR at Odds Over Exposure Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Clarke, writing for QT.com.au, reported that a state
government department found guilty of exposing workers to asbestos
at a Ripley job site claims workers were offered extensive support
following the exposure.

Department of Main Roads RoadTek employees worked on a bridge site
at Ripley for four months in 2012 before it was discovered the
bridge, built more than 20 years ago, was riddled with asbestos
and the fibres were already spread across the site.

More than six workers were given power tools and air grinders to
demolish the bridge after a truck smashed into it in January 2012.

The department was convicted at trial in June of failing to comply
with health and safety duty and fined $175,000 in Ipswich
Magistrates Court.

The maximum penalty for the offence is $1.5 million.

A Department of Transport and Main Roads spokesperson said the
department had sought to consult with workers, independent
specialists and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland to make
sure work practices were effective and that opportunities for
improvement were identified and implemented.

"We have worked over the five years since the incident to address
the failures that occurred and to prevent similar incidents," the
spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the department provided support to the
workers following the incident including providing information
sessions delivered by TMR management representatives, an
occupational physician, and an occupational hygienist, for workers
(permanent, labour hire and contractors) and their families, which
included an offer of testing for work and personal vehicles,
clothing, equipment and residences among other services.

Gary McDonaugh was one of the workers exposed to asbestos at the
site and he said he did not receive any support and did not have
his car or home cleaned after the exposure.

"It's not good when you work for them for 19 years and this is the
way you get treated," Mr McDonaugh said.

"Nobody has ever come and approached me about it. They rung about
my car -- the day they were supposed to clean it, they said they
could not fit me in so I did it myself.

"We've got grandchildren that have come to my house and travelled
in my car. It's always on my mind."

Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance's Emily Walsh said "there was no safe
level of asbestos exposure."

"When asbestos fibers are broken up they can be released into the
air in the form of microscopic particles. If they are ingested,
they can become trapped in the body and lead to mesothelioma
cancer," she said.

Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance provides online resources on the
dangers of asbestos exposure which can lead to mesothelioma
cancer. MCA promote causes such as Mesothelioma Awareness Day and
the effort to ban asbestos in products worldwide. The site
provides information on asbestos, dangers of exposure, as well as
support for mesothelioma patients, their families and the general
public.

TMR maintains extensive support services were offered to employees
and their families including:

   * Employee assistance support offered to workers (permanent,
labour hire and contractors) and their families

   * Testing for the presence of asbestos conducted at site
officers, site facilities, equipment, work and private vehicles,
residences, and personal belongings

   * Professional cleaning and re-testing for sites and items
where a positive sample test was identified

   * Provision of transport for staff inconvenienced by vehicle
testing and cleaning

   * Replacement of clothing, equipment, furniture and other items
upon request where potential exposure to asbestos was identified,
and

   * Offers of medical appointments and assessments with a
certified occupational medical specialist to all staff, labour
hire, contractor personnel and their families potentially exposed
as a result of the incident.
TMR has made improvements to the way in which asbestos
infrastructure was managed across the state, which included:

   * The implementation of an Asbestos Management Framework
setting out clear roles and responsibilities

   * The identification of all bridge structures across the state
that are likely to contain asbestos

   * The implementation of a central asbestos register for storing
information about buildings and structures that are confirmed or
suspected to contain asbestos

   * The development of an asbestos general awareness course,
delivered face-to-face and electronically, and

   * The recruitment of a specialist advisor (Asbestos) for TMR to
improve operational capability to safely manage and respond to
asbestos-related activities

   * Delivery of a series of two-day workshops with about 200
electrical and civil maintenance workers undertaken competency-
based training in asbestos removal and reviewing our safe work
method statements

   * Implementation of revised safe work method statements
following consultation with workers, specialist consultants and
WHSQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Threatens Suit Over Asbestos in Hospital
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lord, writing for Aurora Beacon-News, reported that the city
of Aurora has issued a notice of intent to sue the owners of the
old Copley Hospital to get them to remove or mitigate asbestos in
the old buildings on South Lincoln Avenue.

The city said it will sue under the federal Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act against Raghuveer P. Nayak, Anita R. Nayak and
the companies they control. The notice states that the city will
file suit in federal court in 90 days unless the Nayaks
immediately secure the facility and mitigate the danger by
removing the asbestos.

"The old Copley Hospital site is a top priority for my
administration," said Mayor Richard Irvin in an official press
release.  "It has grown to be much more than an eyesore in the
community. The site poses a threat to the health and safety of the
residents of Aurora. This situation has gone on for far too long.
The Nayaks created this problem, and they must be held accountable
for correcting it."

The notice provides that, since they assumed ownership of the
facility in February 2007, the Nayaks have allowed the buildings
on the site to deteriorate significantly. The Nayaks bought the
old Copley campus for $1.2 million.

The asbestos in the buildings pose a risk to emergency responders
and the community at large, city officials said. The notice is
addressed to the Nayaks because they exercise authority and
control over the buildings, which makes them liable under federal
environmental laws.

Based on documents filed in a federal criminal action, Raghuveer
Nayak is believed to have a net worth exceeding $27 million, city
officials said.

"One of the major concerns of Ward 4 residents is the former
hospital, and the growing risk it brings to the immediate
neighborhood," said Ald. Bill Donnell, 4th Ward. "The community
has waited for substantial action to be taken by the owners to no
avail. The city's issuance of a notice to sue expresses the
critical urgency to address the problem for the safety and health
of the community."

The city already has a case in the 16th Circuit Court, filed in
early 2015, against the Nayaks, seeking to have the old Copley
Hospital building torn down.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Ordered to Stop Operations After $1MM Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelia Naylor, writing for Burnaby Now, reported that a Surrey
company working in Burnaby has been ordered to stop all of its
asbestos abatement projects after racking up more than $1 million
in penalties and five recent stop-work orders from WorkSafeBC.

Since 2011, BCS Contracting Ltd., an asbestos abatement company,
has accumulated a total of 16 administrative penalties, totalling
$1,118,000.

The latest -- and biggest -- was issued for violations at
worksites in Burnaby this spring.

The company was fined $628,034.57 on March 3 during work on a two-
storey house slated for demolition and another separate site.

Among other violations, WorkSafe inspectors observed workers
working among asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) without proper
clothing or respiratory protection.

"The firm committed high-risk violations by failing to safely
contain and remove ACMs, and failing to use acceptable procedures
for controlling and handling asbestos," states a WorkSafe report.

These were repeat violations, according to WorkSafe.

The company has been fined five times since 2013 for projects in
Burnaby.

The company has also been issued five stop work orders for
projects in the Lower Mainland, including two in Burnaby,
according to WorkSafe.

On March 24, WorkSafe's actions culminated in an order for BCS
Contracting to stop all work that could disturb asbestos
containing materials until the company meets a list of conditions,
including adequately informing workers about risks and training
them in the safe handling of asbestos, adequately supervising
workers handling asbestos to protect them against exposure, and
developing a detailed written plan to outline steps the company
will take to improve its practices.

Labour advocates argue BCS's conduct is a perfect example of why
the provincial government should make it mandatory for all B.C.
contractors who work with asbestos and other hazardous materials
to be licensed and for all their workers to become certified.

The current WorkSafe system of monetary penalties doesn't work,
according to Lee Loftus, business manager of the B.C. Insulators
Union, because many repeat offenders either work in the
underground economy or have no company assets.

"If you don't pay a fine and you have no assets, (WorkSafe) can't
do anything," he said. "If you don't comply, they have to take
three years to get you in front of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia to find you in contempt."

And getting a contempt conviction can take years, as illustrated
by an ongoing court case against the owner of another Lower
Mainland asbestos abatement company, Seattle Environmental
Consulting Ltd., Manoj (Mike) Singh, who was charged with contempt
of court for violating a 2012 court order.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge initially ruled Singh was not in
contempt, but a B.C. Court of Appeal panel overturned that
decision in January, and the case has now returned to B.C. Supreme
Court.

With mandatory licensing and worker certification in place,
municipalities could simply withhold building and alteration
permits until the proper papers are supplied, according to Loftus.

Asbestos exposure was the No. 1 workplace killer in B.C. last
year, accounting for 64 deaths, according to WorkSafeBC, up from
48 deaths the year before.

Asbestos-related diseases have a long latency period of typically
20 to 40 years.

Many victims die of mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer
caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos, and asbestosis,
a fibrosis of the lungs.

Governments needs to step in to protect workers from exposure,
Loftus said.

"That asbestos disease is going to follow them 20, 30 or 40 years
later, after this employer's gone or that individual owner's gone
and there's no recompense whatsoever," he said, "and generally
there's not a record of that exposure for the worker; there's only
a penalty assessment for some project on Rumble Street in Burnaby
somewhere."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Brings GBP1.27MM Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that three companies working on
the refurbishment of a school in Waltham Forest have been fined a
total of GBP1.27m excluding costs after workers were exposed to
asbestos.

The exposure occurred in July 2012 after a worker removed part of
a suspended ceiling in one of the ground floor refurbished rooms
at St Mary's school and identified suspect asbestos-containing
materials. Asbestos fibres were subsequently found in numerous
areas in the school.

The court heard that the London Borough of Waltham Forest had a
contract with NPS London Limited to manage development and
refurbishment of its estate. At the time of the incident the
principal contractor for the work was Mansell Construction
Services (now integrated into Balfour Beatty) and the
subcontractor was Squibb Group Limited.

A Health & Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that
although an asbestos survey was completed, there were multiple
caveats and disclaimers that were not appropriately checked.

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited (previously Mansell
Construction Services Limited) of Canary Wharf, London, was fined
GBP500,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP32,364.84 after pleading
guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health & Safety
at Work Act 1974.

NPS London Limited, of Business Park Norwich, Norfolk, was fined
GBP370,000 and ordered to pay GBP32,364.84 in costs after pleading
guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work
Act 1974.

Squibb Group Limited, of Stanford Le Hope, Essex, was fined
GBP400,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP175,000 after being
found guilty after a trial of a breach of Section 2(1) of the
Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.

HSE inspector Sarah Robinson said: "The principal contractor and
contractors on site did not review the survey report in detail,
and did not take into consideration the multitude of caveats.
Therefore the work undertaken did not adopt the high standards of
control expected for working where there was the potential to
expose workers to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonata Director Sued Over Asbestos Suit Threat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Musembi Nzengu, writing for The Star, reported that Nema appears
to have been jolted by the threat of a lawsuit by the Kitui
government.

It has dragged a director of Sonata Kenya Ltd to court, weeks
after the county complained about the firm dumping toxic and
carcinogenic asbestos waste.

Director Noah Khaemba was charged with violating a licence to
dispose of the waste and failing to comply with a Nema order to
restore the areas where the asbestos was disposed of.

He pleaded not guilty before Kitui principal magistrate Johnson
Munguti

Khaemba was released on Sh200,000 bail.

The case will be mentioned on August 4, while the hearing will be
on October 10.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenock Pensioner Left in Dark Over Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Lowne, writing for Greenock Telegraph, reported that a
Greenock pensioner says he fears for his health after being 'left
in the dark' about potentially deadly asbestos in his home.

John Gurney was stunned when he was told by River Clyde Homes
contractors that the floor and ceiling in his top-floor property
in Cartsdyke Court apartments contains the toxic material.

The 73-year-old says that the housing association repeatedly
refused to tell him if his property in Baxter Street is safe.

The Telegraph has now been told by the housing association that
there is a possibility that asbestos is present in his flat but
they insist it is considered 'low risk'.

But tenant John says bosses at RCH should be ashamed of the way
they have kept him in the dark 'for months'.

He said: "Two contractors just appeared out of the blue at my home
saying they were there to check for asbestos.

"They told me that my ceiling and the tiles on my floor and the
stuff that they stick them down with contained asbestos.

"They told me not to drill near the tiles or lift them.

"I asked them if my flat would pass an MOT but they said they
couldn't tell me if it was safe until a report was done.

"I've been down to their office continuously over the past few
months but nobody would tell me anything -- it's like the secret
service.

"I'm very worried -- asbestos is a major health hazard and they
have told nobody anything about it."

After the asbestos check in his flat, John also asked questions
about the indoor communal drying area in the building.

John said: "I complained about the drying room as it's a health
hazard itself -- it looks like the workers have just abandoned it,
as it's not property finished.

"I was told that they took a panel away which was full of
asbestos.

"But they never told me anything about that which is worrying as
we hang up our washing there and use the bin chute too."

Heather McIlroy, asset manager at River Clyde Homes, said:

"We can confirm that asbestos cement boards in the communal drying
area were removed during upgrading works carried out in 2016,
before Mr Gurney moved into the property.

"All residents were informed of the removal at the time and health
and safety procedures for removing asbestos were adhered to at all
times."

She added: "Whilst there is a possibility that low grade asbestos
is present in the adhesive and textured coatings in Mr Gurney's
flat this is considered low risk.

"In line with guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, as
long as these materials are in good condition and are not likely
to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition
monitored.

"We are more than happy to discuss the situation further with Mr
Gurney."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Iowa Hotel Demolition Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition reported that demolition of the former
Iowan Motor Lodge in Fort Madison, Iowa, was halted after
officials found asbestos on-site, a report by the Fort Madison
Daily Democrat says. Tests of structure samples by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources found asbestos in the building.

Tom Wuhr, a representative from the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources' Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Air
Pollutants, said the report that original tests showed no signs of
contamination but the second round showed a 3.5 percent
contamination level. Acceptable levels, the report says, are 1
percent or less.

Since the building is partially demolished, the building owners
must pay a crew to legally abate the asbestos or allow the city to
declare the building unsound and an eminent danger. The report
says the latter would cause an exception to abatement, but an
abatement contractor would still have to oversee demolition.

The report says contractor Meller Excavating & Asphalt, Fort
Madison, has demolished half of the building and separated the
debris on the property. Since finding the contamination, they can
no longer haul the material from the jobsite and must hire a
hauler.

Originally, the structure was scheduled to be demolished by late
fall, but with Meller receiving more work orders and having to
pause demolition on this project, completion has been pushed back
to early winter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ends Asbestos Claims Resolution Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO) announced that at 12:01 a.m.
Eastern Time on July 31, 2017 the joint plan of reorganization
(the "Joint Plan") of certain of EnPro's subsidiaries, including
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC"), to resolve their
current and future asbestos claims was consummated and became
effective. Consummation of the Joint Plan, which was confirmed by
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
on June 12, 2017, effects the substantive conclusion of the
asbestos claims resolution process involving GST LLC and EnPro
subsidiaries, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd.
("Garrison"), The Anchor Packing Company ("Anchor" and, together
with GST LLC and Garrison, "GST") and OldCo, LLC, the successor by
merger to Coltec Industries Inc ("OldCo").

Under the Joint Plan, EnPro retained ownership of GST and OldCo
and, upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, each of these
subsidiaries became free to operate its respective business and
use, acquire, and dispose of its respective property free of any
restrictions of the United States Bankruptcy Code in all respects
as if there were no pending cases under any chapter or provision
of the United States Bankruptcy Code, except for obligations under
the Joint Plan, the documents under the Joint Plan and the
District Court's confirmation order.

As a result, GST and OldCo have been reconsolidated with EnPro for
financial reporting purposes as of July 31, 2017. "The
consummation of the Joint Plan represents the successful
culmination of many years of dedicated effort to resolve the
asbestos burden that has weighed on our company since we were
founded in 2002," said Steve Macadam, EnPro's President and CEO.
"We are grateful to all those, including our employees and our
outside lawyers and consultants, who have worked so hard to
achieve this outcome and to our board of directors and
shareholders who supported us throughout this effort," Mr. Macadam
continued.

Pursuant to applicable accounting rules, upon and as of the date
of the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, the assets and liabilities
of both GST and OldCo are reconsolidated into the EnPro balance
sheet at their estimated fair value, and a pre-tax gain is
recognized for the excess of the estimated fair value of the GST
and OldCo businesses over the net book value of EnPro's
investment. In addition, EnPro's consolidated financial statements
will include the sales, income, expenses and cash flows of both
GST and OldCo beginning on July 31, 2017. Periods prior to that
date will not be restated to include GST and OldCo's results.

                   About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com.

Contacts
EnPro Industries, Inc.
Chris O'Neal, 704-731-1527
Senior Vice President -- Strategy, Corporate Development and
Investor Relations
investor.relations@enproindustries.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas for Help After Asbestos Tragedy
------------------------------------------------------------
The Evening Mail reported that a widow has pleaded with her late
husband's former colleagues to come forward after he lost his
battle with mesothelioma.

David Thornely, of Bowness, died in January, age 78, after being
diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer 13 months earlier in
December 2016.

After his death, his widow Susan has continued the search for
justice after his exposure to asbestos decades earlier.

She said: "It was incredibly difficult to see his health
deteriorate so quickly in his final few months of life and I miss
him so much.

"His death has left me with so many unanswered questions and I
just want to know how he came to be exposed to asbestos."

Mrs. Thornely is now appealing for former colleagues to get in
touch with information on the working conditions at his various
jobs.

They would like to speak to anyone who worked at Phillips
Electronic and Associated Industries Ltd between 1965 and 1971.
This involved travelling to plants including Mitcham in Surrey,
Blackburn, Halifax in Yorkshire and Hamilton in Scotland. He also
worked for British Oxygen from 1971 until 1975 at various London
plants.

Roger Maddocks, a partner and expert industrial disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell, said: "All too often we see a case like David
where workers spent time in working environments where they were
exposed to asbestos dust and were not made aware, by their
employers, of the dangers of asbestos dust."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Father Exposed to Asbestos by AERCO, Others
------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a woman alleges her late father's lung cancer and death were
caused by decades of exposure to asbestos.

Lisa Pelkey, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Lawrence Gallop, deceased, filed a complaint on July 26
in St. Clair County Circuit Court against A.W. Chesterton Inc.,
AERCO International Inc., ALFA Laval Inc., et al. alleging
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
1951 and 1991, during Gallop's employment as a laborer to various
companies or during military service, he was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products of the defendants. The suit states Gallop
was diagnosed with lung cancer on March 30 which ultimately led to
his death on April 15, 2017.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how avoid inhaling the asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiff seeks judgment for actual and compensatory damages
and punitive damages for misconduct and to deter similarly
situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the
future and for such other relief to which the court deems
appropriate. She is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-400


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Sydney Opera House Renovation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Mitchell, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that the The Electrical Trades Union has issued a work ban on the
$200 million renovation of the Sydney Opera House, after asbestos
was found in the structure.

Justin Page, the NSW assistant secretary for the ETU, said
asbestos was discovered in service ducts where 25 electricians had
been working on July 24.

The union was notified several days later, after the substance
tested positive.

Mr. Page said the electricians, employed by contracting company
Downer, were not issued the proper masks and overalls required to
enter an area that had asbestos, and most did not have training on
how to work safely with the toxic substance.

The ETU issued a ban encompassing any work on risers (which carry
cables vertically between floors), rectangular ceiling lights
known as troffers, and other "penetrations that carry electrical
services between floors and through walls".

Mr. Page said the union's hand was forced after builders Laing
O'Rourke and the contractor Downer failed to halt work.

"That's what's blown us away," he said. "When asbestos was
identified they didn't cease work. When the testing came back,
they still didn't cease work, and we had to intervene.

"Asbestos isn't a new issue for us, especially in an old building
like the Sydney Opera House."

Mr. Page said the electricians had been working in walls, ceilings
and between floors as they installed cables and lighting. This
might have disturbed some of the asbestos fibres, causing them to
become airborne.

"Once it becomes airborne and there's work going, it's highly
possible others have been exposed to this asbestos," Mr. Page
said.  "They should be in full overalls, and with the proper
respiratory gear they need to do the job. Any employee who is
working in these areas needs to be fully trained in asbestos
awareness."

About 90 per cent of the 25 electricians concerned had not
received this training, he said. SafeWork NSW is investigating the
asbestos discovery.

In a statement, Laing O'Rourke said work was continuing on the
site as normal after the asbestos was safely removed, and some
workers were having health checks.

"As with any Sydney building constructed in the 1960s and 1970s,
our Sydney Opera House renewal works have planned for the
management of asbestos in known and unknown locations, and there
is a comprehensive Asbestos Management Plan in place," a
spokesperson said.

"The existence of asbestos in original structures of the Opera
House was always planned for as part of these major works, and we
are taking every precaution and safeguard.

"Asbestos awareness training has also been provided to our
employees and subcontractors on the project since the start of
works.

"Suspect material was identified on site by electricians. The area
was isolated and the material was removed safely and in accordance
with the Asbestos Management Plan by licensed removalists. Workers
have undergone health checks and SafeWork NSW has been notified."

A spokesman for Downer declined to comment.

Electricians would stay away from where the asbestos was found
until a fresh risk assessment was done, the union said. They asked
Laing O'Rourke to "outline the controls they plan to put in place"
and train all electricians in how to deal with asbestos.

Mr. Page said the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(CFMEU) had become involved since the work ban was issued, and
there was the possibility further bans on the site could be made.

The $200 million renovation of the Opera House is the biggest
upgrade since it was opened in 1973. The NSW government funded the
renovation with money from the sale of the state's electricity
assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Sentenced for Illegal Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------
Fife Today reported that a businessman has been sentenced for
illegally dumping deadly asbestos near a Fife primary school.

Graeme Burt, who runs a garage renovation and building service
business, left the material at Aberhill industrial estate in
Methil -- close to Aberhill Primary School, a nursing home, and
surrounding residential properties.

The fly-tipping came to light when a routine patrol by an estate
employee found what appeared to be old asbestos sheeting at the
rear of an industrial unit.

CCTV footage showed Burt depositing sheets from the rear of a
white Ford transit van.

The waste -- which was dumped in June last year -- contained
asbestos types Crocidolite and Chrysotile and in the event that
the asbestos fibres became airborne, posed a risk to human health
by inhalation.

SEPA officers investigated the case and interviewed Burt about the
incident. They identified him as the man in the CCTV footage.

Burt, from Dunfermline, pled guilty to the contravention of
Section 33(1)(a)&(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on 4
July 2017 and was given a Community Payback Order of 250 hours.

Sara Shaw, Procurator Fiscal, Wildlife and Environment said: "Fly-
tipping can cause serious pollution of our environment and can be
harmful to human health and wildlife. It is unsightly and costly
to clear up.

"Graeme Burt showed a lack of consideration for the environment
and the potential health of others by his deliberate and criminal
action.

"There is no excuse for illegal dumping, especially of hazardous
wastes such as asbestos, and those who choose to engage in it will
be brought to account for their actions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Aurora Pump, et al. dropped
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware has issued a Report and Recommendation
granting seven pending motions for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Aurora Pump Company,
BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, FMC Corporation, Honeywell International
Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Warren Pumps, LLC, because Plaintiffs have
failed to show that a material issue of fact exists.

Harold and Judy Haynes filed this asbestos related personal injury
action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants
on June 3, 2016, asserting claims arising from Mr. Haynes' alleged
harmful exposure to asbestos.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Haynes developed lung cancer as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products during the
course of his service as a boiler tender with the U.S. Navy from
1959 to 1963. In addition, Mr. Haynes alleges he was exposed to
asbestos from 1963 to 2015 as a result of his employment as a
fireman, mechanic, laborer, and janitor.

The Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Haynes was injured due to exposure
to asbestos-containing products that Defendants manufactured,
sold, distributed, licensed, or installed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
assert negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, and loss of
consortium claims.

Mr. Haynes was deposed on December 6 and 7, 2016, but the
Plaintiffs did not produce any other fact or product
identification witnesses for deposition. Mr. Haynes testified that
he enlisted in the Navy in September 1959. After boot camp, he
went to a training school for boilermen. His training consisted of
instruction on tending and operating boilers on ships. After his
training, Mr. Haynes was stationed on the USS Halsey Powell from
1960 to 1963 and on the USS Dennis J. Buckley for six months in
1963. Mr. Haynes believes that he was exposed to asbestos while
operating and maintaining boilers.

After leaving the Navy, Mr. Haynes believes he was exposed to
asbestos-containing products through his employment as an engine
fireman for the Union Pacific Railroad from 1963 to 1964; an auto
mechanic for Modern Motors Volkswagen Dealership from 1964 to
1966; a laborer for Steelman Duff Railroad Construction Company in
1967; an auto mechanic for Pete Loverly Volkswagen Dealership in
1968; an auto mechanic for Humphrey Volkswagen Dealership from
1972 to 1973; a mechanic for Pacific Alaska Airline from 1973 to
1979; an auto mechanic for Mid Oregon Motors Volkswagen Dealership
from 1979 to 1980; a mechanic for Butler Aircraft from 1982 to
2003; and a janitor for Redmond High School District from 2004 to
2015. Mr. Haynes also believes he was exposed to asbestos-
containing products while performing automotive repair work for
his friends and family from 1981 to 2014.

On July 15, 2016 Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to the
District Court, and on March 24, 2017, Defendants Aurora Pump,
Warren Pumps, Pfizer, FMC Corporation, Honeywell International,
BorgWarner, and Air & Liquid filed motions for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs did not respond to these motions. Consequently, on
May 2, 2017, counsel for Warren Pumps sent a letter to the court
seeking dismissal due to Plaintiffs' lack of opposition to its
summary judgment motion, and on May 30, 2017, counsel for Aurora
Pump filed a similar letter.

Although Mr. Haynes testified that he worked on pumps manufactured
by Buffalo Pumps from 1960 to 1963 while aboard the USS Powell and
USS Buckley, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of
material fact in dispute as to whether Mr. Haynes was exposed to
an asbestos-containing product made by Buffalo Pumps because: (a)
he could not recall how many times he worked on pumps manufactured
by Buffalo Pumps during his six months aboard the USS Buckley in
1963; (b) he did not have knowledge of when the pumps were
installed on either the US S Powell or the USS Buckley; (c) he did
not know the maintenance history of any of the pumps manufactured
by Buffalo Pumps on either ship; and (d) he did not know whether
the packing or gasket material used on the pumps, on either ship,
contained asbestos.

Mr. Haynes initially identified "Warner" as a manufacturer of
pumps that he worked on while aboard the USS Powell from 1960 to
1963. Later, Mr. Haynes stated that he actually worked on "Warren"
pumps and that the type of pump that he worked on was a feed pump.
On at least one occasion, Mr. Haynes recalled replacing the
packing on the feed pump and estimated that he worked on the pumps
ten to twenty times. However, the Court mentions that Mr. Haynes
stated that he was unaware of the maintenance history of the pumps
located on the USS Powell, as well as the packing used in pumps
aboard the USS Powell contained asbestos.

Mr. Haynes identified BorgWarner as the manufacturer of clutches
used at various Volkswagen dealerships where he was employed from
1964 to 1973 and testified that he removed Volkswagen clutch
disks. However, the Court finds that Mr. Haynes could not remember
removing, installing, or working on a BorgWarner clutch. The Court
notes that Mr. Haynes did not assert that the clutches or clutch
discs manufactured by BorgWarner contained any asbestos.

Mr. Haynes identified Bendix as a manufacturer of automotive
brakes that he installed as a mechanic and car owner after he
moved to Redmond, Oregon in 1981. Mr. Haynes testified that he
could not recall the last time he worked on a Bendix brake and
estimated that he installed Bendix brakes ten to fifteen times.
But Mr. Haynes testified that he did not know whether the Bendix
brakes he used contained asbestos and did not recall seeing
warnings on the Bendix brake boxes.

The Court notes that Mr. Haynes did not identify any products
manufactured by Aurora Pump, FMC Corporation, and Pfizer.

The case is HAROLD HAYNES and JUDY HAYNES, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 16-607-SLR-SRF (D.
Del.).

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated July 21,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/R0kDbn from Leagle.com.

Harold Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC.

Harold Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Collins Smith,
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates
P.A. & Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A..

Judy Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC, Michael Collins Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew
Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A. & Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Joelle
Florax, Rawle & Henderson LLP & Stephanie Michelle Smith, Rawle &
Henderson LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams & Timothy S. Martin,
White & Williams.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Ana Marina McCann,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Armand
Porta, Kelley, Jasons, McGuire & Spinelli, Jennifer D. Donnelly,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bedrossian Opinions Inadmissible in 2 Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District
South Carolina has issued an Order excluding the testimony of
Carlos Bedrossian, MD, as evidence of specific causation in the
cases entitled JOHN E. HASKINS, and MARY L. HASKINS, Plaintiffs,
v. 3M Company, et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-02086-DCN (D.S.C.),
and JAMES WILLSON CHESHER and CHERYL ANN CHESHER, Plaintiffs, v.
3M Company, et al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-02123-DCN (D.S.C.).

Although the two motions arise in separate actions, the Court
decides on both motions together as they present very similar
issues. Judge Norton also denies the Defendants' motions as to all
other experts identified in their respective motions, as
Plaintiffs have conceded that those experts will not offer an
opinion on specific causation.

From 1953 to 1956, John E. Haskins served in the U.S. Navy as a
fireman aboard the USS Coney and was later diagnosed with a form
of cancer known as mesothelioma in November of 2014. On April 17,
2015, Haskins and his wife, Mary L. Haskins filed an action in the
Court of Common Pleas in Charleston County, bringing claims
against Air and Liquid Systems Corporation and other suppliers of
the asbestos-containing products alleging that Haskins'
mesothelioma was caused by his cumulative exposure to asbestos
during his Naval career on board the USS Coney, including his work
with and around asbestos-containing products manufactured or
distributed by Air and Liquid Systems. The action was later
removed to the District Court.

From 1968 to 1989, James Willson Chesher served as a machinist
mate and a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy. For a
significant portion of his career, Chesher conducted or oversaw
maintenance and repair work on various types of asbestos-
containing equipment, including valves and de-aerating feed tanks.
On April 15, 2015, the Chesher and his wife, Cheryl Ann Chesher
filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston County,
bringing claims against Crane Co. and other suppliers of the
asbestos-containing products alleging that Chesher developed
mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to this equipment
throughout his Naval career

Both sets of Plaintiffs offer the opinions of Carlos Bedrossian,
MD, to provide evidence of specific causation. Bedrossian's
opinions in each case are essentially identical, outlining certain
activities from Haskins' and Chesher's respective work histories
which exposed them to asbestos fibers. Bedrossian explains that
"all [asbestos] fiber types . . . cause lung cancer and
[mesothelioma], and as such should be treated with the same level
of concern due to their well-established carcinogenicity."
Bedrossian then asserts that "most cases of [mesothelioma] occur
in occupational groups subjected to `downstream exposure' in
trades that include working in . . . the shipbuilding industries,"
and discusses the increased asebestos exposure associated with
work aboard U.S. Navy ships.

In Haskins's case, Bedrossian concludes that the "total and
cumulative exposure to asbestos, from any and all products,
containing any and all fiber types, was a significant contributing
factor to [Haskin's] risk of premature death from complications of
his asbestos related cancer." In Chesher's case, Bedrossian
concludes that "each of the defendants' products which contained
asbestos added to the total cumulative dose of Chesher's asbestos
exposure, and therefore, constituted the contributing factor to
the development of his [mesothelioma], and his risk of premature
death from complications from this lethal form of occupational
malignancy."

On March 4, 2016, Crane filed a motion in limine to preclude
Bedrossian from offering specific-causation testimony in the
Chesher case. In the Haskins case, Air and Liquid Systems filed a
motion to exclude Bedrossian's specific causation opinions on
November 4, 2016. The  Court held an evidentiary hearing on
February 28, 2017, where it took testimony from Bedrossian.

The Defendants first argue that Bedrossian should not be permitted
to offer any specific causation testimony because Bedrossian's
reports fail to address Haskins and Chesher's exposure to any
specific products as he never specifically discusses the
Plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos from the Defendants' products in
his expert reports, much less explained how such exposure caused
the Plaintiffs' mesothelioma.

The Defendants rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2),
which governs the disclosure of expert witness testimony. Pursuant
to Rule 26(a)(2)(b), parties must provide a report for each expert
witness that contains "a complete statement of all opinions the
witness will express and the basis and reasons for them."

The Court finds that Bedrossian's failure to specifically address
each Defendant in outlining his causation opinions was harmless.
The Court mentions that it is questionable whether Bedrossian even
needed to include a defendant-specific analysis in his report in
order to provide a "complete statement" of his opinions, as
required by Rule 26(a)(2)(b), as the Defendants recognize
Bedrossian's basic theory of causation requires very little
information about specific exposures. The Court concludes that it
is clear that the Defendants understand the nature of Bedrossian's
opinions and how the Plaintiffs intend to present them at trial --
namely, by having Bedrossian explain the causal principles
outlined in his report and answer hypothetical questions based on
Haskins and Chesher's experiences with defendants' specific
products.

The Defendants next argue that Bedrossian's specific causation
opinions should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial, confusing,
and misleading under Rule 403, and unhelpful and unreliable under
Rule 702. The Defendants' arguments are premised on their
assertion that Bedrossian's opinions rely on what is known as the
"every exposure" theory of causation, which theory posits "that
each and every exposure to asbestos by a human being who is later
afflicted with mesothelioma, contributed to the formation of the
disease."

The Plaintiffs dispute this characterization of Bedrossian's
opinions, arguing that Bedrossian will simply opine that "low dose
exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma."

While the "every exposure" label carries no legal significance in
and of itself, the Court opines that it is obviously necessary to
examine the precise nature of Bedrossian's opinions in order to
determine their admissibility.

Bedrossian explains that mesothelioma is closely tied to asbestos
exposure, and that there is a dose-response relationship between
an individual's cumulative lifetime exposure to asbestos and the
risk of developing the disease, meaning that a person's risk of
developing mesothelioma increases as the cumulative dose
increases. Thus, Bedrossian asserts that an individual's "total
cumulative dose" is the "best indicator" of an individual's risk
of developing mesothelioma, and views the "total cumulative dose"
as the "cause" of Haskins and Chesher's injuries. Bedrossian
further explains that mesothelioma may result from very small
exposures, citing a number of authorities that have concluded that
"there is no safe level of asbestos exposure."

In Bedrossian's view, whenever the total cumulative dose results
in mesothelioma, every "occupational" exposure should be
considered causative, no matter how small -- it appears that
Bedrossian assumes that, because every "occupational" exposure
contains exponentially more fibers than any background exposure,
every "occupational" exposure significantly contributes to the
total cumulative dose.

The Court comments that the trouble with Bedrossian's opinions is
his application of these principles to conclude that, because
Haskins and Chesher's exposures to the defendants' asbestos-
containing products were -- by definition -- part of their
respective "cumulative doses," such exposures significantly
contributed to their development of mesothelioma.

The Plaintiffs argue that Bedrossian does not claim that every
exposure contributes to the cumulative dose -- or, at least, he
does not opine that every exposure contributes to the cumulative
dose in a way that can be considered causative. Instead,
plaintiffs claim that Bedrossian only considers exposures to be
causative if they reach "non-trivial," "above background," or
"occupational" levels.

The Court notes, however, that Bedrossian never defines what level
of exposure he considers significant and openly admits that he did
not even need to know Haskins or Chesher's actual level of
exposure to defendants' products in order to render his opinions.

The Court finds that Bedrossian has failed to offer a viable
explanation for why the Plaintiffs' exposures to the Defendants'
products can be considered substantial causes, while lower-level
exposures cannot and it is very difficult to determine what
criteria Bedrossian uses to determine when a particular exposure
is causative. If the total cumulative exposure causes
mesothelioma, the Court fails to see how a single exposure or set
of exposures could be considered a "substantial cause" of the
disease unless that exposure or set of exposures had a substantial
impact on the total cumulative exposure.

The Court explains that Bedrossian's opinions cannot be used to
support a finding of substantial causation because his opinions
are premised on his conclusion -- scientifically sound as it may
be -- that Haskins and Chesher's exposures to asbestos from the
Defendants' products could have independently caused their
mesothelioma. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the probative
value of Bedrossian's testimony is outweighed by its tendency to
confuse and mislead the jury, and it must be excluded under Rule
403.

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 21, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/XLPvOE from Leagle.com.

John E Haskins, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan D. Finch, Motley
Rice.

John E Haskins, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. McConnell,
Motley Rice, pro hac vice & William Christopher Swett, Motley
Rice.

Mary L Haskins, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan D. Finch, Motley
Rice, Robert J. McConnell, Motley Rice, pro hac vice & William
Christopher Swett, Motley Rice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by David
Gaillard Traylor, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough,
Edward Joseph White, Wilbraham Lawler and Buba, pro hac vice,
James B. Glenn, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & G. Mark
Phillips, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

Fmc Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt Grier McDonald,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd & Paul Edwin Dwyer, Locke Lord, pro hac
vice.

Fmc Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Northern Pump Company, a Delaware Corporation Successor in
Interest Northern Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

Fmc Corporation, Defendant, represented by William David Conner,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

McNally Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Moffatt Grier
McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, Paul Edwin Dwyer, Locke Lord,
pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd & William
David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur Timothy Jones,
Hawkins and Parnell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Writ of Habeas Corpus Inappropriate in "Stile"
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Section 2241 is the only statute that confers habeas jurisdiction
to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not
the validity but the execution of his sentence."

Judge E Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey has issued an Opinion dismissing James Stile's Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for lack
of jurisdiction.

The Petitioner is a prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, in Fort
Dix, New Jersey, submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
seeking early release from prison. However, the Petitioner's
claims involve the conditions of his confinement at FCI Fort Dix,
including but not limited to exposure to asbestos black mold, and
contaminated water, which are dangerous to his health, as well as
mass punishment practices which create a dangerous living
environment. As such, the Court notes that a finding in
Petitioner's favor on these claims would not alter his sentence or
undo his conviction.

The Court mentions that "when the challenge is to a condition of
confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not
alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under Section
1983 [or Bivens] is appropriate." Furthermore, the Court notes
that the Petitioner has filed a Bivens action in the Court,
raising these same claims.

The case is James Stile, Petitioner, v. Warden David Ortiz, et
al., Respondents, Civ. Action No. 17-2430 (RMB) (D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 19, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/3jyCDk from Leagle.com.

JAMES STILE, Petitioner, Pro Se.

WARDEN DAVID ORTIZ, Respondent, represented by CAROLINE A.
SADLOWSKI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent, represented
by CAROLINE A. SADLOWSKI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, represented by CAROLINE A.
SADLOWSKI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WARDEN JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Respondent, represented by CAROLINE
A. SADLOWSKI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D. Marano Banned from Testifying in "Arbogast"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar for the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland denies Plaintiffs' "Daubert" Motion to Exclude the
Testimony and Opinions of Donald E. Marano in the case is BARBARA
ARBOGAST et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC et al.,
Defendants, No. JKB-14-4049, (D. Md.) since Mr. Marano has
repeatedly disclaimed any expertise on causation.

Mr. Marano is a certified industrial hygienist who is offered by
the Defendant Georgia-Pacific as an expert who will testify as to
his qualitative assessment of the various exposures to asbestos
described by the decedent, Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr. The
Plaintiffs indicate that Mr. Marano will be offered as an expert
concerning both risk and causation of Mr. Arbogast's mesothelioma.

Additionally, Mr. Marano will offer his quantitative assessment of
Mr. Arbogast's alleged exposure to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific
products. He will also testify as to the level of risk of
contracting mesothelioma associated with his quantitative
assessment of Mr. Arbogast's exposure.

However, Georgia-Pacific counters by saying Mr. Marano repeatedly
disclaimed any expertise on causation and has confined his opinion
"to explaining the risk assessments performed by various agencies
and organizations and offering his risk assessment opinion based
on the analysis that his profession is trained to provide".

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated July 17, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/JtnbO0 from Leagle.com.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick,
Motley Rice LLC & John E. Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast as Personal Representative for the Estate of
Charles L. Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L.
Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris, Jr.,
Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter,
Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac
vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Sue CTF for Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has issued an Order in
the case styled JOHNNY ANDREW MOORE, Plaintiff, v. S. HATTON, et
al., Defendants, No. 17-cv-03696-JSC (N.D. Cal.), granting the
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and
directing that the complaint be served upon Defendants.

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights
complaint against officials at the California Training Facility
and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
alleging that the Defendants has endangered his safety by
knowingly exposing him hazardous materials, including airborne
asbestos, during the construction of a new building at CTF.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's allegations, when liberally
construed, state cognizable claims for the violation of his rights
under the Eighth Amendment and under state law.

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 17, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/t4G6QU from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BW/IP Dismissed as Defendant in "McSwain"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina issued an order granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
(incorrectly named in the Complaint as: "BW/IP, Inc. A Subsidiary
of Flowserve Corporation" and "Flowserve Corporation, Individually
and as Successor to Byron Jackson Pump Company") without
prejudice, in the case captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually and
as Executrix of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, Plaintiff, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case
No. 1:15-cv-00130-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 17, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/IKkaNo from Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Charles W. Branham, III, Dean Omar Branham,
pro hac vice, Jessica Michelle Dean, Dean Omar Braham, pro hac
vice, Lisa W. Shirley, Dean, Omar, Branham, LLP, pro hac vice,
Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, W. Marlowe
Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William M. Graham, Wallace &
Graham.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates,
LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates & Marla Tun
Reschly, K&L Gates LLP.

Crane Co. -- Cochrane and Chapman Valve Co., Defendant,
represented by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice,
Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates LLP & Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Crane Co. -- Chempump, Defendant, represented by Gregory R.
Youman, K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates
LLP & Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Philip C. Reid, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., pro hac vice & Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David
Speziali, Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins, pro hac vice, Ivan A.
Gustafson, Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin,
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy E. Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dismissed as Defendant in "McSwain"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina issued an order granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant Crane Co. (individually and as successor-in-
interest to Cochrane, Chapman Valve Co., and Chempump) without
prejudice, in the case captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually and
as Executrix of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, Plaintiff, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case
No. 1:15-cv-00130-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 26, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/EJ8gv3 from Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Charles W. Branham, III, Dean Omar Branham,
pro hac vice, Jessica Michelle Dean, Dean Omar Braham, pro hac
vice, Lisa W. Shirley, Dean, Omar, Branham, LLP, pro hac vice,
Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, W. Marlowe
Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William M. Graham, Wallace &
Graham.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Philip C. Reid, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., pro hac vice & Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David
Speziali, Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins, pro hac vice, Ivan A.
Gustafson, Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin,
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy E. Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta, William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Dropped as Defendant in "McSwain"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina issued an order granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company without prejudice, in the
case captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-
00130-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 26, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/eXSGcw from Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Charles W. Branham, III, Dean Omar Branham,
pro hac vice, Jessica Michelle Dean, Dean Omar Braham, pro hac
vice, Lisa W. Shirley, Dean, Omar, Branham, LLP, pro hac vice,
Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, W. Marlowe
Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William M. Graham, Wallace &
Graham.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Philip C. Reid, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., pro hac vice & Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David
Speziali, Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins, pro hac vice, Ivan A.
Gustafson, Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin,
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy E. Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta, William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, vis Andrew Busta & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saberhagen Dismissed as Defendant in "Mikelsen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued an order granting Defendant
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Under Rule 12(c) or Alternatively for Summary Judgment Under Rule
56, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Saberhagen Holdings,
Inc. in the case is ALICE MIKELSEN, Surviving Spouse, and SUSAN
PAGE, as Personal Representative for ARTHUR MELVIN MIKELSEN,
Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00700-RSL (W.D. Wash.) given that
Saberhagen Holdings was dissolved more than three years before the
lawsuit was filed.

A full-text copy of the Order dated July 27, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/QzkoaG from Leagle.com.

Alice Mikelsen, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin M. Houser,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Alice Mikelsen, Plaintiff, represented by Lucas W.H. Garrett,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK
& BENDER.

Susan Page, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin M. Houser, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
& Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alice
Coles Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP &
Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Asbestos Corp., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks,
SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald C.
Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Brian
Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D. Hicks, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert Youtz,
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dana
C. Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring AAMC Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, has issued an Opinion reversing the Summary judgment on the
Sandovals' complaint and summary adjudication on their claims for
negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium, and their
request for punitive damages.

In August 2015, Rodolfo and San Juana Sandoval initiated the
action against several defendants, asserting claims for
negligence, strict liability, premises liability, breach of
warranty, and loss of consortium, accompanied with a request for
punitive damages. In early 2016, the complaint was amended to name
American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. ("AAMC") as a Doe
defendant.

The Sandovals' claims were predicated on allegations that San
Juana was exposed to asbestos by virtue of Rodolfo's encounter
with asbestos-containing products, including paint, tape, and pipe
insulation, in his place of employment with AAMC. From 1977 to
1989, Rodolfo worked in the paint department of a water heater
manufacturing facility owned by AAMC.  Rodolfo's wife San Juana
never visited his workplace or any other AAMC facility. In March
2014, San Juana was diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma.

In 2007, the California Secretary of State certified AAMC to be a
dissolved corporation.

In August 2016, AAMC sought summary judgment or adjudication on
the Sandovals' claims. AAMC requested summary judgment contending
that the Sandovals' claims failed because AAMC owed no duty of
care to San Juana for "take home" exposure to asbestos arising
from Rodolfo's employment in AAMC's facility. AAMC relied on facts
not disputed by the Sandovals that San Juana never went to
Rodolfo's workplace, never saw, purchased, or used an AAMC
product, and never encountered an AAMC product in use.

On September 19, 2016, the Trial Court granted summary judgment in
AAMC's favor on Appellants' claims, concluding that AAMC owed no
duty of care to San Juana as "a stay-at-home spouse," and that
there was insufficient evidence that she was exposed to asbestos
due to AAMC's employment of Rodolfo. The Trial Court further
concluded that the summary adjudication was proper on each of the
Sandovals' claims and their request for punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals mentions that California courts have long
held that the doctrine of strict products liability may be invoked
by so-called "bystanders" who are neither purchasers nor users of
a defective product.

The Court of Appeals finds that the Sandovals' complaint asserts
that AAMC marketed asbestos-containing products requiring
asbestos-containing components, that Rodolfo encountered asbestos
through workplace activities involving asbestos-containing
products designed to be used in association with AAMC's products,
that the component products so used were defective, and that San
Juana was exposed to asbestos as the result of Rodolfo's workplace
activities.

As such, the Court of Appeals concludes that the complaint
adequately alleges that AAMC was in the stream of commerce
regarding the asbestos-containing components, which were defective
when used as designed -- that is, incorporated into AAMC's product
-- because they exposed Rodolfo and San Juana to asbestos. The
Court of Appeals holds that the Sandovals stated a claim for
strict products liability founded on a bystander theory.

In seeking summary judgment, AAMC submitted among others, the
Sandovals' responses to three sets of interrogatories, together
with excerpts from their depositions, and asserted that the
Sandovals' responses to AAMC's discovery were "factually devoid,"
and further noted that when deposed, Rodolfo admitted he had no
knowledge whether he encountered asbestos while employed by AAMC.

AAMC further contended that the Sandovals' discovery responses and
deposition testimony showed that they could not establish
causation, for purposes of the claims asserted in the complaint,
arguing that the Sandovals lacked evidence that San Juana was
exposed to asbestos fibers as the result of Rodolfo's employment
by AAMC.

In support of their opposition to AAMC's request for summary
judgment, the Sandovals submitted verified responses to AAMC's
special interrogatories, which included the "all facts" response,
accompanied with the 1991 asbestos survey of AAMC's facilities
that found chrysotile asbestos in pipe insulation, notwithstanding
their contention that the unverified version of those responses
submitted by AAMC was inadmissible.

While Rodolfo's testimony established his lack of knowledge
regarding his exposure to asbestos while working for AAMC and
inability to identify product manufacturers other than Richeson,
the Court of Appeals, however, finds that Rodolfo's personal lack
of knowledge, by itself, does not show that the Sandovals could
not demonstrate that he was exposed to asbestos.

The Court of Appeals also finds that the Sandovals' "all facts"
interrogatory response contains similarly specific facts regarding
Rodolfo's asbestos exposure -- after describing the duration and
place of Rodolfo's employment, the response states: "Rodolfo's
work regularly required him to come into contact and disturb
asbestos-containing pipe insulation. . . He specifically recalled
regularly coming into contact with an insulated pipe elbow in
order to get into a small area containing an electrical panel he
would regularly need to access. . . Per AAMC's own asbestos survey
results, this pipe insulation contained chrysotile asbestos. . .
This asbestos-containing insulation was in place throughout
Rodolfo's employment with [AAMC]. . . The acts of coming into
contact and disturbing this pipe insulation tape released
asbestos-containing dust, which Rodolfo could see. This dust would
settle on his clothes, hair and person on a regular basis."

In the alternative, AAMC sought summary adjudication on each claim
in the complaint, as well as the request for punitive damages,
contending that the premises liability and negligence claims
failed under "Campbell", that the breach of warranty and strict
products liability claims failed because AAMC marketed no product
that exposed San Juana to asbestos, and that Rodolfo's loss of
consortium claim failed for want of a tenable underlying claim.
AAMC further maintained that no punitive damages could be awarded
because it was a dissolved corporation.

On appeal, the Sandovals opposed the summary judgment on the
complaint, as well as summary adjudication on their claims and
request for punitive damages, arguing that "Campbell" did not bar
their claims for negligence and strict products liability, which
they maintained were tenable and capable of supporting Rodolfo's
loss of consortium claim. The Court of Appeals agrees with the
Sandovals and concludes that summary judgment was erroneous with
respect to the Sandovals' claims for negligence, strict products
liability, and loss of consortium, as well as their request for
punitive damages. The Court of Appeals posits that to the extent
the rulings are based on Campbell, they cannot stand because the
Supreme Court has disapproved that decision in Kesner, after the
Sandovals noticed this appeal.

In Campbell, the plaintiff asserted a premises liability claim
against a car manufacturer, alleging that she contracted
mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos while laundering the
work clothes of her father and brother, who were employed by the
manufacturer to install asbestos insulation.

On the other hand, Kesner involved appeals in two cases in which
relatives of employees alleged that they contracted mesothelioma
through exposure to asbestos carried home from the employees'
places of work. In each case, the trial court determined that the
pertinent claims failed under Campbell. But the Supreme Court
reversed the judgments in the two cases, concluding that property
owners and employers generally have "a duty to prevent take-home
exposure that extends to members of a worker's household. . . ."
In so holding, the Supreme Court disapproved Campbell.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with AAMC's contention that the
Sandovals' conduct before the trial court precludes them from
challenging the court's rulings, contending that the Sandovals
waived reliance on Kesner, or are estopped from relying on it,
because they stipulated to the dismissal of their premises
liability claim. The Court of Appeals has determined that during
the hearing on AAMC's motion for summary judgment or adjudication,
the Sandovals' counsel expressly argued that Campbell encompassed
only their premises liability claim, and was inapplicable to their
negligence claim.

AAMC also contends that the Trial Court properly granted summary
adjudication on the Sandovals' request for punitive damages
because there is no triable issue whether AAMC is a dissolved
corporation. But the Court of Appeals rejects AAMC's contention,
because Subdivision (a)(1) of Corporations Code section 2011
authorizes the assertion of claims against a dissolved
corporation, to the extent the corporation or its former
shareholders retain certain specified assets.

Before the Trial Court, AAMC also suggested that an award of
punitive damages against it would "serve no public policy purpose"
because "there is no one to punish for any alleged misconduct, and
no future action that can be deterred." The Court of Appeals
disagrees to AAMC's argument because the purpose of punitive
damages is "to punish wrongdoing and deter future misconduct by
either the defendant or other potential wrongdoers."

Moreover, the Court of Appeals affirms the summary adjudication on
the unchallenged portions of the judgment, and remanded the matter
for further proceedings in accordance with the Opinion.

The appeals case is SAN JUANA SANDOVAL et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. AMERICAN APPLIANCE MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant
and Respondent, No. B278952, (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s ruling dated July 28, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/S0Ridx from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi and Josiah Parker, for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.

Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Mark S. Kannett, Ira D. Goldberg
and Alex P. Catalona for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Banned from Testifying in "Rockman"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett for the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland has issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Georgia-Pacific's Motion to Exclude Specific Causation Opinions of
Plaintiffs' Experts Drs. Jerrold Abraham, Arthur Frank and Dr.
Arnold Brody and Union Carbide's Daubert Motion to Preclude
Testimony Regarding Calidria Chrysotile or that "Each and Every"
Exposure to a Product Contributes to the Development of Peritoneal
Mesothelioma in the case of JEFFREY ROCKMAN & SONJA ROCKMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. RDB-16-1169 (D. Md.).

The Court excludes the "specific causation" opinions of the
Rockmans' experts Dr. Jerrold Abraham and Dr. Arthur Frank that
Mr. Rockman's alleged exposures in 1965, 1973, and 1976 to Union
Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos contained in Georgia-
Pacific's "Ready Mix" joint compound "caused" or were a
"substantial factor" in his developing peritoneal mesothelioma.
Additionally, the Court excludes any testimony by Drs. Abraham or
Frank or by Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Arnold Brody based on their
underlying theory that "each and every" exposure to asbestos
"cumulates" and should therefore be considered a cause of injury,
regardless of the type of mesothelioma, the exposure "dose," or
the type of asbestos.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Rockman was diagnosed with peritoneal
mesothelioma on October 28, 2014. Mr. Rockman has testified that
he never worked with asbestos or used any asbestos-containing
product. However, in this case he attributes his mesothelioma to
"bystander" asbestos exposure during three home repair projects in
1965, 1973, and 1976, where workmen allegedly used a Georgia-
Pacific, LLC "Ready Mix" joint compound that contained Calidria
chrysotile asbestos supplied by Union Carbide Corporation.
Accordingly, Mr. Rockman and his wife, Sonja Rockman, have now
brought this action against Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific.

Mr. Rockman has testified that he was exposed to an asbestos-
containing product only three times in his life: during a repair
to the bedroom ceiling of his Brooklyn, New York apartment in the
summer of 1965, repairs to the foyer and living room walls of his
Baltimore, Maryland apartment in June of 1973, and a repair to the
living room ceiling and dining room walls of his prior home on
Broadmoor Road in Baltimore, Maryland in early 1976. Mr. Rockman
did not perform those home repairs himself, but rather hired
"workmen" or "handymen."

Plaintiffs have submitted the expert testimony of Dr. Jerrold
Abraham, Dr. Arthur Frank, and Dr. Arnold Brody. Drs. Abraham and
Frank have both specifically concluded that Mr. Rockman's alleged
exposures to Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos contained
in Georgia-Pacific's Ready Mix joint compound caused him to
develop peritoneal mesothelioma, while Dr. Brody generally
supports the theory that "each and every" exposure to asbestos
"cumulates" and should therefore be considered a cause of injury,
regardless of the type of mesothelioma, the exposure "dose," or
the type of asbestos, a theory on which Drs. Abraham and Frank
also rely.

In support of their opinions that Mr. Rockman's peritoneal
mesothelioma was "caused" by his alleged 1965, 1973, and 1976
bystander asbestos exposures, Drs. Abraham and Frank have cited a
series of studies involving high-level occupational exposures to
asbestos. In reaching their conclusions, Drs. Abraham and Frank
have relied on the "Helsinki Criteria," for diagnosis and
attribution, 23 Scand. J. Work Env't Health 311 (1997), which the
Plaintiffs contend "do not require a quantitative estimate of a
patient's asbestos dose."

The Defendants Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide have now moved
under Rules 403 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993), to exclude the specific
causation testimony of Drs. Abraham and Frank with respect to
Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile asbestos and Georgia-Pacific's
Ready Mix joint compound, as well as any testimony based on the
"each and every exposure" causation theory. The Defendants have
additionally moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims
against them.

The Court rules that the specific causation opinions of Drs.
Abraham and Frank are not the "product of reliable principles and
methods," as required by Rule 702(c) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, nor do they satisfy the Daubert factors, including
"testability," "peer review," and "general acceptance" within the
"relevant scientific community."

On the contrary, the Court opines that both experts have
improperly drawn conclusions about this case, a case involving
peritoneal mesothelioma and low-level bystander exposure to
chrysotile asbestos, based on prior research studying pleural
mesothelioma and primarily high-level exposures to amphibole
asbestos.

The Court explains that chrysotile asbestos is classified in an
entirely separate mineralogical family from amphibole asbestos and
is widely considered less potent. Pleural mesothelioma is a cancer
of the lining of the lungs, while peritoneal mesothelioma affects
the stomach.

The Court finds that their opinions fail to satisfy Rule 702 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence or the factors for the admissibility
of expert testimony set forth by the United States Supreme Court
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93
(1993), and recently confirmed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co.,
855 F.3d 178, 195 (4th Cir. 2017).

The Court finds that there is simply insufficient data to support
their theory that any exposure to asbestos, no matter how brief,
and regardless of the type of asbestos, should be considered a
"substantial factor" in Mr. Rockman's developing peritoneal
mesothelioma some thirty-eight years after his last alleged
contact with any asbestos-containing product.

Moreover, the Court determines that neither Dr. Abraham nor Dr.
Frank has been able to quantify Mr. Rockman's alleged exposure to
chrysotile asbestos, although Dr. Abraham has explicitly indicated
that it is "unlikely" Mr. Rockman's exposure was even as high as
"one fiber-year."

The Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged during the July 6, 2017
hearing that the Plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment
without the causation testimony of their experts. Accordingly, the
Court also grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment as
to Rockmans' three remaining claims: alleging strict liability,
negligence, and loss of consortium.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated July 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/FjAYU2 from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Armand J. Volta, Jr.,
Law Office of Peter G Angelos PC.

Jeffrey Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Craig Hill, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos, David L. Palmer, Law Offices of Peter
G Angelos PC, Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law Offices of Peter
Angelos & Matthew Ira Blaustein, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos.

Sonja Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Armand J. Volta, Jr., Law
Office of Peter G Angelos PC, Bruce Craig Hill, Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos, David L. Palmer, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos
PC, Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law Offices of Peter Angelos &
Matthew Ira Blaustein, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, Pro se.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice,
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn
C. Schlie, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice &
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice,
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn
C. Schlie, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM Enjoined from Suing Manville Trust
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York enjoined General Motors LLC from
suing the Manville Trust in the Ohio Action according to the terms
of Manville's Confirmation Order and Plan either as a subrogee of
Bolen's rights or in its own right as a claim for contribution.

The Bankrtupcy Court rules that GM's rights against the Manville
Trust, if any, are limited to the terms of the 1995 Trust
Distribution Procedures and GM must follow the procedures outlined
in the Trust Distribution Procedures.

Johns-Manville, once the largest producer and supplier of
asbestos, filed for bankruptcy in 1982 along with many affiliated
and subsidiary entities. The filing was due to the overwhelming
threat of asbestos-injury related litigation and the refusal of
Manville's insurance carriers to payout on Manville's insurance
coverage. One of the largest concerns of the bankruptcy case was
how to treat the claims of future asbestos victims who had not yet
manifested symptoms of asbestos-related disease.

Instead of simply discharging their claims, the Johns-Manville
bankruptcy created two separate asbestos trusts that existed
solely to provide a recovery to asbestos claimants. Kane v. Johns-
Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 1988); In re Johns-
Manville Corp., 68 B.R. 618, 621 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986); In re
Johns-Manville Corp., 97 B.R. 174, 176-77 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989).

In an attempt to provide a recovery for all asbestos victims, and
not merely the first ones to show up, the Manville Confirmation
Order specifically finds that the permanent injunction provided in
the Plan and the Confirmation Order, is essential to the viability
of the business operations of the Debtors and to the successful
implementation of the Plan.

The Confirmation Order and Manville Plan create a channeling
injunction that channels and preserves all future asbestos claims
to the Manville Trust and PD Trust. The Confirmation Order enjoins
all "Persons" from taking any of the specifically enumerated
actions, "for the purpose of, directly or indirectly, collecting,
recovering or receiving payment of, on or with respect to any
Claim, Interest or Other Asbestos Obligation. . ." As defined in
the Manville Plan, the term "Person" includes "any individual,
corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, trust,
unincorporated organization or government or any agency or
political subdivision thereof."

In GM's Ohio Action, an employee of GM, Bobby Bolen ("Decedent"),
died while working for GM on May 20, 2008. The Decedent's widow,
Anna Bolen, filed a workers compensation claim with GM for the
Decedent's death, alleging he died of lung cancer and/or colon
cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working at
GM. The claim was allowed and GM has been making monthly payments
to Bolen since October 20, 2010. In total, GM alleges that Bolen
has received more than $170,000 in benefits from GM.

Unbeknownst to GM, during the probate of the Decedent's will,
Bolen reached settlement agreements with several asbestos trusts,
including the Manville Trust. Consequently, GM filed suit in the
Henry County Court of Common Pleas naming Bolen and a variety of
asbestos trusts as defendants, including the Manville Trust,
claiming that Bolen failed to notify GM of these settlements and
that Bolen was required to provide notice to GM under Ohio Code.
GM asserts that it is subrogated to the rights of Bolen under Ohio
Code, that it has an interest in and lien upon all awards,
settlements or damages received by Bolen under the worker's
compensation claim, and that the other defendants are jointly and
severally liable to GM for the full amount of its subrogation
interest due to defendants' and Bolen's failure to give notice to
GM of the settlements.

Subsequently, Bolen filed a motion to dismiss the Ohio Action,
while the Manville Trust sent a letter to GM's counsel asserting
that the Manville channeling injunction and the TDP barred the
Ohio Action as to the Manville Trust. After receiving
correspondence from counsel for the Manville Trust, GM agreed to
stay the Ohio Action so that it could file suits for declaratory
relief in the various bankruptcy courts overseeing the asbestos
trusts, including this Court. On May 12, 2017, the Manville Trust
filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding now pending
before this Court.

Accordingly, GM filed an adversary proceeding against the Manville
Personal Injury Settlement Trust, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Kirk
P. Watson, and Mark A. Peterson, in their capacities as trustees,
seeking a declaratory order that GM's State Court action against
the Manville Trust pending before the Henry County Court of Common
Pleas in Ohio, General Motors LLC v. Anna R. Bolen, et al., Case
No. 16CV0089, is not enjoined by the channeling injunction
contained in the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 plan of
reorganization and the Bankruptcy Court's accompanying orders and
corresponding Confirmation Order.

Consequently, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, arguing that the Bankruptcy Court should abstain from
issuing a declaratory judgment on prudential grounds. In the
alternative, the Defendants argue that the Manville Plan's
channeling injunction and the 1995 Trust Distribution Procedures
bar GM's Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

When the Manville Trust filed its motion to dismiss, the Ohio
Court had not yet ruled on Bolen's motion to dismiss. By the time
GM filed its response to the Manville Trust's motion to dismiss on
June 23, 2017, Bolen's motion had been denied by the Ohio Court.

The Court concludes that GM's subrogation claim, if any, would be
barred as against the Manville Trust in state court because in a
subrogation suit, GM would be stepping into the shoes of Bolen to
assert her claims against the alleged wrongdoer, here, one of the
original Manville Debtors. GM's so-called subrogation suit against
the Manville Trust would arise directly or indirectly from the
acts of one or more of the Manville Debtors prior to confirmation
of the Manville Plan -- this is an "Other Asbestos Obligation"
under subparagraph (b) that is subject to the channeling
injunction.

Per the Ohio Code and the Manville Confirmation Order and Plan,
the Court finds that GM does not have any subrogation rights to
assert against the Manville Trust. GM's reliance on the Ohio Code
presumes that GM has subrogation rights against the Manville
Trust.

While the Ohio Code proclaims that the "right of subrogation under
this chapter is automatic, regardless of whether a statutory
subrogee is joined as a party in an action by a claimant against a
third party," that does not mean the underlying subrogation rights
are automatically created.

The Court explains that the channeling injunction exists to
prohibit all litigation arising out of any alleged exposure to
asbestos. The Court states that were it not for the channeling
injunction and the Manville Trust, there would be no liability to
litigate -- the future asbestos claims would have been discharged
in the bankruptcy.

As such, the Court concludes that neither Bolen nor GM has the
right to sue the Manville Trust to determine the Manville Debtors'
liability to Bolen in tort for her husband's alleged asbestos
exposure.

The bankruptcy case is In re: JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION et al.,
Chapter 11, Debtor, Case No. 82-11656 (CGM)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

The adversary proceeding is GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Plaintiff, v.
MANVILLE PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST, EDWARD D. ROBERTSON,
JR., KIRK P. WATSON, and MARK A. PETERSON, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
TRUSTEES, Defendants, Adv. No. 17-01032 (CGM), (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision dated July 24, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/o5CCsM from Leagle.com.

Johns-Manville Corporation Et. Al., Debtor, represented by Elihu
Inselbuch, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered.

Trustees of The Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, U.S.
Trustee, represented by David T. Austern, Manville Personal Injury
Settlement Trust & Jared S. Garelick, Manville Personal Injury
Settlement Trust.

Michael J. Mandelbrot, Rhonda Levine and Beneficiaries of Johns
Manville Settement Trust, Counter-Claimant, represented by William
A. Hazeltine, Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLC & Michael Jonathan
Mandelbrot, Mandelbrot Law Firm.



                         *********


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  * * *