CAR_Public/170908.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, September 8, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 178



                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Sued in California over Disclosure of Medical Data
AIR TRANSAT: Rosenberg Kosakoski Commences Class Action
AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Eclipse Glasses
AMAZON: Shopper Wants 9th Cir. to Revive List-Price Class Action
AMD: Settles Class Action Over Llano APU for $29.5 Million

AMERICAN GUARD: "McGee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMYRIS INC: California Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
ANGLO AMERICAN: Miners Set to Receive Lung Disease Compensation
ANTONIO B. WON: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot

APELILA AND J: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BOIRON INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert in "Conrad"
BRASKEM: In Class Action Settlement Talks with Shareholders
CACAFE INC: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
CANADA: Appeal in Genocide Class Action Dismissed

CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players File Concussion Class Action
CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Freedom Home's Bid for $60K Atty Fees Denied
CENTURYLINK INC: Williams Sue over Fees for Phantom Services
CENTURYLINK: Overbilling Class Actions Continue to Pile Up
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeals Bankruptcy Court's Order in Class Suit

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Dodson" Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Case Underway
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 2nd Amended Petition Filed in West-Hopson Suit
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Griggs" Class Action Suit Ongoing
CHARIOT TRANSIT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action

CHILDREN'S HOMES: Dickens Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CONWAY, AR: Notifications Going Out to Police, Fire Workers
CORIZON HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
CUMULUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss NY Class Suit
CVS HEALTH: Hagens Berman Pulls Drug Suit

DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court OK's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Action Over Chloroprene Emissions
DR. REDDY'S: West Val Pharmacy Sues over Generic Divalproex ER
DUA MEDICAL: Faces "Alvillar" Suit over Wage & Hour Violations
ELECTROLUX: Class Action on Dishwashers Allowed to Continue

EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pedro"
EXECONE MANAGEMENT: "Welch" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
FCA US: "LaRoe" Suit Moved to Kansas Federal Court
FCA US: "Budris" Suit Moved to Connecticut Federal Court
FLINT, MI: Appeals Ct. Upholds City's Sewer Rates Ordinance

FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Torres Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
GALENA BIOPHARMA: GALE Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Shearman & Sterling Discusses 3rd Circuit Ruling
GOLF CLUB: Vega Sues for Payment of Tips and Gratuities
GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: White Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

GULF MOTEL: "Straub" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
HOME DEPOT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Check
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: $3 Mil. Settlement Awaits Court Approval
J.W. LOGISTICS: "Venable" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA

JAMES HARDIE: 5-Month Opt in Granted in Cladding Class Action
JUST BORN: Faces Slack Fill Class Action in California
LA LAKERS: Insurance Company Won't Have to Cover TCPA Settlement
LISA VILLWOK: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Valentine" Suit
MAGICJACK: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action Suit

MATHESON TRI-GAS: $370K Deal in "Van Kempen" Suit Has Final Nod
MDL 2705: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Parmesan Cheese Suit
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Suding" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Lacrosse Player Objects to Settlement

NEBRASKA: Court Names Guardian Ad Litem in Minor Inmate's Suit
NEW TELECOM: "Lin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
NEW ZEALAND: Edgecumbe GP Practice Joins Flooding Class Action
OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Marino" TCPA Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Alvarez Seeks Wages & OT Pay under Labor Code

ONTARIO: To Fight Class Action Over Jail Conditions
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: 9th Cir. Appeal Awaits Hearing Date
PACIFIC INVESTMENT: "Hampton" Class Action Claims Barred by SLUSA
PALM BEACH, FL: Asks Judge to Throw Out Class Suit Over Utilities
PAYMENT DATA: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending

PEABODY ENERGY: Class Action Plaintiffs May Pursue Insurer
PENNYMAC LOAN: Triminio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PEOPLES TRUST: Faces CA for Exposing Customers to Risk of Theft
PEPSICO: Faces Class Action Over Pop Tax on Bottled Water
PEPSICO INC: Faces "Williams" Suit over Sweetened Beverage Tax

PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
PETTA ENTERPRISES: "Graybill" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
QUAKER OATS: Baker & Hostetler Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
RADNER LAW: $101K in Atty's Fees Awarded in "Firneno" FCRA Suit
REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

S-L DISTRIBUTION: Must Face Snack Food Franchise Class Action
SCANA: Faces Class Action Over Jenkinsville Project
SCE&G: Faces Class Action Over V.C. Summer Project's Failure
SCENIC TOURS: 1,200+ Travellers Win Class Action Over Bus Travel
SEAGATE TECH: Bid to Strike Claims in HDD Suit Partly OK'd

SEVCON INC: Wilkinson Seeks to Enjoin Merger with BorgWarner
SLATER & GORDON: Class Action in Final Stages of Settlement
SOLOMON AND SOLOMON: Court Dismisses "Daniels" FDCPA Suit
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
SUBWAY: 7th Cir. Reverses Settlement in Footlong Sandwich Suit

SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ky. High Ct. Reverses Denial of Class Cert
TEN NETWORK: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over CBS Deal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Congdon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ditches Lyft Drivers' Spying Class Action

UNITED STATES: Oct. 6 Opt-in Deadline Set in Raisin Growers' Suit
UNITED STATES: Govt. Employees Await Data Breach Compensation
UNITED STATES: "Jenkins" Subclass II Settlement Has Final OK
VACASA: Faces Class Action Over Vacation Rental Fees
VERIZON NEW JERSEY: "Struzynski" Suit Moved to NJ Federal Court

VIGO COUNTY, IN: Jail Inmates' Suit Granted Class-Action Status
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Actions in Canada Over Alleged Cartel
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hammoud"
WELL LIFE: Oct. 31 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
WELLS FARGO: Arbitration Push Questioned in Class Action

WELLS FARGO: Faces "Smith" Suit over Automotive Insurance Scheme
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Mortgage Interest Rate-Lock Extension Fees
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Court Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
YAHOO INC: Must Face Nationwide Litigation, Judge Says
YIN WALL: Court Certifies Ginseng Growers Class in "Baumann"

ZB NA: Referral Bid Hearing in "Evans" Suit Continued to Oct. 2

* Class Actions Deter Corporate Misconduct, Draft Paper Says
* Trump Administration Fights Class Action Provision in BICE
* Trump Targets Class-Action Right in DOL Fiduciary Rule


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Argues It Was Sued for Ransom
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised About Asbestos Exposure at Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Costs Dunedin Hospital $5.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man to Sue Former Employer Over Exposure Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Loses Restitution Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mobile Police Has $20,000 Asbestos Problem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officer Denies Bid to Open Asbestos Proceeding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns at Canon City Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Floods Raise Risks of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Singla Gets $2,500 Fine for Asbestos Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DDT Judge Rejects Claim for Pension
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Provides Pleural Mesothelioma Risk Plateau
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-up Needed at Regeneration Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Has Mesothelioma Due to Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Issues Rallying Call for Justice

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Wins Coverage in Asbestos Insurance Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirm Asbestos Found at CFA Burn-off Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halt on Coal Mining Study Has Asbestos Results
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OHSU, Contractor Fined for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidation of Cantarano, Gladu Cases Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Pneumo Abex Dropped in "Bagwell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. 7 Cos. Dismissed in "Haynes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Claim vs. Texaco Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Given More Time for Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damages Claim vs. PACCAR Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damages Claim vs. Daimler Dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Goodyear Dismissed in "McSwain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Murphy Oil Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Products Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos P.I. Claims vs. LG Electronic Dismissed







                            *********

AETNA INC: Sued in California over Disclosure of Medical Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
S.A., on behalf of himself individually, and on behalf of all
those similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC.; AETNA
HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants,
Case No. BC674088 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 28, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, statutory damages, fines, costs, fees, punitive
damages, and attorney's fees, under California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, Privacy Breach Notice Statutes, and
Common Law Invasion of Privacy.

This action arises out of Aetna's utter failure to protect and
safeguard Plaintiff's confidential and protected personal,
sensitive, medical, healthcare identifying, and/or financial
information ("PHI") ultimately resulting in the unlawful
disclosure of such PHI to numerous unauthorized recipients and
substantial damages, emotional distress, and irreparable harm. For
purposes of this Complaint, although the acronym PHI is most
typically associated with health information, in this Complaint
and lawsuit the use of PHI is meant to be given its broadest
meaning and encompass not merely medical or healthcare
information, but all information of a person that may be
confidential, private, or otherwise protected.

The Plaintiff is a member of Aetna and maintains his health
insurance through Aetna. Aetna is a provider of health care
insurance and/or a health care service plan and provides health
insurance to Plaintiff. As a member of Aetna, Aetna was privy,
came into possession, and maintained Plaintiffs PHI, of which
Aetna has a legal duty to ensure the confidentiality and security.
Aetna failed to protect the confidentiality of Plaintiff's PHI and
unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's PHI for the world to see and
indeed others did see such PHI without Plaintiff's consent. In
fact, Aetna sent in the U.S. Mail a letter with Plaintiff's PHI
clearly visible to the world through the large clear plastic
window.

Aetna is an American managed health care company, which sells
traditional and consumer directed health care insurance plans and
related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical, dental,
behavioral health, long-term care, and disability plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Torin A. Dorros, Esq.
          DORROS LAW
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 997 2050
          Facsimile: (310) 496 1320
          E-mail: tdorros@dorroslaw.com


AIR TRANSAT: Rosenberg Kosakoski Commences Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosenberg Kosakoski LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that a national class
action has been commenced against AIR TRANSAT alleging that the
airline has engaged in a scheme to fraudulently misrepresent
commercial flight itineraries to both consumers and aviation
authorities with the objective of increasing ticket prices and
reducing operation costs with the use of sub-standard aircraft.
Recent reporting in the national media has revealed that Air
Transat internally refers to its scheme as the "Mexican Game".

The class action alleges that the Mexican Game works as follows:
Air Transat advertises commercial flights with itineraries that do
not include any stops between departure and destination, inducing
both (a) consumers to purchase tickets at inflated cost and (b)
aviation authorities to approve seemingly unremarkable flight
plans. Air Transat then instruct flight crews, first, to cause
these flights to make one or more undisclosed, but premeditated,
stops during the scheduled itinerary and, second, to refrain from
advising consumers and aviation authorities of these undisclosed
stops until the affected flights are airborne and consequently
incapable of interruption.  The Mexican Game allows Air Transat to
utilize sub-standard aircraft otherwise incapable of executing the
advertised itineraries.  The utilization of these inferior
aircraft, although considered dangerous by flight crews,
significantly reduces operational costs.

The class action was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court
by Jessica Spencer, a 33-year-old accountant from Victoria,
British Columbia whose dream destination wedding was ruined after
Ms. Spencer fell victim to Air Transat's utilization of the
Mexican Game.  Ms. Spencer brings this national class action on
her own behalf and on behalf of all passengers who were similarly
misled by Air Transat.

Graham Kosakoski -- graham@rklitigation.ca -- of Vancouver firm
Rosenberg Kosakoski LLP says as follows:

"If these allegations prove true, we should all be deeply troubled
that a Canadian airline would engage in such calculated deception
in order to defraud, and possibly endanger, its customers."

Rosenberg Kosakoski LLP -- http://www.rklitigation.ca-- is a
leading B.C. class actions firm.  It was the first law firm to
bring a class action to the B.C. Court of Appeal under the Class
Proceedings Act. [GN]


AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Eclipse Glasses
---------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that Amazon has been hit
with a proposed class action lawsuit by a couple who claims
defective eclipse glasses purchased through the online retailer
damaged their eyes.

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in South Carolina on
Aug. 29, Corey Payne and his fiancee, Kayla Harris, said they
purchased a three-pack of eclipse glasses on Amazon in early
August, assuming that the glasses would allow them to safely view
the United States' first coast-to-coast total solar eclipse in a
century on Aug. 21.

Later that day, Mr. Payne and Ms. Harris began to experience
headaches and eye watering.  In the following days, they developed
vision impairment, including blurriness and distorted vision,
their lawsuit said.

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
lawsuit.

The couple said they did not look into the sky without wearing the
glasses when they viewed the eclipse.

Starting on August 10, Amazon said it began to email customers to
issue a recall of potentially hazardous solar eclipse glasses it
was unable to verify as having been manufactured by reputable
companies.  Amazon did not disclose the scale of the recall or a
list of affected vendors.

Mr. Payne and Ms. Harris said they did not receive notice of the
recall.  They are seeking to represent other customers who never
received a warning from Amazon and suffered similar injuries from
the company's alleged negligence.

Experts cautioned the public to steer clear of unsafe counterfeits
flooding the United States in the runup to the event. While no
data exists for how many eclipse glasses were in circulation
overall, shady distributors of purportedly solar-safe shades
abound on the Internet, experts said. [GN]


AMAZON: Shopper Wants 9th Cir. to Revive List-Price Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger and Michael Macagnone, writing for Law360, report
that a California Amazon shopper urged the Ninth Circuit on Aug.
30 to revive his putative class action alleging the internet
retailer inflates its comparative discounts, saying a lower court
wrongly used Washington law to find Amazon.com's arbitration
provision valid instead of using California's more consumer-
friendly legal standard.

Trenton Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, an attorney for
plaintiff Allen Wiseley and the proposed class, told the appellate
court during oral arguments on Aug. 30 that a district court judge
had erred in finding no material difference between California and
Washington law in determining whether an arbitration provision
within the site's conditions of use was unconscionable.  Under the
law in the Golden State, Amazon's arbitration clause wouldn't be
enforced, he said.

In California, the elements that determine the fairness of legal
language mandating claims be sent to arbitration are measured on a
more flexible sliding scale test, he said.

Mr. Wiseley's proposed class action claims Amazon uses the highest
price a product was ever sold for as a comparative "list price" in
order to make a customer think its own prices offer a steeper
discount. The district court ordered the matter into arbitration,
citing agreements that include arbitration terms presented to
customers before they complete their purchase.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta asked what factors determine
whether California or Washington law applies.

"Washington law sets a very very high bar for unconscionability,"
Kashima said.

For example, under Washington law, to invalidate a contract for
unconscionability a plaintiff first has to show that the
arbitration provision is "incomprehensible," which isn't the
situation in Wiseley's case, the attorney said.  The plaintiff
additionally has to show that "undue pressure" was also imposed in
a way that prevented the contracting party from understanding the
terms, "also something we don't have here," Kashima said.

California has a well-established interest in protecting its
consumers from entering into unfair contracts, the attorney told
the court.

Judge Ikuta replied skeptically.

"Washington has a policy not to protect its consumers, is that
your suggestion?" she asked.

Although it might be important to Washington, California has some
of the strongest consumer protection laws, Kashima responded.

Amazon's conditions of use are presented to consumers in an
unclear manner, the attorney said. There's an admonishment that by
clicking on "Place Your Order," a customer agrees to Amazon's
terms, but that notice wasn't conspicuous and near the button to
complete the transaction, he said.

Amazon's attorney, James Grant -- jamesgrant@dwt.com -- of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, rejected the idea that under any legal
standard, Amazon's agreement and arbitration provision were
presented in a way that was unfair to consumers.

As for the difference in California and Washington law, that's
"irrelevant," he said.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher asked then if either could be
applied in deciding the case.

"The court should apply Washington law because Washington law
governs under the contract," Mr. Grant said.  "But here, it makes
no difference."

The judges also asked Amazon's attorney to respond to the
plaintiff's concerns that the contract terms were one-sided,
including a term that allowed Amazon the right to "amend its
arbitration clause at any time."

Mr. Grant said that wouldn't be applied to buyers retroactively.

"We've interpreted that to mean going forward," he said.

In written filings to the Ninth Circuit prior to the Aug. 30 oral
arguments, Mr. Wiseley rejected the Seattle-based online mega-
retailer's stance that regardless of the state, the arbitration
provision is supported by the Federal Arbitration Act, which
supersedes state laws.

"Amazon rewrites the FAA to argue that arbitration agreements are
super-contracts, which are always enforceable so long as they
exist . . . [and] suggests that there will be 'profound
consequences' if appellant's legal arguments are allowed to
stand," Mr. Wiseley said on Aug. 29.  "The FAA, however, allows
parties to assert state law contract defenses, such as
unconscionability.  The Ninth Circuit has also invalided similar
arbitration agreements without the sky falling."

He went on to argue that the instant case is "relatively unique,"
with claims of a confusing and disjointed arbitration agreement
within a conditions of use agreement, making it unlikely any
decision by the Ninth Circuit invalidating the arbitration clause
would be "broadly applied."

Mr. Wiseley launched his proposed class action in September 2014
in state court alongside Andrea Fagerstrom, both of whom made
several purchases with Amazon.  However, Ms. Fagerstrom is not a
party to the instant appeal. She instead submitted a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, and her
claims are still pending, according to Amazon.

After the state suit was kicked to the federal level in early
2015, Amazon moved to arbitrate the claims individually, pointing
to the conditions of use agreement.

U.S. Circuit Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and William A. Fletcher, and
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of
Indiana, by designation, sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Wiseley is represented in the appeal by Trenton R. Kashima of
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Amazon is represented by James C. Grant of Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP.

The case is Wiseley v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 15-56799 (9th
Cir.). [GN]


AMD: Settles Class Action Over Llano APU for $29.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Hill, writing for HotHardware, reports that Llano has once
again surfaced from the murky deaths to make headlines in the tech
world.  The last time HotHardware talked about AMD's Llano
Accelerated Processing Unit (APU), AMD investors filed a lawsuit
against the company regarding its hyping up the product's 2011
launch.

"[AMD] repeatedly highlighted the strong and significant interest
in, demand for, and unit shipments of its Llano APUs," said the
plaintiffs in the 2014 filing.  "Defendants falsely and
misleadingly represented that AMD's desktop business was in a
'strong position' and that it would continue to rebound in 2012,"
which was allegedly a violation of federal securities laws.

AMD Llano Die Shot
Well, here we are over three years later, and AMD is finally
willing to settle the lawsuit, which reached class action status.
AMD would pay out $29.5 million to settle with shareholders. Those
who wish to claim a portion of the settlement must have been an
AMD shareholder between April 4, 2011 and October 18, 2012.  The
company decided to cut its losses and settle instead of going
forward with a trial (which could have resulted in the company
paying out even more money).

At the center of the case were statements that AMD made with
regards to the viability of Llano's performance in the
marketplace, and how its success would add to the company's bottom
line.  According to the lawsuit, AMD claimed that it would have
"ample product available" at launch and that it was "well
positioned" to leverage the back-to-school season for maximum
sales. AMD also stated that high margins on the chip would leave
to higher 2H gross margins.

"Defendants' statements about Llano were false and misleading,"
the lawsuit alleges.  "The yield problems that plagued the Company
in 2010 had not been resolved, and by the time of the Llano launch
in June 2011, AMD was significantly supply-constrained such that
AMD was only able to ship whatever meager supply of Llano it was
able to generate to its top-tier OEM customers, leaving AMD's
important channel customers without any supply of Llano at all."

The lawsuit backs up its above assertions by the fact that AMD
admitted that it had supply issues with Llano when it issued Q3
revenue guidance, which resulted in a 14 percent decline in the
company's share price after the announcement.  AMD's troubles with
Llano continued into 2012, after this most OEM's were already own
to the next big thing -- AMD's Trinity APU. AMD eventually took a
$100 million write down on unsold Llano inventory.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has yet to approve the settlement,
but more details will be revealed October 9th.  As stipulated by
the nearly $30 million settlement, AMD would continue to deny
wrongdoing in the case. [GN]


AMERICAN GUARD: "McGee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARNISHA MCGEE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES
1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC674084 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Aug. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages, wages, penalties,
and all other available relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all
other persons who are or were employed by Defendant under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff also pursues individual wrongful retaliation and
constructive termination claims arising as a proximate result of
her complaints and protected activities regarding violations of
California payroll, breaks, and other wage laws by Defendants. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
security guard working at three different warehouses in Compton,
California. The case is a class action arising from Defendants'
systematic violations of the California Labor Code and the
Business & Professions Code pertaining to Defendants': (i) failure
to pay all wages due; (ii) failure to authorize and permit meal
and rest periods; (iii) failure to pay timely wages both during
employment and upon separation from employment; (iv) failure to
issue compliant itemized wage statements; (v) and unfair
competition.

AGS is a full security services company and can help with all of
your security needs including uniformed officers, mobile patrol, &
security consulting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan I. Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael W. Parks, Esq.
          Michael Kim, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd,, Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818 464 5061
          Facsimile: 818 464 5091

               - and -

          Shawna S. Nazari, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAWNA S. NAZARI, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 605 7776
          Facsimile: (818) 380 3016


AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LENI THOMOLLARI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLLECT,
INC and THE ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF WISCONSIN, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01178 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class, appointing Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


AMYRIS INC: California Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. continues to defend itself against securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In April 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and our CEO, John G. Melo, and CFO, Kathleen
Valiasek, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired
our common stock between March 2, 2017 and April 17, 2017. The
complaint alleges securities law violations based on statements
made by the Company in its earnings press release issued on March
2, 2017 and Form 12b-25 filed with the SEC on April 3, 2017.

Amyris, Inc. said "We believe the complaint lacks merit, and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

Amyris, Inc. is an industrial biotechnology company that is
applying its technology platform to engineer, manufacture and
sells high performance products into the Health and Nutrition,
Personal Care and Performance Materials markets. The company is
based on Emeryville, California and was founded in 2003 in Sasn
Francisco Bay Area by a group of scientists from the University of
California, Berkeley.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Miners Set to Receive Lung Disease Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crowley, writing for Bloomberg, reports that former workers
who contracted deadly lung diseases in South African gold mines
decades ago may soon finally receive compensation.

Six large mining companies including Anglo American Plc have set
aside about $390 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought
by victims. At the same time, a $290 million government-managed
fund says it's tripled annual payouts after tackling
administrative problems that have left more than 100,000 verified
claimants waiting for money.

"There's broad agreement on the terms of a settlement," said
Richard Spoor, the human-rights lawyer who brought the class-
action suit after first beginning the case against producers in
2006.

The parties are working on processes to distribute payments to
tens of thousands of claimants living across southern Africa, with
work likely to be concluded by the end of the year, he said in a
phone interview. Alan Fine, a spokesman for the companies, agreed
on details of the timeframe, although he said that an accord has
yet to be finalized.

With the world's biggest and deepest gold mines, South Africa
dominated production for more than a century until 2007, drawing
in workers from all over the region. Under whites-only rule, which
ended in 1994, safety standards and environmental regulation were
minimal, leaving hundreds of thousands of mainly black workers
exposed to harmful silica dust.

Many developed silicosis, a condition caused by pulmonary damage
that makes breathing progressively more difficult, and
tuberculosis, a bacterial infection that is now South Africa's
biggest killer and more easily infects those with weak lungs.

Bongani Nkala, 63, lost his gold mining job in 1996 after becoming
too sick to work. "The mine bosses told us we are the living
corpse," he said in an interview last year. "We are not useful for
the mines anymore. We are like the dead."

No Liability

While the six mining companies are preparing to settle, they do
not admit liability for ignoring safety standards or failing to
protect their employees. The five-member FTSE/JSE Africa Gold
Mining Index has gained 5.3 percent this year, compared with a 12
percent advance for South Africa's benchmark all-share gauge.

"The companies believe they have a legal basis for defending the
case," Fine said by email. "It is nonetheless the working group's
view that a fair and sustainable settlement is preferable to long
and protracted litigation."

Spoor brought the companies to the negotiating table in May 2016
when a Johannesburg judge certified the miners and families of
deceased workers as a class, paving the way for a class-action
suit.

"There's no way of undoing the harm that's been done on the mines
for over 100 years," Spoor said. "This is about trying to secure
some substantial relief for people today who are suffering from
this condition."

Spoor has a long history of fighting mining companies on behalf of
workers. He won a 490 million-rand settlement from Gencor Ltd. in
2003 after it was sued by South African workers from asbestos
mines it controlled.

In the lung-disease case, he received backing from Motley Rice
LLC, a U.S. law firm that spearheaded litigation against the
tobacco industry that resulted in a $246 billion settlement in
1998.

Government Fund

While the judge said the final number of claimants could be as
high as 500,000, figures provided by the Department of Health show
that only 33,045 had been certified as having silicosis as of
2014. Spoor estimates the final figure will be between 50,000 and
100,000.

In addition to the lawsuit settlement, victims are entitled to
money from a government-controlled fund that companies paid into
since 1912. The fund governed by the Occupational Diseases in
Mines and Works Act was originally set up to cover lung diseases
in white and mixed-race workers and was expanded in 1973 to cover
black and Indian workers.

However, the companies' levies were only enough to cover
compensation payments, not the administrative costs needed to
track down and diagnose claimants, according to Barry Kistnasamy,
the Department of Health's compensation commissioner.

Paper Files

"You take a scheme that covers white workers, mainly around
Johannesburg, and expand it to cover half a million workers from
all across South Africa and surrounding countries," he said in an
interview. "Now you have to track these people down, provide
diagnostic services, and there was no money to do that."

When Kistnasamy was brought in to fix the fund in 2012, he found
32 rooms filled with paper files, many of which were incomplete or
duplicated. He set out to secure the needed funds to digitize
records and set up programs around the country to trace and
certify claimants.

The fund has paid out 220 million rand ($17 million) to 6,700
people in the last 12 months, Kistnasamy said. That's up from the
2,000 claimants compensated in 2015-2016.

"It's been a long process," he said. "We're making progress and
people are now getting paid what they're owed." [GN]


ANTONIO B. WON: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VICENTE PALACIOS CRAWFORD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ANTONIO B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM; RICARDO
C. DUENAS, EDDIE BAZA CALVO, and ANTHONY ADA, all in their
official capacities only; and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00001 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances M. Tydingco-
Gatewood entered an order:

   1. denying Crawford's motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment;

   3. granting summary judgment to each individual Defendant with
      respect to Crawford's claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
      section 1983;

   4. dismissing Crawford's claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
      section 1983 with prejudice;

   5. dismissing without prejudice Crawford's remaining local law
      claims; and

   6. denying Crawford's motion to certify class as moot, because
      all claims have been dismissed.

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


APELILA AND J: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. APELILA AND J, LLC, a California
limited liability company; ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC674002 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay employees for
all hours worked at the minimum wage and/or applicable overtime
rates of pay; failed to provide legally compliant meal periods
and/or pay meal period premium wages; failed to provide legally
complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; failed
to provide accurate wage statements; and failed to timely pay
employee all earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawflrm.com
                  arosenJkranz@lelawfirm.com


BOIRON INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert in "Conrad"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and remanding for further proceedings
the case captioned CHAD CONRAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOIRON,
INC., and BOIRON USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-3656 (7th
Cir.).

Chad Conrad filed a class action against Boiron for deceptive
marketing, but he was left with only his individual claim after
the district court refused to certify his proposed class. About a
year later Boiron offered Conrad $5,025, more than he could hope
to win at trial. Conrad does not want to accept the money because
it will moot his claim; Boiron wants to force him to take it for
the same reason.

The district court refused to certify Conrad's proposed class and
found his individual claim moot.

Conrad's main arguments are straightforward: he attacks both the
court's refusal to certify the class and its rejection of his
individual claim based on Boiron's use of Rule 67 to try to moot
the case.

The Seventh Circuit held, "The evidence is out there for all to
see, and Conrad has given us no reason to think that there are any
smoking guns left to uncover. His own actions reinforce this
conclusion: he took no steps to pursue discovery between his 2013
motion for class certification and his last-ditch effort to avoid
dismissal in 2016."

"We conclude, therefore, that the district court was well within
its rights to refuse to certify Conrad's proposed class. In so
ruling, we stress that we place no significance on Boiron's later
effort to render Conrad's individual case moot by buying him off
with a Rule 67 deposit into the court's registry. The denial of
class certification stands on its own," the Seventh Circuit added.

"Before concluding, we should say a word about the district
court's conclusion that Conrad does not have standing to request
injunctive relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(ICFA).Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he has standing
for each type of relief sought," the Seventh Circuit further held.

The court reasoned that Conrad, as an individual, knows about
Boiron's refund program and that he is fully aware of the fact
that Oscillo is nothing but sugar water. No injunction could
therefore redress any potential injury for him, and that lack of
redressability defeats standing.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with that ruling. This is not a case
like Laurens v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-3829 (7th Cir.
Aug. 22, 2017), where class treatment was still a possibility and
the record did not unequivocally foreclose the possibility of
injunctive relief for the putative named plaintiff.

In the present case, there will be no class, given the Seventh
Circuit's affirmance of the district court's decision denying
certification. If Conrad has a claim at all, it is an individual
one for money only.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification, and it correctly rejected Conrad's individual claim
for injunctive relief. It erred, however, insofar as it concluded
that the passage of time meant that Conrad no longer had the legal
right to reject Boiron's offer of settlement.

The Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed in part and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 24, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/2xrZXe from Leagle.com.

Stewart M. Weltman, 39 S La Salle St Chicago, IL 60603,    for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christina Guerola Sarchio - csarchio@orrick.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

Joseph Siprut - jsiprut@siprut.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Max A. Stein - mstein@boodlaw.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kelsi Brown Corkran - kcorkran@orrick.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

Richard L. Miller, II - rmiller@siprut.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Elaine A. Ryan - eryan@mcguirewoods.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Benjamin Chagnon - bchagnon@orrick.com - for Defendant-Appellee.
Patricia N. Syverson - psyverson@bffb.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Gregory D. Beaman - gbeaman@orrick.com - for Defendant-Appellee.
Nada Djordjevic - ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Ke Liu - kliu@siprut.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.


BRASKEM: In Class Action Settlement Talks with Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Place, writing for BNAmericas, reports that Brazilian
petrochemical firm Braskem said on Aug. 29 it is negotiating a
settlement with a group of shareholders that filed a class action
against the company. [GN]


CACAFE INC: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LEONA MARINO on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CACAFE, INC., JANE
ZHENG, TED CHAO; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CLUB DEMONSTRATION
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-06291-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on October 24, 2017, for and order to:

   1. conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
      and discovery;

   2. sent judicial notice to all putative collective class
      members;

   3. approve the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
      judicial notice;

   4. direct Defendants to supplement the Class List with contact
      information for each putative collective class member
      within ten days; and

   5. authorize a 90-day notice period for putative class
      members to seek to opt-into the case.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=82kN5AgO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444 9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com


CANADA: Appeal in Genocide Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer's Daily reports that in the case Thompson v. Manitoba
(Minister of Justice), [2017] M.J. No. 209, motion by the
plaintiffs from an order staying their proposed class action in
favour of another proposed class proceeding, the action concerned
damages arising from the government policy in the 1960s to remove
Aboriginal children from their families and place them with non-
Aboriginal parents.  In 2015, the appellants commenced their
action against Manitoba and Canada seeking damages for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence and cultural genocide.  In 2016 another
action was commenced against the Attorney General of Canada as the
only named defendant seeking damages for similar losses.  At the
carriage motion, the motion judge concluded that the 2016 action
would best serve the interests of the putative class and the
policy objectives of the Class Proceedings Act.  He considered the
differences in the proposed class definitions between the two
actions, the causes of action and the defendants named in the two
claims.  The motion judge found that the prospects for
certification of the 2016 action were greater than the 2015 action
because of its narrower focus and because it was based on an
action which had already been certified in Ontario.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. Even though certification of the 2016
claim, with the existing class definition, would result in the
exclusion of individuals who fell within the class definition in
the appellants' action, they would not be deprived of access to
justice, but would be required to advance individual claims.  The
motion judge was cognizant of this issue and his weighing of this
factor was entitled to deference.  The motion judge was alive to
the differences between the two actions regarding the defendants.
The appellants had not demonstrated that the motion judge erred in
this regard and his decision was entitled to deference.  In
finding that the proposed representative plaintiffs in both
actions might be suitable representative plaintiffs in the
proceeding and that there was nothing to indicate that the
plaintiffs in the 2016 action would do anything other than fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the proposed class, the
motion judge was entitled to consider an affidavit from a lawyer
from the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the 2016 action,
in addition to the statement of claim.

Thompson v. Manitoba (Minister of Justice), [2017] M.J. No. 209,
Manitoba Court of Appeal, B.M. Hamilton, W.J. Burnett and J.
leMaistre JJ.A., July 21, 2017. Digest No. TLD-August282017009
[GN]


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players File Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist, writing for Hamilton Spectator, reports that it's not
often that a scientific article in a neuroscience journal plays a
central role in two lawsuits.

More than 200 former Canadian Football League players in a class-
action lawsuit, and former Tiger-Cat Arland Bruce in a separate
case, are suing the CFL, its nine teams and the CFL's former
commissioner, accusing the league of negligence in relation to
brain injuries.

What's unusual is that the class-action lawsuit also names 81-
year-old neurosurgeon Charles Tator and a Toronto neuroscience
research institute as defendants.

Both lawsuits include allegations that raise concerns about the
relationship between the CFL and the Canadian Sports Concussion
Project, which is led by Tator and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre
in Toronto. The allegations have not been proven in court.

The statement of claim in the Arland Bruce lawsuit goes a step
further and raises concerns about the relationship between the
Canadian Sports Concussion Project, the CFL and the CFL Alumni
Association.

Both lawsuits take aim at an article published in May 2013 in a
scientific journal called Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

The article was titled "Absence of chronic traumatic
encephalopathy in retired football players with multiple
concussions and neurological symptomatology."

The paper reports on the findings from the post-mortem
examinations of six donated brains from deceased CFL players.

Tator was one of nine co-authors listed on the highly-technical
scientific paper. Eight of the nine were associated with various
departments of the University of Toronto, including the Krembil
Neuroscience Centre.

Also named as one of the co-authors was Leo Ezerins, executive
director of the CFL Alumni Association and a former Tiger-Cat.

The Arland Bruce lawsuit alleges the CFL and the CFL Alumni
Association provided funding to the Canadian Sports Concussion
Project and researchers at the Krembil centre.

The lawsuit also alleges this put Ezerins in a conflict of
interest because he was the head of the CFL Alumni Association and
a member of the Canadian Sports Concussion Project at the same
time.

Ezerins, Tator and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre were originally
named as defendants in the Bruce lawsuit, but they were recently
released.

What's most curious about the scientific paper is its title.

Although it states clearly "Absence of" chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE) in former players, the paper reports that in
fact, evidence of CTE was found in three of the six brains.

The other three brains showed evidence of Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis - in other
words, all six brains showed evidence of neurodegenerative
disease.

The paper includes a frightening chart of symptoms for each player
compiled from medical records and interviews with family members.

All six of the players had short-term memory problems. All six had
some type of speech or language problems. All six had suffered
multiple concussions.

Five of the six showed signs of progressive dementia, four of the
six suffered from delusions, and three of the six experienced
hallucinations.

"I couldn't believe what I was reading," said Robyn Wishart, a
Vancouver-based lawyer who is representing the plaintiffs in both
lawsuits against the CFL.

"When is absence ever 50 per cent?

"I don't know how that ever got published," Wishart added.

Tator declined to comment on the lawsuit's allegations because the
matter is still before the court.  Tator also declined to comment
on the "Absence of CTE" scientific article cited in the lawsuit.

The Bruce lawsuit alleges the article's authors concluded that
there was no provable connection between concussion and sub-
concussive injuries and CTE in CFL players, which is "against the
weight of the medical evidence."

The authors "knew or ought to have known" the link between CTE and
concussive head trauma was "statistically more significant than
the link between smoking and lung cancer," according to
allegations in the Bruce lawsuit.

The suit also alleges Ezerins interfered with an independent
project involving cognitive testing of 25 former Ticats in 2011
and that he "ultimately stopped the researchers" at McMaster
University from interpreting the test results.

(That project has no connection to the current Spectator
concussion research.)

At the time, Ezerins told the Spectator, "We're really protecting
the sport and protecting the CFL. It's a very important issue and
we want to make sure it doesn't reflect poorly on the game of
football, that we have the proper perspective."

The lawsuit also alleges Ezerins stated the "stories of concussion
and its long-term effects do not represent the majority of former
football players."

Ezerins' conduct in interfering with the Tiger-Cat study was
"reprehensible," the lawsuit alleges.

The statements of claim for both lawsuits also allege that former
CFL commissioner Mark Cohon claimed in 2011 that "unreported
concussions were far less of a problem in the CFL."

A Harvard University study released in May raises questions about
how the league would know if that's true.

The Harvard analysis compared the health-related policies and
practices of North America's professional sports leagues,
including the CFL.

The 258-page report notes that the concussion rate in the CFL is
actually slightly higher than the NFL's rate.  In fact, the CFL's
rate of concussions per game was the highest of the leagues
studied.

In a further irony, the report notes that the CFL's concussion
rate had to be estimated from other sources because "research has
not revealed any injury-tracking system in use by the CFL."

The CFL did not accept an invitation to review the Harvard
analysis prior to its publication and did not provide any comments
to the researchers. [GN]


CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Freedom Home's Bid for $60K Atty Fees Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Freedom Home Care's Motion for an award of attorney's fees
in the case captioned GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN
PARKES, and REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves and classes of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARRIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC.,
ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and VACATION
OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 4069
(N.D. Ill.).

After the parties to this class action reached a settlement with
the assistance of a mediator, class counsel petitioned for an
award of attorneys' fees from the settlement fund.

Freedom Home Care has moved for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $59,410 to compensate its lawyers objector's counsel for
their work in opposing class counsel's fee request.

Plaintiffs and defendants both oppose Freedom Home Care's request.
They argue that Freedom Home Care's objection did not materially
benefit the class because the arguments in the objection were not
significantly different from those that defendants made and that
Freedom Home Care knew defendants would make -- in response to the
fee petition.

In addition to requesting a fee for its counsel, Freedom Home Care
argues that it is entitled to an incentive award in the amount of
$1,000 for agreeing to represent the interests of the class as an
objecting class member.

In setting a fee award for class counsel in this case, the Court
followed the approach of other courts within this circuit,
dividing the agreed settlement fund less notice and administrative
costs into bands and awarding a declining percentage of each band
to class counsel.

Freedom Home Care emphasizes that it was the only party to propose
applying a sliding scale to the whole fund, including attorneys'
fees but excluding administration and notice costs, which is the
approach the Court adopted. Defendants, by contrast, proposed that
the fee award should come from applying the sliding scale only to
the portion of the common fund designated for class members.
Though the Court did not discuss defendants' proposed approach in
its ruling, it rejected the proposal, which was inconsistent with
other case law in this district. Freedom Home Care contends that
it should get credit for being the only party that proposed the
fee structure the Court ultimately adopted.

But the Court says it would have arrived at that structure whether
or not Freedom Home Care proposed it, because plaintiffs would
have responded, as they did in their reply to defendants and
Freedom Home Care, by pointing out that defendants' proposal was
incorrect and explaining how the sliding scale approach should be
applied were the Court to adopt it.

In addition, as defendants point out, Freedom Home Care's proposed
approach would lead to greater attorneys' fees (and a smaller
award for the class) than defendants' approach, and thus Freedom
Home Care's proposal could not have benefited the class, even if
it were material.

Finally, though Freedom Home Care's brief did contain some
criticisms of plaintiffs' experts that were not included in
defendants' brief, those criticisms did not have any material
effect on the Court's ruling and were not cited in the Court's
opinion.

Because objector's counsel did not provide a material benefit to
the class, the Court also denies an incentive award for Freedom
Home Care. In addition, even if Freedom Home Care's objection had
benefitted the class, Freedom Home Care has not demonstrated how
its efforts in this litigation warrant an incentive payment.

Freedom Home Care argues that an incentive award is warranted
because it subjected itself to a risk of harassment by class
counsel, but it has failed to substantiate this allegation, the
Court held.

Accordingly, the Court denies Freedom Home Care's motion for
attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 24, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/XonQTJ
from Leagle.com.

Grant Birchmeier, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan I. Loevy,
Loevy & Loevy,  312 North May Street, Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60607
USA

Grant Birchmeier, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Rauscher -
scott@loevy.com - Loevy and Loevy, Alexander Glenn Tievsky -
atievsky@edelson.com - Edelson Pc, Arthur R. Loevy, Loevy & Loevy,
& Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy, 311 North Aberdeen3rd Floor,
Chicago, IL 60607

Stephen Parkes, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan I. Loevy, Loevy
& Loevy, Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy, Alexander Glenn
Tievsky, Edelson Pc, Arthur R. Loevy, Loevy & Loevy & Michael I.
Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy.

Regina Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Glenn Tievsky,
Edelson Pc & Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.

Gerardo Aranda, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy
and Loevy & Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Edelson Pc.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebecca F.
Bratter - Rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com - Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
Richard W. Epstein - Richard.epstein@gmlaw.com - Greenspoon
Marder, P.A., Jeffrey Backman - Jeffrey.backman.com - Greenspoon
Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudso - thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -  Tabet
DiVito Rothstein.

Berkley Group, Inc., The, Defendant, represented by Richard J.
Prendergast, Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd., 111 W Washington St #
1100, Chicago, IL 60602, USA,  Vincent J. Connelly -
vconnelly@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP, Brian Patrick O'Meara,
Forde Law Offices LLP, Kevin Michael Forde - kforde@fordellp.co --
Forde Law Offices LLP, Kevin R. Malloy, Forde Law Offices LLP, M.
Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C. 700 Blue Jay
Street, Suite 1P.O. Box 405Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948 & Michael
Thomas Layden, Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd..

Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey Backman, Greenspoon Marder, P.A..

T-Mobile US, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Debra Rae
Bernard - dbernard@perskinscoie.com - Perkins Coie LLP.


CENTURYLINK INC: Williams Sue over Fees for Phantom Services
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA M. WILLIAMS, an individual; GULF COAST ATTORNEYS LLC, an
Alabama limited liability company; and BRENT LEE LLC, an Alabama
limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTURYLINK, INC., a
Louisiana corporation; CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CENTURYLINK PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Florida Corporation; CENTURYLINK SALES SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; CENTURYTEL OF ALABAMA, LLC, a Louisiana
limited liability company; CENTURYTEL HOLDINGS ALABAMA, INC., an
Alabama corporation; GULF COAST SERVICES, LLC, an Alabama limited
liability company; and GULF TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC, an Alabama
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384
(S.D. Ala., Aug. 24, 2017), challenges CenturyLink's misleading
and deceptive conduct, adding false and unauthorized charges for
its customers' communications services, including telephone,
internet, and/or television accounts.  The complaint says
Defendants used illegal, deceptive, and unfair business practices
to induce or force customers to open, purchase, and/or maintain
services and products and/or billed them for services not
requested or provided.

CenturyLink is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francois M. Blaudeau
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.
          Christopher B. Hood
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 1st Ave N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380 0145
          E-mail: francois@southernmedlaw.com
                  lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  chood@hgdlawfirm.com


CENTURYLINK: Overbilling Class Actions Continue to Pile Up
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gately, writing for ChannelPartners, reports that class-
action lawsuits continue to mount against CenturyLink alleging
overbilling and overcharging for services, with the latest filed
in Alabama.

The latest suit was filed by Heninger Garrison Davis on behalf of
Alabama customers alleging that their plans were changed or they
were charged for extra services without their permission.
According to the firm, CenturyLink's goal was to "meet performance
and incentive programs and boost profits," but the customers paid
for those practices, resulting in "heavy overcharge fees when
customers tried to challenge the charges or terminate their
accounts."

CenturyLink is in the process of acquiring Level 3 Communications.
Michael Brandenburg, Frost & Sullivan digital transformation --
connected work industry analyst, said the allegations in the suits
seem to be being made against the consumer business unit of
CenturyLink, "so I would not expect the class-action suits to have
a material impact on the Level 3 acquisition."

"However, it may cast a bit of shadow on the merger, at least in
terms of customer perception and media coverage," he said.

Last month, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson filed a
lawsuit against CenturyLink alleging it billed higher amounts than
its sales agents quoted customers for internet and cable
television service.  Within her complaint, the state lists 35
individual consumers who allegedly were quoted prices but were
charged sometimes two or three times the original price.

Separate class-action suits have been filed against CenturyLink in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington.

Investor class-action suits have been filed by numerous law firms.

CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen said allegations in these
lawsuits are "completely inconsistent with our company policies,
culture and unifying principles, which include honesty and
integrity."

"It's worth noting that once an initial class action is filed, it
is common practice for law firms to seek other jurisdictions to
file similar lawsuits, so unfortunately we could see more of the
same," he said.  "However speculative or unfounded we think these
claims may be, we are treating them very seriously." [GN]


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeals Bankruptcy Court's Order in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company made an
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's order dated June 7, 2017, in
the case Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against
Chaparral Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma alleging that the company improperly
deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs
and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition
from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The
purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners
in oil and natural gas wells the company operate in Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.

Chaparral Energy said that "We have responded to the Naylor Farms
petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and
defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
October 2015." In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment asking the court to determine as a matter of law
that natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition
and location to enter an interstate pipeline. Responsive briefs to
both motions were filed in the fourth quarter of 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court, informing the court that
the company had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter
11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In response, on May 23,
2016, the court issued an order administratively closing the case,
subject to reopening depending on the disposition of the
bankruptcy proceedings.

On July 22, 2016, attorneys for the putative class filed a motion
in the Bankruptcy Court asking the court to lift the automatic
stay and allow the case to proceed in the Naylor Trial Court.

Chaparral Energy said that "We did not object to lifting the
automatic stay with regard to this case for the limited purpose of
allowing the Naylor Trial Court to rule on the pending motion for
class certification."

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the Plaintiffs originally sought to certify.

On January 30, 2017, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Naylor Trial Court, asking the court to
rule the class cannot be immediately certified because Plaintiffs
did not define dates for class membership.

According to the Company, "Plaintiffs responded the class should
include claims reaching back to December 1, 1999, to which we
responded the statute of limitations should limit the beginning of
the class period to June 1, 2006. The Naylor Trial Court denied
"our motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2017, issuing an
order certifying the class to include only claims relating back to
June 1, 2006."

"On May 1, 2017, we filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal
Class Certification Order with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
(the "Tenth Circuit"). Plaintiffs objected, but on June 6, 2017,
the Tenth Circuit granted permission to appeal the class
certification order."

The plaintiffs have indicated they seek damages in excess of
$5,000, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of
which damages would be comprised of interest. In addition to
filing claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and associated
parties, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of
the putative class claiming in excess of $150,000 in our Chapter
11 Cases. The Company objected to treatment of the claim on a
class basis, asserting the claim should be addressed on an
individual basis. The Bankruptcy Court heard testimony and
arguments regarding class-wide treatment of the claim on February
28, 2017. On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the
Company's objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on
behalf of the class.

Chaparral Energy said that "We appealed the Bankruptcy Court order
on June 7, 2017. This order did not establish liability or
otherwise address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, to which
we will also object."

Under the Reorganization Plan, the Plaintiffs are identified as a
separate class of creditors, Class 8.  Class 8 claims are entitled
to receive their pro rata share of new stock issued to the holders
of general unsecured claims (including claims of the Noteholders).
Although the members of Class 8 voted to reject the Plan, the
Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan on March 10, 2017, without
objection by the Plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail
on the merits of their claims, any liability arising under
judgment or settlement of the unsecured claims would be satisfied
through the issuance of new stock in the Company.

Chaparral Energy said, "We continue to dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations, dispute the case meets the requirements for class
certification, and are objecting to the claims both individually
and on a class-wide basis."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent Independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company. Founded in 1988
and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Dodson" Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case entitled
Amanda Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf
of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. had
been voluntarily dismissed.

On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson filed a complaint against Chaparral
Energy, Inc. in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma,
alleging that the company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class.
The alleged class includes non-governmental royalty interest
owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma.

Chaparral Energy said, "We have responded to the Dodson petition,
denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative
defenses. At the time we filed our Bankruptcy Petitions, a class
had not been certified and discovery had not yet commenced."

The plaintiffs in the Dodson case did not file proofs of claim
either for the putative class or the putative class
representative. The case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on July 19, 2017.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent Independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company. Founded in 1988
and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Case Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal related to
the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, LLC, remains pending.

On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against
Chaparral Energy, Inc., as well as several other operators in
Osage County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling
permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the
environmental studies allegedly required under the National
Environmental Protection (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims
seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas
leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a
prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties
owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against the
federal agencies named as defendants, and therefore against all
defendants, as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act.

On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's opinion and vacate the judgment, arguing the court
does have jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissal of the
federal defendants does not require dismissal of the oil company
defendants. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to file an amended
complaint to cure the deficiencies which the court found in the
dismissed complaint.

Several defendants have filed briefs objecting to plaintiffs'
motions.

Chaparral Energy said, "on May 20, 2016, the Company filed a
Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that we
had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code, and has not responded to the
plaintiffs' motions."

After a motion for reconsideration was denied, Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2016.

On December 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals entered an Order
Abating Appeal due to pending bankruptcy proceedings of multiple
defendants. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiffs responded to the Order
Abating Appeal, asking the Court to proceed with the appeal.

The Court lifted the stay as to Chaparral on April 13, 2017 and
the Company joined the answer filed by other non-federal
defendants which had been filed on March 24, 2017. The Court has
not ruled on the appeal.

Chaparral Energy said, "as the plaintiffs in the Donelson case did
not file proofs of claim either for the putative class or the
putative class representatives, we anticipate any monetary
liability related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute
plaintiffs' allegations and dispute that the case meets the
requirements for a class action."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent Independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company. Founded in 1988
and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 2nd Amended Petition Filed in West-Hopson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the
case entitled Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as
class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons
v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., have filed a second amended petition.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against
Chaparral Energy, Inc., as well as several other operators in the
District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging
claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated
persons having an insurable real property interest in eight
counties in central Oklahoma (the "Class Area"). The plaintiffs
allege the oil and gas operations conducted by Chaparral Energy,
Inc. and the other defendants have induced or triggered
earthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs are asking the court
to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and class
members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through a
future date defined as the time at which the court determines
there is no longer a risk that the Company's activities induce or
trigger earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other
relief. The plaintiffs did not ask for damages related to actual
property damage which may have occurred.

Chaparral Energy said that "We responded to the petition, denied
the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At
this time, a class has not been certified and discovery has not
yet commenced. On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On May 20, 2016, we
filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court
that we had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11
of the United States Bankruptcy Code."

On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25
Central Oklahoma counties.

The Company said, "Although we are named as a defendant, the
Amended Complaint expressly limits its claims against us to those
asserted in the original petition unless and until the automatic
stay is lifted. Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on
behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in our
Chapter 11 Cases. Other defendants have filed motions to dismiss
the action based on various theories, as well as motions to strike
various allegations and requested relief as unsupported by
Oklahoma law."

A hearing on the various motions to dismiss and motions to strike
was held on May 12, 2017. The judge made various rulings from the
bench, including dismissing the complaint for failure to
adequately allege causation, but permitting the plaintiffs to
amend the complaint to cure the deficiency.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Petition on July 18, 2017,
adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class
representatives. Three additional counties in Oklahoma, including
Tulsa, Osage and McClain, were added to the putative class area.
The Plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally
dangerous activities, and trespass. Due to Chaparral's bankruptcy,
Plaintiffs specifically limit alleged damages related to
Chaparral's disposal activities occurring after our emergence from
bankruptcy on March 21, 2017.

Chaparral Energy said that "We dispute the plaintiffs' claims,
dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action,
dispute the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law,
and are vigorously defending the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent Independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company. Founded in 1988
and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Griggs" Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a suit is pending
against the company in the District Court of Logan County, State
of Oklahoma, entitled Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of
themselves and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated v. New
Dominion, L.L.C. et al.

On July 21, 2017, an alleged class action was filed against
Chaparral Energy, Inc., as well as several other operators, in the
District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma. The named
plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and Oklahoma
citizens owning a home or business between March 30, 2014, and the
present in eight counties in central Oklahoma, including Logan,
Payne, Lincoln, Oklahoma, Canadian, Kingfisher, Garfield and Noble
Counties. The plaintiffs allege disposal of saltwater produced
during oil and gas operations conducted by us and the other
defendants have induced or triggered earthquakes in the Class
Area, and that each defendant has liability under theories of
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, nuisance, and trespass.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to award unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, along with pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

Chaparral Energy said, "the plaintiffs allege our activities
induced earthquakes occurring prior to the time we filed our
Bankruptcy petition. The plaintiffs did not file a proof of claim
related to these claims. We dispute the plaintiffs' claims,
dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action,
dispute the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under our
Reorganization Plan, and are vigorously defending the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Mid-Continent Independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company. Founded in 1988
and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHARIOT TRANSIT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a Lawsuit alleging Chariot Transit, Inc., who
allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt employees the correct
wages and allegedly failed to provide adequate meal and rest
breaks.

The Chariot Transit, Inc., class action, Case No. CGC-17-560929 is
currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court for
the State of California.

According to the class action lawsuit filed against Chariot
Transit, Inc., the company allegedly failed to reimburse and
indemnify their non-exempt employees for required business
expenses incurred by the employees in direct consequence of
discharging their duties on behalf of Chariot Transit, Inc. Under
California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to
indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and
scope of their employment.

The Complaint further alleges that the employees working for the
company in California were not always able to take their
thirty-minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of
work. California law requires employers to provide their non-
exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty-minute meal
periods before the employee works five hours.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Chariot Transit, Inc., please call Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  The firm has offices
located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Diego, and Chicago. [GN]


CHILDREN'S HOMES: Dickens Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANAROL DICKENS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S HOMES OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, CHILDRENS BAPTIST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a business
entity of unknown form; MINISTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC674078 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide legally
compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium
wages; failed to provide legally complaint rest breaks and/or pay
rest break premium wages; failed to provide accurate wage
statements; and failed to timely pay employee all earned and
unpaid wages due upon separation of employment.

Children's Homes of Southern California is a non- profit
organization that serves at-risk boys, ages 11-17.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavifgil@elawfirm.com
                  arosen.kranz@lelawfirm.com


CONWAY, AR: Notifications Going Out to Police, Fire Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Hicks, writing for The Cabin, reports notifications are now
going out to inform those who worked for the Conway police and
fire departments between Dec. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2012, of
details regarding the class-action suit against the city.

The suit stems from a 2012 lawsuit Conway Police Department K-9
Officer Richard Shumate and Conway Fire Department Damon Reed
filed in Faulkner County Circuit Court that accused the city of
breaching its contract for salary improvements.

A Faulkner County circuit judge granted the plaintiffs' class
action status in December 2015. However, the city appealed the
decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has since upheld Circuit Judge Troy B. Braswell
Jr.'s decision, which certified about 200 Conway police officers
and firefighters in the breach of contract lawsuit. In early July,
Braswell approved the Class Notice and Notice Plan devised by the
plaintiffs.

Those notices are being sent out now, informing class members of
the suit as well as how to dismiss themselves if they wish.

Marcus Bozeman, Esq. -- bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net -- of Thrash
Law Firm, P.A.,  an attorney who represents the city, said anyone
who meets the qualifications of a class member is automatically
included in the suit.

Notices are being mailed out to each member whose records were
made available by the city. Notices will also be printed in the
Log Cabin Democrat on Sept. 1 and Sept. 8.

The class, as previously certified in Faulkner County Circuit
Court, includes all Conway police and fire employees, excluding
department heads and elected officials, who were employed by the
city between Dec. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2012.

Once the notice is sent to class members, Bozeman said they have
until Dec. 1 to opt out, if they choose.

Russell A. Wood, who represents Shumate and Reed, said repayment
would be based off each member's payment records.

He also said money the city's employees did not receive had
accrued interest over the years that they are also entitled to.
This interest could double what the city would pay the class.

"It's our expectation that the delayed tactics of the city will
result in almost as much money in actual damages to the city's
firemen and policemen," Wood said.

After the opt-out deadline passes, Wood said the next step is to
seek summary judgments and begin dispositions.

The lawsuit stems from a Conway City Council-approved quarter-cent
sales tax that would be used "exclusively to the salaries if the
employees of the City of Conway," according to the ballot
resolution that was passed by Conway voters in August 2001.

Employees allege they did not receive money they were promised.
[GN]


CORIZON HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Cjonline.com reports that Tennessee-based Corizon Health made news
last September when it agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging it withheld hernia surgery from
Florida prison inmates who needed it.

Still, a Shawnee County review committee in July recommended the
county continue its nearly 15-year working relationship with
Corizon after it was among two companies -- the other being
Tennessee-based Correct Care Solutions -- that sought the contract
to provide medical and mental health services for the county's
adult and juvenile detention centers.

County corrections director Brian Cole said on Aug. 30 that while
he was unaware of what specifically happened in Florida, part of
the contract being considered requires following and maintaining
national standards of correctional medical and mental health care
as set forth by the National Commission on Correctional Health
Care.

"Since contracting health care services through Prison Health
Services/Corizon, our agency has successfully passed multiple
surveys, as well as other surveys from the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
other auditing entities," Cole said.

Commissioners Bob Archer, Kevin Cook and Shelly Buhler plan to
consider approving a four-year contract that county staff members
negotiated with Corizon when they meet at 9 a.m. on Aug. 31 in
their chambers in Room B-11 of the County Courthouse, 200 S.E.
7th.

Commissioners voted July 31 to authorize negotiation of the
contract.

"We have determined that our current vendor, Corizon Health
(Corizon), brought the overall superior, developed system to the
table," Cole told the commission in a memorandum on page 119 of
the agenda packet for its July 31 meeting.

The agreement, which includes two one-year options, would take
effect Jan. 1. It calls for the county to pay Corizon $3.15
million next year, followed by increases in years two through four
of 2.4 percent, 3.5 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively.

The News Service of Florida reported last September Corizon had
agreed to pay $1.7 million to current and former inmates to settle
a class-action lawsuit alleging Corizon and the Florida Department
of Corrections denied inmates hernia operations they needed.

The lawsuit complaint, filed on behalf of three inmates in
September 2015, alleged Corizon and the corrections department
violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment by refusing medical care in an effort to save
money.

Corizon pulled out of its five-year, $1.2 billion contract with
the state of Florida three years early, saying it was losing up to
$1 million a month on the deal.

According to a consent order given preliminary approval last
September by a federal judge, the state and Corizon "continue to
vigorously deny all allegations contained in the complaint," but
agreed to the settlement "to avoid costly and protracted
litigation."

The settlement has not yet received final approval from the court,
said Martha Harbin, director of external affairs for Corizon, on
Aug. 30.

"In reaching the settlement agreement, no evidence was presented
to support the allegations and neither Corizon or the FDOC admits
to any liability," she said.

Corizon follows all clinical guidelines regarding the treatment of
hernias, Harbin said.

She said Corizon's operations at the Shawnee County Department of
Corrections have maintained accreditation by the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care, an organization created by
the American Medical Association that sets standards recognized by
the medical professional and the courts as the benchmark for
establishing and measuring a correctional health services program.

NCCHC surveyed the jail in June and found it in compliance for re-
accreditation, Harbin added.

"Our doctors and nurses are committed to providing excellent and
proactive preventive care that meets the needs of our patients,
and makes the best use of public resources," she said.  "We look
forward to continuing to serve the citizens of Shawnee County with
a constitutionally sound inmate health services program, using
clinical best practices and evidence-based medicine."

Corizon, formerly Prison Health Services, began providing services
to Shawnee County in 2003, corrections department Maj. Tim Phelps
said on Aug. 30.

"They continued the contract in 2008 and negotiated an extension
in 2013 in return for providing a zero percent increase for
several years during the recession," he said.  "That is what
brought us to the present bidding process."

So far, Phelps said, Corizon hasn't provided mental health
services beyond a part-time psychiatrist who reviews
recommendations for medication from county employees on the
corrections department's mental health team when inmates show
indications they need it.

"This agreement will shift all mental health services under
Corizon, and enhance those services to address the growing need
for earlier intervention and continuity of care between community
resources and detention-based services," Phelps said.

Cole discussed reasons for choosing Corizon over Correct Care
Solutions in his July memo to commissioners.

"Operationally, Corizon demonstrated they had better processes to
guide on-site delivery of services, as well as a matured support
structure able to send subject matter experts in to guide
development, as well as shore up gaps that may develop in service
delivery," he wrote.

The staffing plan put forth by Corizon also demonstrated a better
understanding of the corrections department's unique service
delivery challenges, including coverage during nontraditional days
and hours for mental health positions, Cole wrote.

"Corizon's mental health program was comprehensive in structure,
allowing for experience-based future growth upon an initially
sound platform, which emphasizes early intervention to stabilize
the mentally ill patient and reduce instances of emergent crises,"
he wrote. [GN]


CUMULUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss NY Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaint in New York against the
company.

Cumulus Media Inc. said, "In August 2015, we were named as a
defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits relating
to our use and public performance of certain sound recordings
fixed prior to February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings")."

The first suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., et al. v, Cumulus Media
Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and alleged, among other things,
copyright infringement under California state law, common law
conversion, misappropriation and unfair business practices. On
December 11, 2015, this suit was dismissed without prejudice.

The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and claimed, among other things, common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition.

The New York lawsuit was stayed pending an appeal before the
Second Circuit involving unrelated third parties over whether the
owner of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly
perform that recording under New York common law.

On December 20, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals held that New
York common law does not recognize a right of public performance
for owners of pre-1972 Recordings. As a result of that case (to
which Cumulus Media, Inc., was not a party) the New York case
against Cumulus Media, Inc., was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs on April 3, 2017.

A leader in the radio broadcasting industry, Cumulus Media Inc.
combines high-quality local programming with iconic, nationally
syndicated media, sports and entertainment brands to deliver
premium content choices to the 245 million people reached each
week through its 447 owned-and-operated stations broadcasting in
90 US media markets (including eight of the top 10), 8,000
broadcast radio stations affiliated with its Westwood One network
and numerous digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. is based on
Atlanta, Georgia.


CVS HEALTH: Hagens Berman Pulls Drug Suit
-----------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Law.com, reports that a plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed a class action against CVS Health for its
alleged role in soaring prescription drug prices after the retail
pharmacy giant notified her law firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
of "false assertions" in the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Megan Schultz accused CVS of colluding with
pharmacy benefit managers to sell certain generic drugs at a
higher cost if they are purchased with insurance. In the suit,
filed in Rhode Island federal district court, Schultz claimed she
was charged $165.68 for a generic drug under her insurance that
would have cost only $92 had she paid cash for it without using
insurance. In another example, Schultz said she paid $101.49 for a
certain drug at CVS when the cash price was $49.45.

CVS, responding to the lawsuit, said the complaint contained
"numerous factual misstatements" that, when corrected, indicate
Schultz was not overcharged for her prescriptions. Hagens Berman,
a Seattle-based class action firm, filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice on Aug. 23 -- a request that U.S.
District Chief Judge William Smith of the District of Rhode Island
granted the next day -- after CVS said it pointed out the errors.

"The complaint contained numerous demonstrably false assertions
that a reasonable pre-filing investigation by the law firm would
have discovered," Woonsocket, Rhode Island-based CVS said in a
written statement. "As such, we are pleased that the suit has been
voluntarily dismissed."

Corporate Counsel reached out to Steve Berman, Hagens Berman's
managing partner and counsel in the case, seeking comment about
the firm's decision to dismiss the complaint. In response, Jerrod
Patterson, counsel at Hagens Berman and another lawyer on the
case, said in an email : "Uncovering the pricing structure of
generic drugs is difficult. We are evaluating our case against CVS
carefully, and will refile a complaint based on the evidence we
find."

In its statement, CVS alleged that Schultz, in her complaint,
compared her copayment for a brand name drug she bought against
the cash price of a generic version of the drug. She also compared
her copayments for three other prescriptions to the cash prices of
those medications at either half the dosage or half the quantity
than what she was prescribed and given, the statement added. The
copayments were in fact less than the cash prices for each correct
drug, dose and quantity, the company said.

CVS also claimed that although the complaint purports to bring
claims on behalf of patients making purchases with insurance, the
plaintiff did not use insurance for most of the purchases
identified in the suit. In addition, the few medications she did
use insurance for were omitted from the suit's list of "Affected
Drugs" that were allegedly overpriced intentionally.

CVS had not yet filed a formal answer to the complaint, and the
company's lawyers had not yet filed any notice of appearance.

Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit that Hagens Berman filed against
Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, two days
after it filed the CVS suit remains alive in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

An answer to the complaint in that case is due Oct. 5. According
to court filings , Walgreens has retained Rachael Blackburn, Esq.
and Robert Andalman, Esq. - randalman@aandglaw.com - of A&G Law
in Chicago to defend the company in the class action litigation.
[GN]


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court OK's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend TAC in the case captioned
GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA
DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-CV-00430 AWI EPG (E.D.
Cal.), and denied motion to strike expert report as moot.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended
consolidated class action complaint (FAC).

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their TAC to (1) add new
allegations that Defendants made misrepresentations to the
California Department of Food and Agriculture ("CDFA") brought by
a new class of plaintiffs -- California dairy farmers; (2) add the
cooperatives Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) and Land
O'Lakes, Inc. (Land O'Lakes) as defendants with respect to claims
involving misrepresentations to the CDFA; and (3) add new
allegations involving misrepresentations to the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to account for additional
misreporting methods.

Plaintiffs also seek to strike DairyAmerica's expert report from
Stuart Harden, as well as all references to the report in
DairyAmerica's opposition.

Many thousands of dairy farmers in the United States sell their
raw milk to processors, and receive compensation each month for
their sales. Most of these farmers fall under the jurisdiction of
the USDA's ten Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) and therefore
receive monthly checks that contain raw milk prices calculated by
the FMMOs. The FMMOs rely on formulas to calculate raw milk prices
that factor in market prices for finished dairy products, which
are obtained by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS).

Plaintiffs originally filed the instant action alleging that
DairyAmerica and one of its member-cooperative owners, California
Dairies, had improperly including forward pricing sales in its
weekly reports to the USDA.

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their TAC and in total, the FAC
would contain the following causes of action:

   1. First COA: Negligent Misrepresentation as to DairyAmerica
and California Dairies for Misrepresentations to USDA;

   2. Second COA: Negligent Misrepresentation as to DairyAmerica,
California Dairies and Proposed Defendants for Misrepresentations
to CDFA;

   3. Third COA: Intentional Misrepresentation as to DairyAmerica
and California Dairies for Misrepresentations to USDA;

   4. Fourth COA: Intentional Misrepresentation as to
DairyAmerica, California Dairies and Proposed Defendants for
Misrepresentations to CDFA;

   5. Fifth COA: Conspiracy to Violate RICO as to California
Dairies for Misrepresentations to USDA; and

   6. Sixth COA: Conspiracy to Violate RICO as to DairyAmerica and
California Dairies and Proposed Defendants for Misrepresentations
to CDFA.

Compliance with Rule 16

The more restrictive good cause standard of Rule 16 applies to a
motion to amend that is filed after the deadline established for
the submission of motions to amend by a scheduling order.

This issue is resolved by the Magistrate Judge's order sanctioning
Dairy America and deeming Plaintiffs' claims based on information
from Declarants which is well before the deadline for amendment.
Therefore Plaintiffs do not have to meet the good cause standard
of Rule 16.

Failure to Seek Modification of Scheduling Order

Plaintiffs respond that this argument ignores the fact that Rule
16(b) provides that a party can seek amendment of a complaint
after such a deadline has passed so long as the moving party can
show good cause, pointing out that this Court granted Plaintiffs'
prior motion for leave to amend, which was filed 15 months after
the deadline for amendment, and no modification of the scheduling
order deadline was sought.

Once again, this issue is resolved by the Magistrate Judge's order
sanctioning Dairy America and deeming Plaintiffs' claims based on
information from the Declarants  which is well before the deadline
for amendment.  Therefore there is no need for Plaintiffs to seek
modification of the scheduling order deadline.

Plaintiffs' Diligence in Obtaining the Discovery at Issue

Plaintiffs deposed Declarants' former manager and specifically
inquired about Declarants knowledge. Notably, DairyAmerica does
not dispute Plaintiffs' contention that at Manager Smith's
deposition she incorrectly stated that Declarants did not have
relevant knowledge of reports that Declarants submitted to NASS.
DairyAmerica also does not dispute that when Plaintiffs thereafter
submitted a list of 34 witnesses they intended to depose,
Plaintiffs did not include Declarants.

Given the high number of potential witnesses in this complex
litigation, it is not unreasonable in these circumstances for
Plaintiffs to have prioritized other witnesses during discovery.
While Defendants insist that Plaintiffs could have contacted
Declarants earlier as part of an independent investigation, the
Court is not persuaded. Given the particular timeline and facts of
this case, Plaintiffs were diligent.

Plaintiffs' Diligence in Filing Motion to Amend After Declarations

Here, given that the parties were in settlement negotiations and
signed a stipulation that clearly contemplated the upcoming filing
of an amended complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' delay
between obtaining the declarations and moving to amend is not
unreasonable. There is no rule from the Ninth Circuit that waiting
three months to amend a complaint is per se unreasonable.

Given the unique circumstances of settlement negotiations and a
stipulation in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
exercised reasonable diligence in filing their motion to amend.

Compliance with Rule 15

Only after the moving party has demonstrated diligence under Rule
16 does the court apply the standard under Rule 15 to determine
whether the amendment was proper. Under the futility of amendment
analysis, the Court will first examine the joinder of new parties
under Rule 20.

Satisfaction of Rule 20 Requirements for Leave to Join New
Plaintiffs

Under Rule 20(a)(1), plaintiffs may be joined if: "(A) they assert
any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law
or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

To meet the first requirement of permissive joinder, Plaintiffs'
claims must arise from "the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences.

Notably, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the California plaintiffs'
claims are based on different reporting obligations under
different regulations to a different government agency.
Plaintiffs' claims against the USDA involve the inappropriate
inclusion of forward pricing. It is undisputed among the parties
that the inclusion of forward pricing is allowed by the CDFA.
Therefore, the Court finds that current Plaintiffs cannot join a
new class of California plaintiffs since their claims do not arise
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences. Plaintiffs' request to amend the TAC to add
California Plaintiffs with their CDFA-related claims will be
denied.

No Existing Plaintiffs Have Claims Based on CDFA Misrepresentation

Since the Court will deny Plaintiffs' request to add California
plaintiffs with their CDFA-related claims, the Proposed Defendants
will not be added as parties to this case. The only proposed
claims stated against the Proposed Defendants are CDFA-related.
Additionally the CDFA claims brought by California plaintiffs
cannot proceed against the current Defendants in this case since
the Court is denying joinder of the California plaintiffs.

Statute of Limitations

There is a two-year statute of limitations for negligent
misrepresentation claims; a three-year statute of limitations for
intentional misrepresentation claims; and a four-year statute of
limitations for violations of RICO.

While the Court recognizes that Defendants' position is that
Plaintiffs could have done its own investigation at any time,
given the circumstances in this case, including the lack of
forthcoming and accurate information from DairyAmerica in
discovery, the Court finds that Plaintiffs showed reasonable
diligence in obtaining the declarations at issue, which led to the
discovery of the new USDA allegations in the FAC.

Further, the Court has reviewed the public documents that
DairyAmerica argues should have put Plaintiffs on notice a long
time ago, and the Court is not persuaded that the documents
DairyAmerica cites to were adequate to put Plaintiffs on notice of
additional forms of USDA misreporting. The Court finds that
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the delayed discovery rule.
Plaintiffs' additional USDA claims survive Defendants' attack on
the basis of the statute of limitations at this stage.

Whether the Filed Rate Doctrine Bars Claims by Plaintiffs Arising
from Alleged Additional forms of Misreporting to the USDA.

The Court does not find it unreasonable that an agency might find
one reason to reject a filed rate, but a litigant with time and
money to spend on additional discovery might uncover additional
misdeeds that led to the filed rate being incorrect. The USDA's
inspection report, it states that NASS calculated a $50 million
loss to producers, but the OIG did not attempt to validate the $50
million loss as it was beyond the scope of this review.

Here the Court to find that a litigant is limited solely to the
reason that the agency rejected the filed rate, this could lead to
the perverse incentive for the entity being investigated by an
agency to hide as much as possible and thereby limit their
liability for misdeeds that damaged those affected by an incorrect
filed rate.

Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs are limited
in this case to the sole reason that the agency rejected the filed
rate in bringing their claims, and declines to apply the filed
rate doctrine to Plaintiffs' amendments.

Whether Primary Jurisdiction Should be Applied Here

The Court in its discretion declines to rule that Plaintiff's
additional USDA misreporting allegations implicates questions that
should be addressed in the first instance by NASS/the USDA rather
than by this Court.

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff's additional USDA
misreporting allegations involve some technical and complicated
issues, the Court does not find the allegations to be so technical
that the Court should refer these allegations to the relevant
agency.

Further, NASS has no special competence to consider allegations of
deliberate, fraudulent misreporting and RICO claims. The Court
therefore will not apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Whether Section 54239 Bars Claims Against California Dairies

California Dairies has failed to find legal authority that
supports its contention of immunity under section 54239 against
liability for the acts of its employees as directors and officers
of DairyAmerica.

The court also agrees with Plaintiffs that, absent clear case
authority, a court may not presume that the immunity provided by
section 54239 is intended to extend to the activities of the
constituent members who function in positions of authority within
the marketing cooperative. The court finds that California
Dairies' contention that they are shielded from Plaintiffs' claims
by operation of section 54239 is unsupported by case authority and
is logically unpersuasive.

Whether Plaintiffs Have Adequately Stated Amended USDA Claims

Negligent Misrepresentation as to Defendants

Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Defendants made
misrepresentations of material fact by making additional types of
misrepresentations to the USDA, that Defendants did not have
reasonable ground for believing the misrepresentations to be true,
that Defendants had intent to induce reliance on the
misrepresentations, and resulting damage to Plaintiffs:
Defendants and Co-Conspirators intended and knew that the Dry Milk
prices that DairyAmerica reported to NASS would be used to set the
prices that were paid to USDA Subclass members for the purchase of
raw milk the Dry Milk prices improperly reported by Defendants and
Co-Conspirators had the direct effect of lowering the raw milk
prices calculated by USDA using FMMO formulas.

Members of the USDA Subclass justifiably and reasonably relied to
their detriment on the prices set by USDA under the FMMOs as being
accurate prices calculated based on the correct reporting of
prices and volumes to NASS. Such reliance was foreseeable and
intended by Defendants and Co-Conspirators.

Intentional Misrepresentation as to Defendants

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that one or more of a short list of
named officers of California Dairies functioning on the board of
directors of DairyAmerica jointly made the decision about what to
report to NASS during Board meetings and communications..
Therefore at the pleading stage, the Court does not find
Plaintiffs' additional allegations of intentional
misrepresentation to be futile and Plaintiffs have met the
requirements of Rule 9(b).

Conspiracy to Violate RICO as to California Dairies

Plaintiffs have adequately met these requirements in alleging the
additional forms of misreporting to the USDA. See FAC at 101-109.
In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege, among other, facts in support
of a RICO conspiracy: Member Defendants and Co-Conspirators knew
they were defying explicit reporting instructions from NASS, and
thus reporting sales figures that were ineligible or artificially-
discounted, when they conspired to instruct and instructed the
Enterprise to (1) include forward pricing sales in weekly
submissions to NASS; (2) report sales of SMP in weekly reports to
NASS; (3) delay the reporting of select sales prices in weekly
reports to NASS; (4) report artificially-discounted export prices
in weekly reports to NASS; and (5) deduct commissions and brokers
fees from weekly reports to NASS. The misreporting constituted a
pattern of racketeering activity in the form of repeat violations
of the mail and wire fraud statutes; each week for multiple years,
at the direction of Member Defendants and Co-Conspirators,
DairyAmerica transmitted misrepresentations to NASS by mail or
electronically in order to obtain financial gain and cause
financial loss to farmers.

Prejudice and Delay

Plaintiffs have pled valid reasons supporting diligence and
delayed discovery in this case. While it is likely true that
amendment will cause some amount of delay in this case, given the
unique circumstances already addressed by the Court that
Plaintiffs have encountered in discovery, the Court does not find
that any delay will be undue. Any delay is arguably caused by
Dairy America's actions in failing to follow the Rule 26
requirements when making their initial disclosures.

Prior Amendments

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have already revised this
complaint four times, and this should weigh against allowing the
amendment. Plaintiffs argue that if Defendants had not concealed
evidence from them, they would have known of these critical
Declarants much earlier. Given the history of this case and when
Plaintiffs were able to discover critical information and
witnesses, while the Court gives some weight to the prior
amendments, the Court does not find that the prior amendments
outweigh allowing the current amendment.

Payment by Plaintiffs of California Dairies' Additional Discovery
Costs

Here, the Court does not find that any additional discovery costs
will be incurred because Plaintiffs' original pleading was not
faulty. Therefore the Court declines to award discovery costs.

The Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their USDA claims
to include additional allegations against Defendants of
misreporting, namely: (a) reporting artificially depressed
figures; (b) misreporting Skimmed Milk sales; (c) delaying the
reporting of figures; and (d) improperly excluding commissions
from reports to the USDA.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike

Rule 12(f) provides that 'the court may order stricken from any
pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter. Under the express language of
the rule, only pleadings are subject to motions to strike.

DairyAmerica's Report is neither a pleading nor is it contained in
a pleading. Instead, the Report is attached to DairyAmerica's
opposition briefing. Therefore, the Court will decline to strike
DairyAmerica's Report. Additionally, the Court did not find the
Report necessary for the resolution of Plaintiff's motion to
amend, and will also deny Plaintiff's motion to strike the Report
as moot.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that:

   1. Plaintiffs' request to amend the TAC to add new allegations
of misreporting to the USDA against current Defendants is granted.

   2. Plaintiffs' request to amend the TAC to add a California
Plaintiff and class bringing CFDA claims against current
Defendants and Proposed Defendants is denied.

   3. Plaintiffs' request to strike the expert report of Stuart
Harden is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yd6eykk5from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler -
apoppler@bermantabacco.com - Berman Tabacco.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony David Phillips -
aphillips@archernorris.com -  Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown - bbrown@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Brent W. Johnson - bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com  - Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg
- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger - cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com -
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah - gfarah@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris -
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif -
jsaif@bermantabacco.com - Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie
M. Kroeger - lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

John Rahm, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Paul Rozwadowski, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler,
Berman Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English -
benglish@elpolaw.com - Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E.
John Steren - esteren@ebglaw.com - Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Joseph Michael Marchini - jmm@bmj-law.com - Baker, Manock &
Jensen, Wendy M. Yoviene - wyoviene@bakerdonelson.com - Ober
Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
505 Montgomery St Ste 800. San Francisco, CA 94111,  Joy G. Kim -
joykim@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia -
sanjaynangia@dwt.com - Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli - lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com - Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier, Hanson Bridgett LLP, & Megan Oliver
Thompson, Hanson Bridgett LLP., 425 Market St Fl 26, San
Francisco, CA 94105-5401

Bimemiller Candice, Unknown, represented by Edward Zusman -
ezusman@mzclaw.com - Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.
James Rehberg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C..

Ronald Hayek, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C..

Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J.
Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm,  5015 Grand Ridge Dr Ste 100;
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265. pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin - mgriffin@kelerrohrback.com -
Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Raymond J. Farrow -
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice.
Land O' Lakes, Inc., Amicus, represented by Gregory M. Schweizer -
gschweizer@eimershahl.com - Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice, Scott
C. Solberg - ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -  Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac
vice & Seth D. Hilton - sethhilton@stoel.com - Stoel Rives LLP.
California Farmers Union, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris.

California Dairy Campaign, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris - dbh2007@sbcglobal.net -
Lani Ellingsworth, Movant, represented by Darin M. Dalmat, James &
Hoffman, P.C. & Glenn Rothner, Rothner, Segall & Greenstone.


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Action Over Chloroprene Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Moore, writing for Rubber & Plastics News, reports that a
group of LaPlace residents have filed a class action lawsuit
against Denka Performance Elastomer L.L.C. (DPE) and DuPont,
claiming that chloroprene emissions from the neoprene rubber
manufacturing facility in LaPlace caused their cancer.

"The plaintiffs, along with all proposed class members, are
exposed regularly to unsafe levels of chloroprene emitted by the
Denka Pontchartrain Works facility and are therefore at a high
risk for cancer," stated the complaint filed June 29 with the 40th
Judicial District Court for St. John the Baptist Parish in
LaPlace.

In an email, a DuPont spokesperson wrote that DuPont does not
comment on pending litigation, but added that before the plant was
sold to DPE in 2015, "we always operated in accordance with the
law and with the safety of our employees and the community and as
our highest priority."

DPE issued a statement saying that the remedies sought by the
class action are both unnecessary and extreme.

"DPE strongly believes that (the Environmental Protection Agency)
and LDEQ (the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality) are
the appropriate agencies to review and establish acceptable
ambient concentration standards," the company said.  "DPE does not
agree that the plaintiffs have been damaged by chloroprene
emissions from the facility."

DuPont opened a chemical facility in LaPlace in 1964, and began
producing its neoprene/chloroprene synthetic rubber there in 1969.

In November 2015, DuPont sold the LaPlace factory to Denka, which
continues to produce the SR there.

DuPont invented neoprene in 1931 and began producing it in
Louisville in 1941, according to the complaint.  Between 1969 and
2008, DuPont produced neoprene in both Louisville and LaPlace, it
said.

When DuPont consolidated neoprene production in LaPlace,
chloroprene emissions became concentrated there, according to the
lawsuit.

DuPont deliberately hid its knowledge of the carcinogenic effects
of chloroprene exposure throughout the time it owned the LaPlace
facility, and DPE continued that deception after it bought the
plant, the complaint said.

In 2010, the U.S. EPA classified chloroprene as a likely human
carcinogen, according to the lawsuit.  Five years later, an EPA
National Air Toxics Assessment established an acceptable risk
exposure threshold for chloroprene of 0.2 micrograms per cubic
meter of air.

Yet EPA measurements of chloroprene exposure at the Denka plant
and in St. Joseph Parish are many times higher than 0.2
micrograms, the complaint said.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action; an injunction
for abatement of chloroprene exposures in excess of 0.2
micrograms; medical monitoring for development of cancer and other
diseases caused by chloroprene exposure; punitive damages; and
attorneys' fees and court costs.

In its statement, Denka said it has been proactive in reducing
chloroprene emissions, including the planned installation of an
$18 million regenerative thermal oxidizer designed to reduce
chloroprene emissions at LaPlace by 85 percent.

The applicable regulatory ambient air standard for chloroprene is
857 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as set by the Louisiana
Administrative Code, the company said.

There is no regulation or proposed regulation anywhere setting out
a chloroprene exposure standard of 0.2 micrograms, according to
the company.

"DPE's toxicological and epidemiological consultants have advised
the company that the scientific calculations and methodology
underlying the suggestion of a (0.2 microgram) value are highly
flawed," the company said.

Epidemiological studies show no correlation among chloroprene
workers between chloroprene exposure and health problems, Denka
said.  Also, the Louisiana Tumor Registry shows that the incidence
of cancer in St. Joseph Parish is slightly lower than the state
average, it said. [GN]


DR. REDDY'S: West Val Pharmacy Sues over Generic Divalproex ER
--------------------------------------------------------------
WEST VAL PHARMACY, HALLIDAY'S & KOIVISTO'S PHARMACY, RUSSELL'S MR.
DISCOUNT DRUGS, INC., FALCONER PHARMACY, INC., DEAL DRUG PHARMACY,
and CHET JOHNSON DRUG, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. DR. REDDY'S
LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PAR
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03816-CMR (E.D. Pa., Aug. 28, 2017),
seeks seek damages (including statutory damages where applicable),
to be trebled or otherwise increased as permitted by a particular
jurisdiction's antitrust law, and costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent permitted by the
following state laws.

This suit brings claims on behalf of indirect purchasers of
generic Divalproex ER -- "Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs,"
"independent pharmacies," or "Plaintiffs" -- for injunctive relief
and to recoup overcharges that resulted from an unlawful agreement
among Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Zydus
Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. to allocate customers, rig bids, and
fix, raise and/or stabilize the prices of generic Divalproex
sodium 250 or 500mg extended release tablets (Divalproex ER).
Defendants were not alone in subverting the operation of a
competitive marketplace for generic pharmaceuticals. Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct in the Divalproex ER market is part of a
larger conspiracy or series of conspiracies involving many generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers and many generic pharmaceuticals.

Divalproex ER is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant indicated
for the treatment of migraines and seizures, and its base
compound, valproate, has been designated an essential medicine by
the World Health Organization. Significantly, Divalproex ER is not
a new compound. Its essential ingredient, valproate, has been
known since the late 19th century.

Divalproex ER has been available in generic form in the United
States for almost a decade and the market for Divalproex ER is
mature. Defendants dominate the market for Divalproex ER.
Beginning in approximately June 2013 and continuing today (the
"Class Period"), Defendants and co-conspirators engaged in an
overarching anticompetitive scheme in the market for Divalproex ER
to artificially inflate prices through unlawful agreements between
and among would-be competitors. Defendants caused the price of
these products to dramatically and inexplicably increase as much
as 995% higher than prices in June 2013.

The complaint notes that the United States Government
Accountability Office ("GAO") singled out Divalproex ER as an
example of a generic pharmaceutical that "experienced an
extraordinary price increase." This increase was the consequence
of an agreement among Defendants to increase pricing and restrain
competition for the sale of Divalproex ER in the United States.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants orchestrated their
conspiracy through secret communications and meetings, both in
private and at public events, such as trade association meetings
held by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association ("GPhA") (now
called the Association for Accessible Medicines),2 , the Minnesota
Multistate Contracting Alliance for Pharmacy ("MMCAP"), the
National Association of Chain Drug Stores ("NACDS"), and the
National Pharmacy Forum ("NPF"), among others. Defendants' and
other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers' conduct has resulted
in extensive scrutiny by federal and state regulators, including
by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of
Justice ("DOJ"), the United States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and at least 45 attorneys general from 44
states and the District of Columbia (the "State AGs"). The DOJ
empaneled a federal grand jury in this District, which has issued
subpoenas relating to price fixing and other anticompetitive
conduct in the generic pharmaceutical industry, including to
Defendants Par and Zydus.

Dr. Reddy's develops, manufactures, and markets generic
pharmaceuticals in the United States. Its product include active
pharmaceutical ingredients, generics in North America, generics in
European Union, branded formulations for the rest of the world,
and biologics. The company was founded in 1984 and is based in
Princeton, New Jersey. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories SA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          Blaine Finley, Esq.
          Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
          Matthew Prewitt, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com


DUA MEDICAL: Faces "Alvillar" Suit over Wage & Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
HURIEL A. ALVILLAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DUA MEDICAL, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC673735 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 24, 2017),
seeks full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to
proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or
converted by the Defendants by means of the unfair practices.

The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants,
jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of
all employees for failure to provide accurate records of Plaintiff
and Class Members. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have
engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of
the California Labor Code by creating and maintaining policies,
practices and customs that knowingly deny employees rights and
benefits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          A Professional Corporation
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251 5533
          Facsimile: (213) 251 5534
          E-mail: leethomas.esq@gmail.com


ELECTROLUX: Class Action on Dishwashers Allowed to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports Electrolux,
the company behind the Frigidaire line of home appliances, was
unable to get a judge to wash away parts of a class action
lawsuit, accusing the company of selling dishwashers customers
allege can spontaneously combust.

In an opinion issued Aug. 28 in Chicago, federal Judge John Z. Lee
rejected Electrolux Home Products' motion to dismiss parts of a
complaint from a dozen plaintiffs from seven states who said their
dishwashers "unexpectedly overheated, causing fires and flooding."

Electrolux tried to get Lee to dismiss claims of breach of implied
warranty of merchantability and various state liability and
warranty laws in Washington, Indiana, California and Ohio. Other
states involved in the complaint are Illinois, Pennsylvania and
Virginia. The plaintiffs also alleged liability based on design
defect, negligence, failure to warn and fraudulent concealment.

According to Lee's opinion, Electrolux is the world's second-
largest appliance maker in terms of units sold. Among its
portfolio is the Frigidaire line of residential dishwashers. The
plaintiffs in this action said the electrical system of their
dishwashers overheated, sparking fires or burning holes through
the bottom of the dishwasher tub, which caused water to leak to
the floor below. That flooding increases fire risk because it
brings water into contact with exposed electrical components, the
lawsuits said.

The plaintiffs further said a defective heating element ignited
dishwashers, causing smoke and fire damage or burning a hole in
the tub that led to flooding and mold. All the problems
materialized before the units reach their expected nine- to 13-
year lifespan.

According to plaintiffs, Electrolux issued product recalls in
Australia in 2007 and 2013 and in the United Kingdom in 2007, but
continued to sell the products in the U.S. and continued to
advertise them as safe, including a delay start feature allowing
them to start a wash cycle while homeowners are asleep or away
from home. They said customers have no way of knowing about the
defect, and also allege Electrolux refused to provide relief
outside of asking customers to pay to ship the units to a factory
or paying for a repair visit.

Electrolux argued its expressly limited one-year warranty exempts
it from the breach of implied warranty claim from residents of all
but the state of Washington, where it sought protection of the
statute of limitations. Lee rejected the argument on several
grounds, saying the paperwork the company provides with its
appliances do not satisfy legal requirements to justify dismissal
and "are likely outside the scope of the court's inquiry and the
pleading stage."

Further, the documents the company cited in its defense "are not
central to plaintiffs' complaint" and, even if they were, the
claim would still survive because allegations the warranty was
unconscionable "involves a disputed issue of fact that cannot be
resolved at this stage."

In reviewing the Washington state claims, Lee noted plaintiff
Leasa Brittenham alleged fraudulent concealment that would
establish tolling the statute of limitations, and those
considerations should be made at trial, not in a dismissal motion.
Similar reasoning played out with respect to other state law
claims, as Lee reiterated that certain defendants "claim that
Electrolux actively concealed their dishwasher's defect."

The plaintiffs argued they would not have bought the dishwashers
--  or at least not at full price  --  had they known about the
defects that gave rise to the 2007 and 2013 international recalls.

"The complaint specifies that the dishwashers were sold with a
latent defect in the electrical system and explains how this
defect can result in injuries like" the ones the plaintiffs
suffered, Lee wrote. "These allegations are further supported by a
collection of consumer complaints documenting the same types of
problems and injuries that plaintiffs allege."

Plaintiffs in the cases were represented by the firms of Berger &
Montague P.C., of Philadelphia; Greg Coleman Law P.C., of
Knoxville, Tenn.; and Wexler Wallace LLP, of Chicago.

Electrolux is defended by the firm Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, of
Denver; and Goldberg Segalla LLP, of Chicago. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pedro"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing
the case captioned KATHLEEN N. PEDRO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, INC.,
Defendant, TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-13404 (11th
Cir.), for failing to allege a plausible claim for relief.

The appeal required the Eleventh Circuit to decide whether a
consumer reporting agency adopted an objectively unreasonable
interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it stated on
a consumer's credit report that she was an authorized user of her
parents' credit card account.

Kathleen Pedro's parents listed her as an authorized user on their
credit card account, which later went into default. A consumer
reporting agency, TransUnion LLC, listed the delinquent account on
Pedro's credit report with a notation that she was an authorized
user of the account. TransUnion also included the account when
calculating Pedro's credit score, which caused her credit score to
fall.

Pedro then filed a complaint that TransUnion willfully violated a
provision of the Act that requires that a consumer reporting
agency follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom
the report relates.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failing to allege a
plausible claim for relief.

Pedro Alleged That She Suffered an Injury in Fact.

An injury sufficient for standing purposes is 'an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.

Pedro alleged an injury that is both concrete and particular.
Pedro alleged a concrete injury because the harm caused by the
alleged violation of the Act the reporting of inaccurate
information about Pedro's credit to a credit monitoring service.
And Pedro's alleged injuries affected her personally. Indeed, her
credit score dropped 100 points as a result of the challenged
conduct. Because Pedro alleged that she suffered an injury in
fact, she has standing to pursue her complaint.

Pedro's Complaint Failed to State a Claim.

Pedro argues that TransUnion willfully violated section 1681e(b)
of the Act, which states that whenever a consumer reporting agency
prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning
the individual about whom the report relates.

To establish that TransUnion willfully failed to comply with
section 1681e(b), Pedro must establish that TransUnion either
knowingly or recklessly violated that section. An agency
recklessly violates the Act if it takes an action that "is not
only a violation under a reasonable reading of the statute's
terms, but shows that the company ran a risk of violating the law
substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that
was merely careless.

Pedro also fails to cite any authority that might have warned
TransUnion away from the view it took.  Pedro cites no judicial
precedent or agency guidance that states that reporting
information about accounts for which a consumer is an authorized
user fails to meet the standard of maximum possible accuracy.
Pedro contends that TransUnion willfully violated section 1681e(b)
even under the approach of technical accuracy, but she fails to
identify any false information reported by TransUnion. She
maintains that reporting the credit delinquencies of her parents
on her credit report cannot be technically accurate because it
caused her credit report to list the credit history of someone
other than her.

Pedro argues that willfulness is a question of fact almost never
suitable to resolution on a motion to dismiss, but we disagree.
District courts may, and often do, determine on the pleadings that
a plaintiff failed to plead willfulness when the interpretation of
the relevant statute by the consumer reporting agency was not
objectively unreasonable.

The district court correctly dismissed Pedro's complaint.

TransUnion interpreted section 1681e(b) to permit it to report
information that was technically accurate, such as Pedro's status
as an authorized user on her parents' credit card account.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Pedro's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 24, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycd9e7trfrom Leagle.com.

Alex Michael Barfield - tood.barton@stantonlawllc.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.

David L. Balser - dbalser@kslaw.com - for Defendant-Appellee.
Zachary Andrew McEntyre - zmcentyre@kslaw.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

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

Jonathan D. Selbin, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kenneth S. Byrd, 150 4th Ave N #1650, Nashville, TN 37219, USA for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian C. Frontino - bfrontino@stroock.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

Stephen J. Newman - snowman@stroock.com - for Defendant-Appellee.
John C. Toro - jtoro@kslaw.com - for Defendant-Appellee.

Justin Tharpe Holcombe, 331 Washington Avenue, North EastMarietta,
GA 30060. for Interested Party-Amicus Curiae.

Andrew R. Kaufman, 21 S 12th St, Fl 7, Philadelphia, PA 19107. for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Babak Semnar - bob@semnarlawfirm.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James A. Francis - info@consumerlawfirm.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Jared M. Hartman - jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julia Constance Barrett - jbarrett@kslaw.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

Alisa Marie Taormina - ataormina@stroock.com - for Defendant-
Appellee.

Matthew R. Wilson - mwilson@meyerwilson.com - for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

David Meir Zionts - dzionts@cov.com -  for Interested Party.


EXECONE MANAGEMENT: "Welch" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH WELCH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EXECONE MANAGEMENT LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and PATRICK RAYMOND, Individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00482-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Aug. 24 ,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants reduced Plaintiff's wages
as a result of cash register shortages resulting in Plaintiff
being paid less than minimum wages and less than time and one-half
for wages 40 in a work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549 6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


FCA US: "LaRoe" Suit Moved to Kansas Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ronald LaRoe and Melody LaRoe,
Individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, formerly known as: Chrysler Group, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CV-000592, was removed on Aug. 24,
2017 from the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02487 to the
proceeding.

FCA US is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in
the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914 5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817 8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
          STUCKY & FIELDS, LLC
          214 West 18th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 659 9970
          Facsimile: (816) 659 9969
          E-mail: ben@stuckyfields.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886 8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817 8500
          E-mail: bryce@BellLawkc.com
                  ms@belllawkc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scottie Sue Kleypas, Esq.
          Craig S. Laird, Esq.
          ROBERT A. KUMIN, PC
          6901 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 250
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Telephone: (913) 432 1826
          Facsimile: (913) 236 7115
          E-mail: skleypas@kuminlaw.com
                  claird@kuminlaw.com


FCA US: "Budris" Suit Moved to Connecticut Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nicholas Budris, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA
US LLC, doing business as: Dodge, the Defendants, receipt number
0205-4515006, was removed on Aug. 28, 2017 from the Connecticut
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-01450 to the proceeding.

FCA US is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in
the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax
purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Blinn, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          35 Cold Spring Rd., Suite 512
          Rocky Hill, CT 06067
          Telephone: (860) 571 0408
          Facsimile: (860) 571 7457
          E-mail: dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maureen Danehy Cox, Esq.
          CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY, LLP - NH
          195 Church St. 18th floor
          PO Box 1950
          New Haven, CT 06509-1950
          Telephone: (203) 573 1200
          Facsimile: (203) 575 2600
          E-mail: mcox@carmodylaw.com


FLINT, MI: Appeals Ct. Upholds City's Sewer Rates Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion reversing and
remanding for entry of an order granting summary disposition in
favor of Defendants in the case captioned LARRY SHEARS and
MARGARET FRALICK, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS BINGAMAN,
individually and as CITY OF FLINT TREASURER, DARNELL EARLEY,
individually and as CITY OF FLINT EMERGENCY MANAGER, and CITY OF
FLINT, Defendants-Appellants, No. 329776 (Mich. App.).

Douglas Bingaman, Darnell Earley, and the City of Flint appeal as
of right the circuit court's order on the parties' motions for
summary disposition, which denied in part defendants' motion for
summary disposition.

The named plaintiffs in this class action, Larry Shears and
Margaret Fralick, filed this lawsuit against defendants,
challenging defendants' decisions to increase water and sewer
rates by 35 percent and to increase a readiness-to-serve charge.

The complaint included the following six counts:

   * COUNT I -- 42.U.S.C. Section 1983 VIOLATION OF MCL Section
123.141(3)

   * COUNT II -- 42.U.S.C. Section 1983UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERT[Y WITHOUT DUE PROCESS -- VIOLATION OF FLINT
CHARTER Section 46-52(b)(1)

   * COUNT III -- 42.U.S.C. Section 1983 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF FLINT
CHARTER Section 46-52.1

   * COUNT IV -- 42.U.S.C. Section 1983UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS -- VIOLATION OF FLINT
CHARTER Section 46-52.1(b)

   * COUNT V -- CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS OF ILLEGALLY COLLECTED
INCREASED WATER AND SEWER RATES AND INCREASED READINESS TO SERVE
CHARGES

   * COUNT VI CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES

The Mich. App. concluded that, here, plaintiffs did not plead in
avoidance of governmental immunity.  Indeed, it does not even
appear that governmental immunity is acknowledged in the
complaint. Nevertheless, plaintiffs argue, and the circuit court
concluded, that some of or all of plaintiffs' claims survived
summary disposition as unjust-enrichment claims.

The Mich. App. did not agree. The phrase unjust enrichment, or
anything similar to that phrase, is not present in the complaint.
In fact, the only mention of a contract is made in reference to
Flint's wholesale Detroit water purchase contract.

Moreover, even if a claim for unjust enrichment had been properly
alleged, the Mich. App. said it is not convinced that such a claim
could move forward under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Michigan case law is clear in that there is a strong presumption
that statutes do not create contractual rights.

The Mich. App. said it is simply unaware of any authority that
would support the proposition that, where an ordinance or
statutory provision does not create a contractual relationship, a
party may nevertheless create one under the guise of unjust
enrichment, which sounds in equity and contract. The Mich. App.
therefore rejected plaintiffs' argument in this regard.

Plaintiffs' argument that the increases also violated Ordinance
46-52.1 by increasing the water rates above 8% is not supported by
the language of the ordinance and that plaintiffs' argument that
defendant illegally commingled funds had no merit. The claims at
issue in this case, with the exception of the newly raised concept
of unjust enrichment, are, in essence, the same, and there is
nothing in the record in this case suggest that a different
outcome would be appropriate here.

Accordingly, the Mich. App. reversed and remanded for entry of an
order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) in
defendants' favor.

A full-text copy of the state Court of Appeals' August 24, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycd9e7trfrom
Leagle.com.

VALDEMAR L. WASHINGTON -  vwashington@settlemate.com - for LARRY
SHEARS, Plaintiff-Appellee.

CHRISTOPHER M. TREBILCOCK - trebilcock@millercanfield.com - for
DOUGLAS BINGAMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

ANTHONY CHUBB - chubb@mcgrawmorris.com - for DOUGLAS BINGAMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Torres Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER TORRES, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01179 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an enter
to certifying a class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as
its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d6B4bVEW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


GALENA BIOPHARMA: GALE Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court had appointed
a lead plaintiff and consolidated the actions.

On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey entitled, Miller v. Galena Biopharma, Inc.,
et al. On February 15, 2017, a putative shareholder securities
class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey entitled, Kattuah v Galena Biopharma,
Inc., et al.

The actions assert that the defendants failed to disclose that
Galena's promotional practices for Abstral were allegedly improper
and that the Company may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered the Company's
statements about its business misleading.

Two groups of shareholders and one individual shareholder filed
three motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on April 14, 2017 and
April 17, 2017. Subsequently, one of the shareholders groups
withdrew its motion for lead plaintiff status and the individual
shareholder notified the court that he does not object to the
appointment of the remaining shareholder group, Gale investor
group, as lead plaintiff. On July 17, 2017, the Court approved the
GALE investor group as named lead plaintiff and its counsel as
lead and liaison counsel. The Court also consolidated both
actions.

Galena Biopharma said, "Within the time allowed under the federal
rules and statute, we anticipate that an amended complaint will be
filed and the Company and the other defendants, former and current
officers, will respond to the amended complaints through an
appropriate pleading or motion."

Galena Biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company developing
hematology and oncology therapeutics that address unmet medical
needs. The company is based on San Ramon, California.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Shearman & Sterling Discusses 3rd Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on August 23, 2017, the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed a district court decision dismissing a putative class
action against Globus Medical, Inc. ("Globus" or the "Company"), a
medical device company that designs, develops and sells
musculoskeletal implants, and several individual officers.
Williams v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 16-3607 (3d Cir. Aug. 23,
2017).  The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 based on allegations that the Company failed to
disclose the termination of a distribution partnership or the
impact the termination would have on its revenue projections.  The
decision sheds light on how district courts in the Third Circuit
should evaluate claims that are based on an alleged omission that,
according to plaintiffs, rendered a prior disclosure inaccurate,
incomplete or misleading, and also addresses the requirements for
stating a claim based on allegedly misleading revenue projections.

The Third Circuit divided plaintiffs' claims into two categories
consisting of challenges to (i) historical statements, in
particular the risk disclosures in the Company's 2013 10-K, filed
in March 2014 ("10-K"), and its 2014 1Q 10-Q, filed in late April
2014 ("10-Q"), and (ii) forward-looking statements, primarily
certain sales and earnings projections made in February and April
2014 earnings conference calls.  Concerning the historical
statements, plaintiffs argued that the statement in Globus's 2013
10-K (incorporated into the 10-Q) that "[s]ome of our independent
distributors account for a significant portion of our sales
volume, and if any such independent distributor were to cease to
distribute our products, our sales could be adversely affected"
was misleading because the Company already had decided to
terminate a distribution partnership at the time of the statement.
While the Court acknowledged in rejecting this argument that
"courts are skeptical of companies treating as hypothetical in
their disclosures risks that have already materialized," it
clarified that the materialized risk must be the disclosed risk.
In this case, "[t]he risk actually warned of [was] the risk of
adverse effect on sales--not simply the loss of independent
distributors generally."  (Emphasis added).  The Court explained
that the Company might have come under a duty to disclose "if the
sales already were adversely affected at the time the risk
disclosures were made."  However, plaintiffs had not pleaded facts
sufficient to show this was the case.

Regarding the Company's forward-looking statements made during the
February and April 2014 earnings conference calls, the Court also
rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Company's statements regarding
its revenue projections were misleading because, at the time of
the 10-K, the projections incorporated projected sales figures
from the terminated distribution partnership.  The Court agreed
with the district court that plaintiffs failed to plead facts
sufficient to show that the revenue projections were false or
misleading when made, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege any
"contemporaneous sources" to show that the projections included
amounts from the terminated distribution partnership or any facts
quantifying such amounts or any shortfall.  Absent such
allegations, plaintiffs' claim was merely a general assertion that
the revenue projections were made without a reasonable basis,
which, according to the Court, could not serve as a basis for a
securities fraud claim.  Separately, the Court found that the
challenged revenue projections were protected under the PSLRA safe
harbor because they were forward-looking and plaintiffs failed to
allege facts sufficient to infer that the Company knew that ending
a distribution partnership would render the Company's overall
projections misleading.  In particular, the Court agreed with the
district court that while it may be plausible to "infer that the
Company knew or should have known that ending its [distribution]
relationship with [the distributor] could have some effect on its
sales . . . actual knowledge that sales from one source might
decrease is not the same as actual knowledge that the company's
overall sales projections are false."  As support for this
proposition, the Court noted the Company came within 1.17% of its
original sales projections ($474.4 million actual, compared to
$480 million initially projected), which further undermined
plaintiffs' claims that the sales projections could not be
achieved without the distribution partnership.

The Third Circuit's decision makes clear that courts should
carefully consider the specific language of a risk disclosure when
facing a claim that the disclosure said a risk "may" happen when
it should have said that a risk "has" happened, and also
underscores the many challenges plaintiffs face when trying to
make claims based on allegedly misleading revenue projections.
[GN]


GOLF CLUB: Vega Sues for Payment of Tips and Gratuities
-------------------------------------------------------
LINETTE VEGA and VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE GOLF CLUB OF
PURCHASE, INC.; ROBERT F. WISE; and any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 608665/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons who are presently
or were formerly employed by The Golf Club of Purchase, pursuant
to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of failing to pay service charge to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees, and instead retained the money for
their own benefit in violation of state Labor Laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: White Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL WHITE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03243-CAP (N.D. Ga., Aug. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid wages, overtime
wages, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees
routinely worked over 40 hours each week with Defendant's
knowledge and behest throughout their employment with Defendant.
Shortly after his employment began, Plaintiff's superiors began to
pressure, urge and encourage him and all other inside sales
representatives to work beyond the scheduled 40 hours, including
coming in early, staying late and working through lunches in order
to meet goals and quotas and maximize sales.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, through its managers,
encouraged and pressured Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
work as many hours as necessary to meet sales production numbers.
There was no time tracking methods used by the Defendant to track
time worked by Plaintiff and those similarly situated in the
office. In February 2017, Defendant told its employees that some
were entitled to pay for hours over 40, but not others. Those
employees that were paid were only paid for those hours at an $8
to $9 overtime rate, and Defendant did not pay overtime on the
employee commissions. The Defendant did instruct employees against
working overtime and even represented that they would pay overtime
wages, but very quickly is was "business as usual", the majority
of sales reps working overtime hours without being paid and
continually warned about hitting numbers and goals no matter how
many hours it took. The Defendant knew that the inside sales
representatives were working overtime and also working off the
clock.

Granite Telecommunications provides communications services to
multiple location businesses in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda A. Farahany
          BARRETT & FARAHANY
          Paul White
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 214 0120
          Facsimile: (404) 214 0125
          E-mail: amanda@justiceatwork.com


GULF MOTEL: "Straub" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY STRAUB, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. GULF MOTEL, LLC, a Florida Profit Corporation,
and JOHN D. SURFUS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00479-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, and liquidated damages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at
least federal minimum wage for all weeks worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that on August 4,
2017, a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court
against Home Depot USA Inc. claimed the home improvement retailer
willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with
allegedly improper disclosures and authorizations on background
check consent forms.

The complaint claims background check consent forms that allegedly
authorized Home Depot to screen applicants included a liability
waiver.  Under FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A), employers procuring a
background check report for employment purposes must make sure
that:

   (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing
to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or
caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes; and

  (ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization
may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the
procurement of the report by that person.

The Plaintiff, Katherine Saltzberg, claims she signed a background
check consent form when applying to work for Lifetime Solutions
Inc. -- a water treatment company that offers services to Home
Depot customers -- and had to sign the waiver as a condition of
the background check.

Ms. Saltzberg claims the waiver was illegal and authorization
improper under the FCRA and wants to represent a nationwide class
of job applicants who signed a Home depot background check
disclosure form in the last five years.  Fines for FCRA violations
range from $100 to $1,000 per violation.

The complaint states: Defendant knew that its background check
disclosure and authorization forms should not include extraneous
information that is prohibited by the FCRA, and acted in
deliberate disregard of its obligations and the rights of
Plaintiff and other class members.

A copy of the complaint for KATHERINE SALTZBERG vs. HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC., Case Number 2:17-CV-05798, filed in the United
States District Court Central District of California on August 4,
2017, is available at
www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cacd/685800/1-0.html.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and
privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer
reporting agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers from the willful
or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their reports.
[GN]


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., have filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of IntelliPharmaCeutics
International, Inc. (Nasdaq:IPCI) between May 21, 2015 and July
26, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of IntelliPharmaCeutics and would like to
discuss your legal rights you may, without obligation or cost to
you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-
515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-ipci/to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 29, 2017.

                    About the Lawsuit

IntelliPharmaCeutics is a pharmaceutical company specializing in
research, development, and manufacture of oral solid dosage drugs.
The Company's main product candidate was Rexista, an abuse-
deterrent oxycodone hydrochloride extended release tablet
indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require
daily, long-term opioid treatment.

The complaint alleges that IntelliPharmaCeutics made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information in violation of the federal securities laws, including
that: (i) IntelliPharmaCeutics didn't conduct a human abuse
liability study to support its New Drug Application ("NDA"); (ii)
IntelliPharmaCeutics  didn't include abuse-deterrent studies to
support abuse-deterrent label claims related to abuse of the drug;
and (iii) IntelliPharmaCeutics did not submit sufficient data to
support approval of the Rexista NDA.

On July 27, 2017, the Company disclosed that its NDA for Rexista
was not approved. As the truth was revealed, IntelliPharmaCeutics'
stock declined approximately 45.6% to close at $1.36 per share on
July 27, 2017.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: $3 Mil. Settlement Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the case
entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01982 (D.N.J.) have reached a global settlement in principle.

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, its Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as
purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and
John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November
5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by
the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged
courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and
the investing public and to cause the members of the purported
class to purchase shares of our common stock at artificially
inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or
omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements
not misleading. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Munro and the
Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling
persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified
litigation costs.

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January
2015 adding additional third-party defendants.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
late January 2015 and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in early March 2015. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. The
Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on October 29,
2015. The Court held a status conference on February 29, 2016, and
entered a PreTrial Scheduling Order on February 29, 2016.

In April 2017, the parties in this proceeding and related
derivative actions reached a global settlement in principle for an
aggregate of $3.0 million, which amount will be paid by the
Company's insurers. The Company and the other parties in such
proceedings are currently in the process of finalizing the global
settlement and obtaining court approval of the settlement.

Intercloud Systems said that "while the Company believes a global
settlement can be reached by the parties and approved by the
applicable courts, there can be no assurance that any such
settlement will be reached and approved."

InterCloud Systems, Inc. provides software, network, and
infrastructure solutions to improve business operations and
enhance energy conservation. It also offers telecommunications
project infrastructure services and management. InterCloud
Systems, Inc. is based on New York City, New York and was founded
on 1999.


J.W. LOGISTICS: "Venable" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
TINISIA VENABLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.W. LOGISTICS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03213-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, throughout the course of her
employment by JW, Plaintiff was always denied overtime
compensation even though she routinely worked every week, and such
overtime was expected by Defendant of Plaintiff and all other
dispatchers.

J.W. Logistics provides tailored solutions to meet each client's
specific needs and designs a system that leverages time-sensitive
transportation management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A.
          1201 Peachtree Street, NE
          400 Colony Square, No. 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (877) 946 8293
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


JAMES HARDIE: 5-Month Opt in Granted in Cladding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parker and Associates disclosed that more leaky-building owners
will have the chance to join a self-funded class action against
James Hardie after the Court of Appeal released a judgment on Aug.
30 upholding the representative action and extending opt-in
periods from two and 10 weeks to five months. Costs have also been
awarded in favour of the owners.

Leaky building owners represented by Wellington law firm Parker &
Associates first brought a product liability claim against James
Hardie New Zealand Limited and James Hardie Company Studorp
Limited in negligence and for breach in the Fair Trading Act in
2015.

The owners allege that leaks in their homes are attributable to
inherent defects in cladding systems manufactured by James Hardie.
They also claim James Hardie made misleading statements about its
cladding systems in its technical literature. It is alleged that a
large number of home-owners may be affected.

James Hardie denies its cladding systems are defective and will be
defending all claims.  James Hardie argued that the claims were
not suitable for representative class action procedure.

In December 2016 the High Court made orders allowing the case to
proceed as representative action (class action) and granted an
opt-in period of 10 weeks for Harditex and two weeks for the Titan
Board class.

In the judgment released on Aug. 30 the Court of Appeal has
dismissed the appeal by James Hardie and upheld the High Court's
representative orders.

The Court of Appeal also allowed a cross appeal by the plaintiff
group owners and granted an opt of period of five months for new
class members to join the claim rather than the 10 weeks and two
weeks period that had been granted by the High Court.

Further, the Court of Appeal allowed the owners' appeal against a
judgment of Justice Susan Thomas in December 2015.  The Court of
Appeal concluded that Justice Thomas was wrong to decline to grant
the declaratory orders sought at that time to preserve the
position of members of the class for limitation purposes in the
event that the Court later declined to make a representative
order.  Costs have been awarded in favour of the owners.

The group's lawyer, Dan Parker of Parker & Associates said that
the plaintiff group was very pleased with the judgment.

Mr Parker said there had been strong interest from potential new
claimants since the class action was given the go-ahead in October
2016.  He anticipates that the group will increase significantly
following the new opt-in orders, which take effect from August 30,
2017.

Mr Parker said the group now looks forward to inviting other
eligible class members to join the claim within the five-month
opt-in period, which runs until the end of January 2018.

"The opt in period will be the last chance for most affected
owners to pursue any legal action for recovery of their losses. If
they join during the opt in period they will not be affected by a
15-year limitation longstop that will otherwise bar claims after
the opt-in period expires.  Also the Supreme Court confirmed last
year in the leaky schools litigation that the 10 year Building Act
limitation longstop does not apply to a product liability claim
like this," Mr Parker said.

Thousands of properties were built using Harditex from 1987 until
the early 2000s.  Titan Board was widely used from 1995.

Mr Parker urges owners of buildings constructed since 1987 using
Harditex or Titan board to get in touch to find out how to opt in
to join the claim.  Experts can be arranged to investigate whether
the materials in question have been used and whether damage has
resulted.

Owners of properties clad in Harditex or Titan Board are invited
to contact Parker & Associates urgently to find out how to opt in.

Parker & Associates is currently representing over 60 Harditex
owners. There is currently only one property in the Titan Board
class but there is significant interest from other owners of
Harditex and Titan Board properties.

Group members are pooling resources to pay for the class action,
without the need for separate litigation funding. [GN]


JUST BORN: Faces Slack Fill Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Holly A. Melton, Esq. -- hmelton@bakerlaw.com -- and Alan L.
Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that Mike and Ike brand candy made
an advertising splash a few years ago, with a campaign built
around the "breakup" of the not-quite famous pair whose names are
the brand.  Boxes of the candy appeared with one or the other name
scratched out, and short missives from Mike or Ike appeared on the
back of the boxes explaining the breakup -- Just Born, the maker
of the candy -- even commissioned a movie trailer built around the
concept.

The campaign was very popular, in part because it played on the
candy's simultaneous ubiquity and anonymity: Everyone is familiar
with the Mike and Ike box, yet few people probably know much about
the product, which has been consumed by Americans in some form or
another for more than 75 years.

Slackers?

The Mike and Ike brand hit the headlines again this August but in
a less positive way -- a class action suit filed in the Southern
District of California.  Anthony Buso brought claims on behalf of
a class of Mike and Ike purchasers against Just Born alleging
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

Mr. Buso claimed that a box of the candy he purchased was only 70
percent filled with actual product, which triggered the various
California statutes.  "Judging from the sizes of the container, a
reasonable consumer would expect them to be substantially filled
with product," the suit maintains.

The Takeaway

'The suit seeks injunctive relief, costs of the suit and
attorneys' fees, and damages.  This suit is part of an overall
increase in slack-fill litigations across the country, as we have
reported previously. [GN]


LA LAKERS: Insurance Company Won't Have to Cover TCPA Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
an Indiana-based insurance company won't have to cover a Los
Angeles Lakers' settlement of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
class action following a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision that the lawsuit was excepted in the team's policy.

The exception was written into the Lakers' Federal Insurance
Company policy for invasion of privacy claims, Ninth Circuit Court
Judge N. Randy Smith wrote in the court's majority opinion handed
down Aug. 23.  "It is evident from the plain language of the
insurance contract that the parties intended to exclude all
invasion of privacy claims," Smith wrote.

"We recognize that exclusionary clauses are to be construed
against the insurer; but here we must reconcile this rule with our
canon of giving effect to the intent of the parties in light of a
clause that broadly excludes coverage for any claim originating
from, incident to, or having any connection with, invasion of
privacy."

In the 3-2 decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court
ruling that the insurance company of the Lakers' directors and
officers does not have to cover settlement of a 2012 class action
lawsuit alleging the team violated the TCPA.

The Lakers appealed the lower court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit,
which heard oral arguments in the case in February, that FIC
didn't have to cover settlement of the text spam class action. In
that class action, a fan accused the Lakers of violating the TCPA
by sending allegedly unsolicited texts.

Dissenting in the appeals court decision, Judge Richard Tallman
countered that TCPA allegations aren't automatically privacy
claims and that the class action's initial plaintiff sought relief
based only on a technical TCPA violation, not invasion of privacy.

"When a cause of action is defined by specific and unambiguous
statutory elements, there is no need to redefine or restrict that
cause of action based on the underlying purpose that motivated its
enactment," Judge Tallman wrote in his dissent.  "In its decision
the court errs by rejecting the statutory elements chosen by
Congress and redefining a TCPA claim as a narrowly restricted
privacy claim."

The case has been closely watched because observers said it could
change how insurers pay off -- or don't -- on directors and
officers policies under the TCPA.

The plaintiff in the class action, David Emanuel, said the Lakers
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to him and
other members of the class following an Oct. 13, 2012, game during
which fans were encouraged to text messages to a certain number.
A U.S. District Court judge dismissed Emanuel's case in April
2013, ruling Emanuel had implicitly consented to receiving a
follow-up text once he sent his original message.

Emanuel appealed to the Ninth Circuit as social media companies
Twitter and Path lined up behind the Lakers with an amicas brief
saying a cottage industry of TCPA plaintiffs' attorneys had
transformed "a statute intended to curb vexatious telemarketing"
into a "vehicle for vexatious lawsuits".

Mr. Emanuel told the court the following January that he and the
Lakers had reached a settlement.

The following September, the Lakers sued Federal Insurance Company
for refusing to defend or indemnify the team in the class action
litigation under the team's directors and officers policy. [GN]


LISA VILLWOK: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Valentine" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska denied the Plaintiff's motion for (i)
class certification and (ii) appointment of counsel to represent
the class in the case captioned ERONICA VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v.
LISA VILLWOK, #1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN, #1585; Defendants, Nos.
8:16CV131, 8:16CV174 (D. Neb.).

These consolidated actions arise out of the Plaintiff's
allegations that on July 17, 2015, the Defendants subjected her to
a visual body cavity search during the execution of a search
warrant of a residence.  The operative pleading in the
consolidated cases is the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed on
Sept. 12, 2016.  The Court previously determined that, liberally
construing the Plaintiff's allegations, she has alleged a
violation of her "rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution in connection with the search conducted by the
Defendants on July 17, 2015.  Chief Judge Smith Camp has overruled
the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment and outlined the
remaining issues to be determined by the fact-finder at trial.

On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiff moves for (i) certification of the
action as a class action as practice of illegally strip searching
these red yellow black white and brown albino women as set out;
and (ii) appointment of counsel to represent the class.  The
Plaintiff did not file a brief or any other supporting documents
with the motion, which is quoted in its entirety.

In review of the Plaintiff's motion and the operative pleadings in
the case, Magistrate Judge Nelson finds the Plaintiff's bare and
general allegations are insufficient to warrant certification of a
class action.  The Plaintiff has not made any kind of showing that
the requirements exist in the case and she has not complied with
the district's class action procedures set forth in NECivR 23.1.

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
motion to certify the case as a class action is not proper at this
stage of the proceedings.  Pursuant to the Court's Jan. 20, 2017,
Order Setting Schedule for Progression of Case, the Defendants
should have already drafted the Order on Final Pretrial Conference
and submitted it to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2017.  The proposed
order is necessary before he can hold a meaningful final pretrial
conference with the parties on Sept. 11, 2017.

Magistrate Judge Nelson again reminds the parties that if they
fail to obey the Court's scheduling order with respect to the
preparation of the Proposed Final Pretrial Conference, or fail to
appear at the final pretrial conference, are substantially
unprepared to participate in the conference, or do not participate
in the conference in good faith, he may impose sanctions.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiff's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/D2JQG7 from Leagle.com.

Veronica Valentine, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lisa Villwok, Defendant, represented by Timothy G. Himes, Sr. --
timothy.himes@cityofomaha.org -- CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Jennifer Hansen, Defendant, represented by Timothy G. Himes, Sr.,
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


MAGICJACK: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, the San Diego-based law firm recognized
for class action litigation involving investor and consumer losses
has filed a class action complaint against MagicJack and its Board
of Directors at the Southern District of Florida on behalf of the
current MagicJack shareholders (Nasdaq: CALL) who were deprived of
fair corporate suffrage associated with Proxy materials content
and shareholder voting concerning the April 19, 2017 and July 31,
2017 proxy solicitations.

If you wish to participate or serve as a lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than 60 days from August 31, 2017.  For
more information about the Finkelstein & Krinsk complaint or to
talk to an attorney about your options, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk
(Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 619-238-1333), or email:
jrk@classactionlaw.com.  A class member may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice.

The proxy statements at issue were prepared by the directors of
MagicJack.  The Complaint alleges the directors denied
shareholders fair corporate suffrage after issuing two consecutive
false and misleading proxy and alleges the associated information
of the proxy statements and the proxy misrepresented material
facts concerning (1) the true value of the Broadsmart subsidiary
and its grossly impaired financials; (2) the true prospects of the
Broadsmart acquisition represented as a business springboard; (3)
the concealment of material issues in order to entrench
MagicJack's Board of Directors, and (4) related manipulation to
gain unwarranted compensation in connection with attempts to sell
the Company and extract personal recompense.

Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP practices law nationwide and has a
reputation for superior work and excellent results. Please call
(toll-free 877-493-5366), email: -- jrk@classactionlaw.com --, or
otherwise contact Finkelstein & Krinsk as follows: 619-238-1333,
619-238-5425 fax, 550 C St, San Diego, CA 92101. [GN]


MATHESON TRI-GAS: $370K Deal in "Van Kempen" Suit Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion
for final approval of a class action settlement in the case
captioned ROY VAN KEMPEN, Plaintiff, v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00660-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt
delivery driver of industrial and medical gases.  In his operative
complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intentionally
failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses he received in
calculating his rate of overtime pay.  On that basis, he claims
that the Defendant systematically underpaid his overtime wages in
violation of Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA and Section 510 of the
California Labor Code.  He further alleges that the Defendant had
a "use-it-or-lose it" vacation time policy by which accrued
vacation time was automatically forfeited if not used within a
specified time period.  The Plaintiff claims that this vacation-
time policy violated California Labor Code Section 227.3.  These
claims are asserted in both the Plaintiff's individual capacity
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.

The Defendant removed the action from state court under federal
question, diversity, and Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.
In this Court, the Plaintiff amended his initial complaint to add
new state law claims and propounded formal and informal written
discovery on the Defendant. The parties then participated in a
private mediation before a retired state court judge, and the case
settled.

The Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class and collective action settlement on Jan. 10, 2016.  The
Court denied the Plaintiff's motion on Aug. 1, 2016.  In its
decision, the Court (i) granted provisional class certification of
the nationwide FLSA overtime class, and California overtime and
vacation classes; (2) appointed the Plaintiff as the class
representative and Sutton Hague Law Corporation as the class
counsel; and (iii) denied preliminary settlement approval due to
the proposed FLSA opt-in agreement and release language

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of a class action settlement, individually and on behalf
of the settlement class, as well as his unopposed motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and an enhancement award.  The proposed
settlement will resolve Plaintiff's wage-and-hour claims against
the Defendant under the FLSA, and various California statutes.

The key terms of the proposed class action settlement are:

      a. Class Definitions: There are three groups of proposed
class members: (i) an FLSA overtime group, comprised of all
current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant
nationwide who worked overtime while entitled to non-discretionary
bonus pay and who opt in to the group; (ii) a California overtime
class, comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees of
the Defendant in California who worked overtime while entitled to
non-discretionary bonus pay and who do not opt out of the
settlement; and (iii) a California vacation-time class, comprised
of all persons employed by the Defendant in California who accrued
vacation time but forfeited it.  The class period for all three
proposed classes runs from Jan. 9, 2011, through the date that the
Court enters final approval of the collective and class action
settlement.  In total, the parties estimate that there are
approximately 2,400 putative class members.

      b Monetary Relief: The Defendant will pay a gross total of
$370,000 to resolve the action, less attorneys' fees up to
$103,600 and up to $15,000 in litigation costs, a $5,000 incentive
award for the Plaintiff, settlement administration costs not
anticipated to exceed $25,000, and 75% of the $5,000 penalty under
the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").  Based on these
assumptions, the parties estimate that the putative classes will
receive a total of $217,650.  Fifty-two percent of this amount is
allocated to the FLSA nationwide and California overtime classes.
The remaining 48% is allocated to the California vacation class.
Each individual putative class member's payment within each
proposed class will be calculated by dividing the net settlement
amount by the total number of weeks that all members of the
relevant proposed class worked during the class period and then
multiplying that number of compensable workweeks that the
individual worked.  Regardless of the outcome of this formula,
each putative class member will receive a monetary payment of at
least $25.

      c. Cy Pres Recipients: The settlement checks left uncashed
for 180 days by California class members will revert to
California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement unclaimed
wage fund.  The similarly left uncashed by FLSA class members will
revert in equal part to the Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for
Law & Policy and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and
Employment.

      d. Release: There is both a class and individual component
to the proposed release.  The Putative class members would release
any and all applicable claims which were asserted in the Action or
could have been asserted against the Released Parties based on the
claims, matters, transactions or occurrences referred to in the
operative Complaint during the Claims Period ("Released Claims").
The Released Claims also include claims under or pertaining to the
Fair Labor Standards Act any and all PAGA penalties or other
relief under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq. that could have been raised in the operative
Complaint, and all rights under California Civil Code Section
1542.  The Plaintiff, as the class representative, would release
these same claims.

      e. Class Notice: The parties intend to send class notice
packages to all last-known addresses of putative class members by
US mail within 14 calendar days of the Court's order granting
preliminary approval.

      f. Opt-Out & Opt-In Procedures: The putative members of the
California overtime and vacation classes have the right to opt out
of the settlement by submitting a request for exclusion form
within 60 days after the settlement administrator transmits class
notice.  If 5% of either the California overtime or vacation
putative classes opt out of the settlement, the Defendant will
have the unilateral right to terminate the settlement agreement.

      g. The putative members of the FLSA class must affirmatively
opt in to participate in the FLSA settlement.  The FLSA overtime
putative class members must opt in by submitting a Claim Form to
the Claims Administrator not later than 60 calendar days from the
mailing of the Notice Packet.

      h. Class Representative and Class Counsel: The Plaintiff has
been appointed the class representative and Sutton Hague Law
Corporation has been appointed the class counsel.

      i. Incentive Award: The Plaintiff seeks a $5,000 incentive
award as the class representative.

      j. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The class counsel will seek
attorneys' fees equal to 28% of the gross settlement amount and
litigation costs up to $15,000.  If the Court awards attorneys'
fees and costs equal to less than the requested amount, the
difference will revert to the net settlement amount.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.  He further approved the settlement amount of $370,000,
including payments of attorneys' fees in the amount of $98,432;
costs in the amount of $7,674.55; administration fees in the
amount of $37,500; an incentive fee for the Named Plaintiff in the
amount of $5,000; and a $5,000 PAGA allocation.

He directed the parties and settlement administrator to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement.  They are directed to
submit a joint proposed judgment for approval by Sept. 1, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/i4514x from Leagle.com.

Roy Van Kempen, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.

Roy Van Kempen, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clinton Davis
Robison -- clint.robison@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan & Vickie
V. Grasu -- vickie.grasu@leclairryan.com -- LeClair Ryan LLP.


MDL 2705: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Parmesan Cheese Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE:
100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Cases, Nos. 16 C 5802,
MDL 2705 (N.D. Ill.), without prejudice to Plaintiffs' filing
amended complaints that attempt to correct the deficiencies
identified.

Defendants in this multidistrict litigation are purveyors of
grated parmesan cheese products with labels stating 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese or some variation thereof.

Plaintiffs filed five consolidated class action complaints, which
allege violations of various state consumer protection statutes,
breaches of express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do not adequately plead two
necessary components of Article III standing, injury and
causation.  The Supreme Court recently reiterated the requirements
for Article III standing: The irreducible constitutional minimum
of standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have
(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are financial. They claim that they
purchased a product worth less than what they paid because it
contained non-cheese ingredients, and also that they received
something different and less valuable than what they were
promised, because the front label misleadingly states that the
product is 100% cheese.

For the reasons given in In re Aqua DotsProducts Liability
Litigation, 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011), these allegations are
sufficient to establish standing, the Court held.

Consumer Protection Claims

Plaintiffs bring claims under various state consumer protection
statutes: Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADPTA).

Turning to the present suits, the description 100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese is ambiguous as are the other, similar descriptions of
Defendants' products so Plaintiffs' claims are doomed by the
readily accessible ingredient panels on the products that disclose
the presence of non-cheese ingredients, the Court held.  Although
100% Grated Parmesan Cheese might be interpreted as saying that
the product is 100% cheese and nothing else, it also might be an
assertion that 100% of the cheese is parmesan cheese, or that the
parmesan cheese is 100% grated.

The side panel lists all of the ingredients, which do not include
fruit. Plaintiffs cannot claim surprise over these labels, which
have long been required on food products and are familiar to a
reasonable consumer. Defendants' labeling and marketing, when
viewed as a whole, thus are not deceptive.

Express Warranty Claims

The Court also held that Plaintiffs' express warranty claims
suffer from the same fatal flaw as their consumer protection
claims: A reasonable consumer would not understand Defendants'
labels to warrant that the products contain only cheese. As the
parties agree, the express warranty claims can succeed only if a
reasonable consumer could plausibly read [Defendants' statements]
to be specific, factual representations that the products contain
solely cheese, but must fail if the labels, viewed objectively,
make no such promise.

The question is whether Plaintiffs' alleged subjective belief that
the products promised only cheese was objectively reasonable, and
for the reasons given above, the answer is no. Defendants' express
warranty claims thus fall along with their consumer protection
claims.

Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claims

Plaintiffs' implied warranty of merchantability claims fail for
the same reason: Defendants' labels cannot reasonably be read to
promise that the products contain only cheese. Defendants argue
that because their products were fit for ordinary use as grated
cheese, they breached no implied warranty of fitness, the Court
added.

The Complaint lacks any allegation suggesting that the Products
were not fit for their ordinary purpose or could not be consumed
or used as grated Parmesan cheese.

Unjust Enrichment Claims

Plaintiffs acknowledge that, generally speaking, to state a cause
of action based on the theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff
must allege that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to
the plaintiff's detriment, and that the defendant's retention of
the benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity,
and good conscience.

Plaintiffs' only basis for asserting that Defendants' marketing
violated principles of justice, equity, and good conscience is
their contention that Defendants marketed their Products as '100%'
grated cheese while delivering something less, and so deceived
them.

That is not a reasonable characterization of Defendants' conduct.
No reasonable consumer would think Plaintiffs delivered something
other than what their labels promised. So Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims fail, too.

Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 24, 2017,
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y8vd3eucfrom Leagle.com.

Rosemary Quinn, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow -
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com - Barnow and Associates, P.C..
Rosemary Quinn, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Seth Garber -
tgarber@fbfglaw.com - Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson &
Garber, LLP.

Alfonso Fata, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Todd Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship,
Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Alan Ducorsky, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C. & Todd Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship,
Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Kristie Perkins, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Timothy Howard,
Howard & Associates. 8511 Bull Headley Rd, Ste 400, Leon County,
Tallahassee, FL 32312-5131.

Chrissy Sellers, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Timothy Howard,
Howard & Associates.

Kiara Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Jan-Yura
Korolinsky, 500 S Australian Ave, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401-6223
Melissa Leigh Randolph, Plaintiff, represented by Grey Tesh &
William Charles Wright, William C. Wright Law Offices. 515 N.
Flagler Dr., Ste P-300, West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Michael Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch -
jlynch@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, John
J. Driscoll - driscoll@clm.com - The Driscoll Firm & Philip Sholtz
- psholtz@goldbergsegalla.com - The Driscoll Firm.

Chauncy Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, John J. Driscoll, The Driscoll Firm &
Philip Sholtz, The Driscoll Firm.

Albertson Companies, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gary Hansen -
ghansen@foxrothschild.com - Fox Rothschild LLP, Heidi A.O. Fisher
- hfisher@foxrothschild.com - Fox Rothschild LLP, Samuel John
Tunheim - stunheim@foxrothschild.com - Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph
Edward Collins - jcollins@foxrothschild.com - Fox Rothschild LLP &
Robert J. Rohrberger - rrohrberger@foxrothschild.com - Fox
Rothschild LLP.

Albertsons, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary Hansen, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Heidi A.O. Fisher, Fox Rothschild LLP, Samuel John
Tunheim, Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph Edward Collins, Fox Rothschild
LLP & Robert J. Rohrberger, Fox Rothschild LLP.

Supervalu, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary Hansen, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Heidi A.O. Fisher, Fox Rothschild LLP, Samuel John
Tunheim, Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph Edward Collins, Fox Rothschild
LLP & Robert J. Rohrberger, Fox Rothschild LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by DAVID E.
SELLINGER - sellingere@gtlaw.com - GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, David
Eric Sellinger, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Francis A. Citera -
citeraf@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP. & John F. Gibbons -
gibbonsj@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP..

Kraft Heinz Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander M. Smith
- asmith@jenner.com - Jenner and Block LLP, Dean Nicholas Panos -
dpanos@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP & Kenneth Kiyul Lee -
klee@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joshua Gliki, -
glikin@bowie-jensen.com - Bowie & Jensen, LLC, Eileen Marie Letts,
Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP & Martin Peter Greene, Zuber Lawler &
Del Duca LLP.

ICCO-Cheese Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua
Glikin, Bowie & Jensen, LLC.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heidi A.O.
Fisher, Fox Rothschild LLP & Ted C. Craig, GrayRobinson, PA.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness,
Amicus, represented by Anna St. John, Competitive Enterprise
Institute Center for Class Action Fai & M. Frank Bednarz, Center
For Class Action Fairness.


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICIA MERKOVICH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01176-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Suding" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SUDING and CATHLEEN SUDING, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN COMPLAINT DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-02302 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages
suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          Email: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723 4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723 4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Lacrosse Player Objects to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC on Aug. 30 disclosed that a former
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) women's lacrosse
player has filed an Objection to a proposed settlement of NCAA
concussion-focused class-action litigation, because the settlement
does not adequately protect college-level Women Lacrosse Players
from catastrophic head injuries.

Samantha Greiber, an Annapolis, Maryland native, alleges that she
suffers from permanent brain injuries resulting from two
concussions that she sustained while playing NCAA women's lacrosse
at Hofstra University.  Ms. Greiber wrote in an Affidavit
submitted to the U.S. Federal court in Chicago that, as an active
player, she desired to wear a type of helmet that would have
prevented, or at the very least minimized, her injuries. But, the
NCAA rendered such helmets illegal -- and only did so for women's
lacrosse programs.

Ms. Greiber's lawyers at the firms Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC
(RWL) and Smouse & Mason, LLC, based in Baltimore, wrote in her
Objection that the proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable or
adequate because it would require Women Lacrosse Players to
release any claim they have to require the NCAA to mandate
protective helmets for Women Lacrosse Players or otherwise to
educate NCAA institutions, coaches and players about the benefits
of protective helmets.  A hearing to determine the fairness of the
proposed settlement has been set by United States District Judge
John Z. Lee to take place on November 28, 2017, in Chicago.

Women Lacrosse Players seeking to join the Objection may do so
before September 15, 2017: https://goo.gl/wVjYZr

According to the Objection filed in federal court in Chicago on
August 29, 2017, Women Lacrosse Players represent a particularly
unique and vulnerable group of NCAA student-athletes for whom a
particular subclass of plaintiffs should have been created.  The
Objection notes that even after the Court indicated an earlier
concern that Class Representatives as a group must adequately
represent the "continuum" of the risk of suffering a concussion
across different NCAA-sanctioned sports, no Class Representative
was established to represent the unique interests of Women
Lacrosse Players.

"Data from NCAA studies and its Injury Surveillance System, as
well as from other academic sources, all well known to the NCAA,
establish that the incidence of concussion for Women Lacrosse
Players is consistently among the highest of any NCAA sport," the
Objection argues.  The Objection further notes that the "The NCAA
knows -- and has available to it multiple studies and academic
articles, some of which it sponsored, demonstrating -- that the
best available means to prevent student-athlete lacrosse players
from suffering concussions is to require them to wear protective
helmets, as it does for its male lacrosse players."

Yet, Women Lacrosse Players remain unprotected.  The proposed
settlement not only fails to address the issue, but, if approved,
it would bar Women Lacrosse Players from taking further legal
action to require helmets.

The lawyers for Ms. Greiber note in the Objection: "The NCAA has
undertaken a duty and contractually obligated itself to protect
the health and safety of its student-athletes." They further
highlight that the NCAA's Executive Director declared in July 2014
testimony to Congress that the organization has "a clear, moral
obligation to make sure that we do everything we can to support
and protect student-athletes."   The Greiber Objection notes that
it is "reasonable for student-athletes such as
Ms. Greiber to believe that the NCAA meant what it represented to
the United States Senate, and it would also be reasonable for
student athletes to rely upon the NCAA to follow through upon such
promises.  Yet, the NCAA has strikingly failed to protect Women
Lacrosse Players, and has discriminated against them" by failing
to require protective helmets for women, or to provide even the
most basic education about their use and benefits.

According to Aron U. Raskas -- araskas@rwllaw.com -- a partner at
RWL, "It is shocking that in the face of all this data" -- nearly
two dozen studies are cited in the Objection -- "and the advent of
helmets designed to meet the standards developed specifically for
women's lacrosse by ASTM International, the NCAA bullishly refuses
to mandate protective helmets for women, as it does for men, or
even to educate women about them.  It is sexist.  It is
discriminatory. And it is wrong."

RWL has appeared in other class actions.  In a recent Opinion
issued in a class action spearheaded by RWL partner Charles S.
Fax, another of Ms. Greiber's lawyers, a federal judge wrote that
the results obtained by Fax and his co-counsel were "impressive"
and that "[a]chieving these results undoubtedly took . . .the most
capable and experienced professionals in the country . . ."

The Objector, Samantha Greiber, is represented by Aron U. Raskas,
Arnold Weiner, Alan Rifkin, Chuck Fax, and Barry Gogel of Rifkin
Weiner Livingston LLC, and Roy Mason of Smouse and Mason.  RWL --
http://www.rwllaw.com-- and Smouse and Mason represent Ms.
Greiber in a separate personal injury action against the NCAA,
Hofstra University and others in Nassau County, New York seeking
compensation for her injuries. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Court Names Guardian Ad Litem in Minor Inmate's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the United States District
Court, District of Nebraska, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Appointment of Next Friend in the case captioned
HANNAH SABATA; DYLAN CARDEILHAC; JAMES CURTRIGHT; JASON GALLE;
RICHARD GRISWOLD; MICHAEL GUNTHER; ANGELIC NORRIS; R. P., a minor;
ISAAC REEVES; ZOE RENA; and BRANDON SWEETSER; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; SCOTT FRAKES, in his
official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services; HARBANS DEOL, in his official capacity as
Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services; NEBRASKA BOARD OF PAROLE; JULIE MICEK, in
her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole
Administrator; and DOES, 1 to 20 inclusive; Defendants, No.
4:17CV3107 (D. Neb.).

This is a purported class action lawsuit filed by several Nebraska
prisoners against the for alleged violations of the Eighth
Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act.

Plaintiff R.P. is a minor currently incarcerated in the Nebraska
Correctional Youth Facility and is part of the purported class.

R.P.'s parents are unable to serve as his next friend in this
action, as his mother lives out of state and his father is
travelling outside the United States for an indeterminate amount
of time. R.P. requests appointment of a representative to pursue
this action on his behalf.

Upon review of the matter, the Court finds that a Guardian ad
Litem should be appointed to protect R.P.'s interests during the
pendency of this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) and of
Amended Plan for the Administration of the Federal Practice Fund
and the Federal Practice Committee.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Next Friend Per Fed. R. Civ.
P. 17(c) is granted.

David J. Tarrell, Attorney at Law, 1823 Harney Street, Suite 100,
Omaha, Nebraska 68102, (402) 884-7770, is appointed as Guardian ad
Litem to represent the interests of Plaintiff R. P., a minor,
during the pendency of this action or until further order of the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's August 24, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycp2t5kzfrom Leagle.com.

Hannah Sabata, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller --
amiller@aclunebraska.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION.

Hannah Sabata, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Young -
chritopher.young@dlapiper.com - DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON
PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins - dawn.jenkins@dlapiper.com
- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin -
debra.patkin@nad.org -  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW &
ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge -
Jennifer.elridge@dlapiper.com - DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Kara J. Janssen -  kjanssen@rbgg.com - ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith - ksmith@neappleseed.org - NEBRASKA
APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien -  mbien@rbgg.com - ROSEN, BIEN
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen -
rmcewen@neappleseed.org - NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

Dylan Cardeilhac, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M.
Jenkins, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

James Curtright, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.
Jason Galle, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.
Richard Griswold, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M.
Jenkins, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

Michael Gunther, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.
Angelic Norris, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.
R. P., Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
- NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins, DLA
PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen,
ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith, NEBRASKA
APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

Isaac Reeves, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.
Zoe Rena, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
- NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins, DLA
PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen,
ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith, NEBRASKA
APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

Brandon Sweetser, Plaintiff, represented by Amy A. Miller,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Christopher M. Young,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M.
Jenkins, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J.
Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.


NEW TELECOM: "Lin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
HONG LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW TELECOM, INC. d/b/a FLUSHING INN,
ABC CORP. d/b/a FLUHING INN, ZEMING CHENG a.k.a "DA VID" CHENG,
and YU ZHANG, the Defendants, Case No. 711709/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Aug. 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages to be determined at trial
for minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours due,
Defendant's failure to furnish a notice at the time of hiring,
Defendants failure to furnish pay stubs, and liquidated damages
under the New York Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Labor Law
and its regulations.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a hotel business
located at 140-46 Sanford Ave. Flushing, NY 11355.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip H. Kim, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          136-18 391h Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8522


NEW ZEALAND: Edgecumbe GP Practice Joins Flooding Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Brown, writing for nzdoctor, reports that Edgecumbe GP
practice joins class action against council over flood disaster
Riverslea Medical Centre staff at their temporary premises in Te
Teko.

Heads should roll over Edgecumbe's flooding disaster, says
Riverslea Medical Centre GP Cecile de Groot, explaining why her
practice is joining the town's class action law suit against the
Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

"What happened was absolutely avoidable," she says of the April
flood that had residents fleeing for their lives when the
Rangitaiki River overflowed.

So far, half of Edgecumbe's residents, about 230, have signed up
to the class action led by two Auckland lawyers who have
previously handled leaky homes cases, Rangitaiki Community Board
member Graeme Bourk says.

Mr Bourk, who is spear-heading the lawsuit, says the stretch of
concrete wall on College Road that gave way on the morning of
April 6 was substandard and never designed to hold back a flood.
The wall was leaking the night before and also on the morning of
the 6th, but council staff "said it was fine".

"They're just a pack of clowns," he says.

It breached about 9am that morning, sending Riverslea Medical and
Edgecumbe Pharmacy staff racing to get out, pursued by a "wall of
water".

Compensation sought

If successful, the lawsuit will compensate uninsured residents and
as well as other residents for expenses above those their
insurance companies will pay out.

Dr de Groot says her practice would seek compensation for the
stress and strain of the flooding, plus extra expenses involved in
relocating. The medical centre has been housed in "tiny" premises
at Te Teko since the flood.

As well, many of her patients have been forced to leave the area.
"It's not going to be a good financial year for us," she says.

But she says, joining the class action is not so much for monetary
reasons, "it's about making a statement in support of others" over
a flood that should have been foreseen and prevented.

The regional council's general manager integrated catchments,
Chris Ingle, declined to comment on the issue because the council
has not been notified of legal proceedings.

Dr de Groot plans to move back to her old premises in Edgecumbe
Mall, with building work to get under way in the next few months.
She hopes the practice can return before Christmas. [GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Marino" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda Mai Du of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned VALERIE MARGARET MARINO, individually and on the behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00526-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiff filed her class action Complaint on Sept. 8, 2016,
against the Defendant.  She filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on March
15, 2013, in the bankruptcy court for the District of Nevada.  Her
debt, including a home loan serviced by the Defendant, was
discharged on June 18, 2013.  She generally alleges that Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act ("TCPA") by making
calls to her cellular telephone number using an automatic
telephone dialing system and did so without her consent by making
these calls after the bankruptcy court issued its order
discharging her mortgage debt.

She brings the action on behalf of other individuals who have also
had home loans serviced by the Defendant discharged through
bankruptcy proceedings only to have the Defendant subsequently
call these individuals without their prior express consent.  The
Plaintiff states that she and the class members were damaged by
the Defendant's TCPA violations because their privacy was
improperly and illegally invaded, and because these calls were
annoying and interrupting, and required them to take time and
effort to receive the calls or retrieve them from voicemail, which
also made their cell phones unavailable during the time these
calls occurred.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and class members, requests
both injunctive relief and statutory damages, as well as treble
damages under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3).  The Defendant moves to
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim.

Judge Du concludes that overall, the Defendant's argument that the
injuries alleged by the Plaintiff would have still occurred had it
manually dialed her cell phone is unpersuasive.  Beyond this
argument being inconsistent with the language and purpose of the
statute, this reasoning would also render the TCPA's prohibition
on the use of autodialers in certain contexts meaningless because
anytime a complaint alleged an invasion of privacy or interruption
in the use of a cell phone resulting from an unconsented to and
autodialed call, the claims would be dismissed given that the call
could have been made manually.  Thus, she finds that the
Complaint's allegation of an invasion of privacy and interruption
in the use of the Plaintiff's cell phone was fairly traceable to
the alleged unconsented to and autodialed calls of the Defendant.

However, the Judge finds that the action does not involve the same
claims as those from the bankruptcy proceeding because the case
requires additional evidence that was not required or presented in
the bankruptcy court.  Specifically, in the bankruptcy proceeding,
Ms. Marino testified that she suffered emotional distress because
the Defendant sent her letters and called her cell phone trying to
collect on the home loan knowing that she was no longer liable for
the debt, but she did not present evidence nor did she have to
prove that the calls were made with an autodialer and that she was
charged for those calls, both of which is required under the
relevant provision of the TCPA.  For these reasons, Judge Du finds
that res judicata does not apply to bar the Plaintiff's claims.

Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed.  She has reviewed these arguments
and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion or
reconsideration as they do not affect the outcome of the
Defendant's Motion.  She therefore ordered that the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and
Failure to State a Claim is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fAA4nD from Leagle.com.

Valerie Margaret Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Craig
Borison -- info@legglaw.com -- Legg Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Valerie Margaret Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P.
Burke -- attycburke@charter.net -- Christohper P. Burke, Esq. and
Associates.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Vincent
Otero -- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice,
Gary E. Schnitzer -- GSchnitzer@KSJAttorneys.com -- Kravitz,
Schnitzer & Johnson, Chtd. & Ryan Andrew Becker --
becker@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP.


OFFICE DEPOT: Alvarez Seeks Wages & OT Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN ALVAREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFFICE DEPOT,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
16 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC674033 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 28, 2017), seeks to recover wages for overtime compensation
under California Labor Code.

The lawsuit alleges that Plaintiff and class members were not paid
for all hours worked because all hours worked were not recorded;
and that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and
class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime
compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for
overtime compensation.

Defendants are provider of office supplies, technology, furniture
and business services to consumers and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          Natalie Torbati, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Natlie.Torbati@CapstoneLawyers.com


ONTARIO: To Fight Class Action Over Jail Conditions
---------------------------------------------------
Sam Pazzano, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that the province of
Ontario will fight the certification of a class-action lawsuit
which alleges that "deplorable" conditions -- including lockdowns
--have violated prisoners' Charter rights, the Sun has learned.

The lawsuit, which represents as many as 300,000 inmates, seeks $1
billion in general damages and another $250 million in punitive
damages from the province, claiming a breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence and a violation of Charter rights for allegedly failing
to finance, staff and manage their jails.

The province has yet to file a statement of defence but will do so
after making its arguments at the certification hearings, which
are scheduled for December.

Once the issue of certification is determined, the province's
lawyers will file a defence.

Ontario's highest court tossed out a judgment that awarded two
inmates $85,000 and concluded that multiple lockdowns amounted to
cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Douglas Gray awarded $60,000 to Jamil Ogiamien and another
$25,000 to Huy Nguyen for mistreatment at the maximum-security
Maplehurst jail in Milton.  Mr. Ogiamien spent three years there
as an immigration hold facing deportation to Nigeria while Hguyen
spent one year awaiting a firearms trial.

Jail-house lockdowns mean that detainees are confined to their
cells, deprived of showers and programs and exposed to extremely
harsh conditions, said Jonathan Ptak, one of several lawyers
involved in the prisoners' class-action lawsuit.

"Our lawsuit is an examination of the prison system as a whole and
the impact of staff-shortage-caused lockdowns on the welfare of
inmates," said Mr. Ptak.  Although Justice John Laskin struck down
Gray's 2016 decision, Ptak argued the case of Mr. Ogiamien and
Nguyen doesn't extend to the broader picture of inmates across the
province -- or even Maplehurst.

"This case wasn't litigated as a general inquiry into the
conditions and treatments of inmates at Ontario's maximum-security
institutions, or even specifically at Maplehurst," stated Laskin.
"The focus of this case was narrower: The effect of the lockdowns
on the treatment of these two inmates at Maplehurst."

"Their treatment under lockdowns compared to normal conditions may
have been excessive or disproportionate, but it was not grossly
disproportionate," wrote Mr. Laskin.  "Thus their treatment did
not meet the high bar required to establish a Section 12
violation."

Maplehurst houses 1,000 to 1,100 men in its jail cells. Some
inmates are serving sentences under two years, some are parole
violators, others are awaiting trial or immigration hearings.
[GN]


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: 9th Cir. Appeal Awaits Hearing Date
----------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that no hearing date
has been set on the appeal made to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following
day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz
v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims.

On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint
purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of
our stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading
statements regarding the interim results and termination of the
Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive
relief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On May 19, 2016, the District Court
granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of the
consolidated complaint with prejudice and portions without
prejudice. The Court granted the lead plaintiff 30 days to file an
amended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissed
with prejudice.

On June 16, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of intent not
to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to an appeal
of the Court's decision dismissing the consolidated complaint. As
a result, the court entered judgment dismissing the consolidated
complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. The lead plaintiff
filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on July 26, 2016. The appeal has been fully briefed. No hearing
date has been set.

Orexigen Therapeutics said, "Although management believes that
this appeal lacks merit and intends to defend against it
vigorously, there are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and
we cannot predict the outcome. At this time, we are unable to
estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from
such legal proceedings, and we have not accrued any amounts in
connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing
attorney's fees."

Orexigen Therapeutics is a public American pharmaceutical company
focused on development of treatments for obesity. The company is
based in La Jolla, California and was established by Eckard Weber
in 2002.


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: "Hampton" Class Action Claims Barred by SLUSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the district court to the extent
it concludes that Plaintiff's claims are barred, and vacated to
the extent it dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice in the
case captioned WILLIAM T. HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC; PIMCO FUNDS; E. PHILIP CANNON;
J. MICHAEL HAGAN; BRENT R. HARRIS; DOUGLAS M. HODGE; RONALD C.
PARKER; VERN O. CURTIS; WILLIAM J. POPEJOY, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 15-56841 (9th Cir.).

A private party injured in the securities trade can generally seek
relief under whatever laws federal or state provide a cause of
action. Congress, however, has significantly narrowed the
availability of class relief based on state-law securities claims.

The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) bars
private class actions based on state law in cases where the
plaintiff alleges a material falsehood or omission connected to
the purchase or sale of most federally-regulated securities.

Lead plaintiff William Hampton sued the defendants in district
court, styling his complaint as one for breach of contract and
various fiduciary duties under Massachusetts law. The district
judge held that SLUSA barred his claims, and dismissed them with
prejudice.

On appeal, Hampton challenges the district judge's (1) conclusion
that his claims are barred by SLUSA, and (2) decision to dismiss
his claims with prejudice as a result.  The Ninth Circuit affirms
the district court's holding that the class-action claims in this
case are indeed barred by SLUSA.

The critical language here is SLUSA's command, codified as an
amendment to the 1933 Securities Act, that no covered class action
may be maintained in any State or Federal court if it meets the
statute's various requirements. 15 U.S.C. section 77p(b)

To the extent that SLUSA bars Hampton's suit, it does so by
depriving the district court of jurisdiction to hear his state-law
claims on a class-wide basis, and the district judge erred by
dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) rather than 12(b)(1). Because
the district judge had no jurisdiction to reach the merits of
Hampton's claims, he had no power to dismiss them with prejudice.
SLUSA's jurisdictional bar, which applies in both state and
federal courts, only kicks in when an individual plaintiff pleads
(1) state-law claims as a (2) class action. So, assuming there are
no other jurisdictional barriers, Hampton is free to return to the
district court (or depart for an appropriate state court) to
replead his state-law claims on an individual basis, or to plead
new federal securities claims either as an individual or as a
class representative. On what basis Hampton seeks to proceed, and
in what forum, is up to him, and the district judge can set an
appropriate schedule for that decision on remand.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed to the extent it
concludes that Hampton's claims are barred, and vacated to the
extent it dismissed Hampton's claims with prejudice. The case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Full-text copies of the Ninth Circuit's August 24, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y76fzkwdand Memorandum is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycuhrdkofrom Leagle.com.

Nicholas I. Porritt, (argued), and Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky
LLP, 1101 30th Street NWSuite, 115 Washington, DC 20007; Jeff S.
Westerman - jwesterman@jswlegal.com -  Westerman Law Corp., Los
Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew L. Larrabee - matthew.larrabee@dechert.com -(argued), and
Joshua D.N. Hess - joshua.hess@dechert.com - Dechert LLP, San
Francisco, California; David A. Kotler - david.kotler@dechert.com
- Dechert LLP, Princeton, New Jersey; Frank D. Rorie Jr. -
FRorie@kelleranderle.com - Law Office of Frank D. Rorie Jr., West
Hollywood, California; John D. Donovan -
John.Donovan@ropesgray.com  -Robert A. Skinner -
Robert.Skinner@ropesgray.com - and Amy D. Roy -
Amy.Roy@ropesgray.com  -  Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, Massachusetts;
John C. Ertman - John.Ertman@ropesgray.com -  New York, New York;
Ronald Rusand Randall A. Smith - rsmith@brownrudnick.com - Brown
Rudnick LLP, Irvine, California; for Defendants-Appellees.


PALM BEACH, FL: Asks Judge to Throw Out Class Suit Over Utilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Kelly, writing for Palm Beach Daily, reports that the town
is asking a judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by two
residents challenging the plan to pay for the town-wide
undergrounding of utilities.

South End resident Carol Kosberg and North End resident Michael
Scharf sued the town in July, alleging the assessments on property
owners are invalid because the town relied on a consultant's
"arbitrary assessment methodology."

They want a judge to certify the case as a class action, declare
the special assessments void, and permanently block the town from
imposing special assessments.

Town Manager Tom Bradford has said the town is using an assessment
methodology similar to that which Palm Beach County courts have
approved in the past.

In its motion, filed Aug. 22 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court,
the town asserts that the class action claim is "insufficient."
Once the Town Council approved the assessments on July 12, any
resident who wished to object had 20 days to take legal action.

"Based on the allegations of the complaint, only Kosberg and
Scharf initiated an action within that required time period," the
town says in the motion.

The Kosberg/Scharf suit is one of two filed to challenge the
assessments. The other one was filed by PBT Real Estate LLC Aug.
1, and claiming to be a class action on behalf of the 273 units at
the Palm Beach Towers. The lawsuit alleges the owners of the 273
units at the Towers building at 44 Cocoanut Row should not be
assessed because the building already has underground utilities.
The towers' board of directors has said it is not involved with
the suit.

Hearing dates have not been scheduled in either case.

The town has begun the first of eight phases planned to bury all
overhead power, cable television and telephone lines over the next
decade.

It is using bank loans to finance the early years of the program,
and plans to issue up to $90 million in bonds to be repaid by the
special assessments over a period of 30 years.

The town says buried lines will improve aesthetics, safety and
reliability. [GN]


PAYMENT DATA: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Payment Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court's decision on
a re-filed motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is still
pending.

On April 26, 2016, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the
Company, re-filed a class-action lawsuit in United States District
Court, District of Nevada that had been previously filed and
dismissed.

"The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment
by our Board of Directors and certain executive officers and
directors in connection with excessive and unfair compensation
paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and 2014," Payment Data
Systems says.  The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive
compensation as well as damages in an unspecified amount. "In July
2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the case. In January 2017, the
court granted a partial dismissal of the claims and suggested the
plaintiffs re-file their petition. Subsequently, we re-filed a
motion to dismiss the case. On May 18, 2017, the court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss. The court's decision is still
pending," the Company said.

Payment Data Systems said, "We believe this claim is without merit
and it is unlikely that a loss will be incurred. Therefore, we
have not accrued for a potential loss. However, the outcome of the
dispute is still uncertain and it is possible we may incur legal
fees and losses in the future."

Payment Data Systems, Inc. provide integrated electronic payment
processing services to merchants and businesses, including all
types of Automated Clearing House, or ACH, processing, credit,
Pinless debit, prepaid card and debit card-based processing
services. Payment Data Systems, Inc. is founded in 1998 and is
based on San Antonio, Texas.


PEABODY ENERGY: Class Action Plaintiffs May Pursue Insurer
----------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the bankruptcy
court that oversaw the company's chapter 11 proceedings has given
its stamp of approval on a stipulation among the Debtors and
plaintiffs in the Lori J. Lynn class action lawsuit.

On July 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court in Missouri entered an order
on an agreed stipulation of the Debtors and the class action
plaintiffs such that the claim of the plaintiffs was estimated to
have no value for purposes of any distribution under the Plan,
except that plaintiffs are not precluded from pursuing recovery
from applicable insurance, and that plaintiffs will limit their
recovery solely to applicable insurance.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement
plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against Peabody Energy Corporation
(PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the
Company's and PIC's current and former executives and employees,
alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages
under ERISA relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock
Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of
the then current members and two former members of the relevant
boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012
to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that
included new allegations against the Company related to the
Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate
change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended
complaint also added the three committees responsible for
administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and
dropped several individual defendants, including the then current
directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the
Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three
Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed
against the individual defendants and the three named committees
with the second amended complaint.

On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2017, the United
States District Court granted the motion to dismiss. On May 1,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the March
30th order granting the motion to dismiss.

Peabody and a majority of its wholly owned domestic subsidiaries,
as well as one international subsidiary in Gibraltar, filed on
April 13, 2016, voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri.  On March 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order confirming the Debtors' Second Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Debtors and Debtors in Possession as revised
March 15, 2017.

Peabody Energy Corporation is the world's largest private-sector
coal company and is based on St. Louis, Missouri.


PENNYMAC LOAN: Triminio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRIMINIO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
PENNYMAC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23257-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 28, 2017), alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act,
against Defendant. PennyMac charged Plaintiffs $1,140 for
"estimated" fees to reinstate his loan to avoid foreclosure.
"Estimated" fees are fees companies expect to incur in the event
that certain conditions take place, but have not actually
incurred. The Eleventh Circuit has denounced "estimated" fees
associated with reinstatement of loans to be a violation of the
FCCPA and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. PennyMac conceals
the true nature of the fees by including unexplained estimated
fees in form letters sent to borrowers stating the amount they
must pay to reinstate their loan. By communicating fees that were
not clear or conspicuous in response to Plaintiffs' request for
information, PennyMac violated RESPA.

The complaint notes that hundreds of thousands of homes are in
some stage of foreclosure in the United States every month.  The
complaint points to https://is.gd/QicmYa  Most homeowners facing
foreclosure are desperate to keep their homes and are willing to
do close to anything to continue living in them with its families.
Defendant exploits their desperation by placing them in danger of
foreclosure if homeowners do not pay fees Defendant demands --
including fabricated debt characterized as "estimated" fees in the
reinstatement amounts. PennyMac provides loans throughout the
United States, including Florida. If a homeowner defaults on
payments, PennyMac imposes certain conditions on homeowners to
avoid foreclosure, including payment of PennyMac's attendant fees.
Despite its contractual obligations in its uniform Mortgage
Agreements and Notes to only charge actual fees allowed under
applicable law, PennyMac leverages its position of power over
homeowners facing foreclosure and demands payment of estimated
fees not actually owed; that is, fees PennyMac projects to incur
but has not actually incurred.

PennyMac factors these estimated fees into its total demand to
homeowners and insists they are required to pay the full amount
before PennyMac will reinstate their loans to avoid foreclosure.
The Eleventh Circuit has found that demands for "estimated fees"
associated with reinstatement of loans violate the FCCPA and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") upon which the FCCPA
is modelled. Defendant must be held accountable for its actions.
PennyMac knowingly violated the FCCPA and RESPA by demanding
estimated fee.

PennyMac is a servicer and lender for mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 342 2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren Newhart, Esq.
          Consumer Law Organization, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921 9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: DCard@Consumerlaworg.com

               - and -

          Christopher Legg, Esq.
          Christopher W. Legg, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Suite B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 235 3706
          Facsimile: (954) 927 2451
          E-mail: ChrisLeggLaw@gmail.com


PEOPLES TRUST: Faces CA for Exposing Customers to Risk of Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports a judge has
certified a class-action lawsuit that alleges a Vancouver
financial institution exposed its customers to the risk of
identity theft after an online database was hacked.

The plaintiff in the case claims that Peoples Trust Company, a
federally regulated trust with a head office in Vancouver, did not
adequately secure personal information, putting customers at risk
of identity theft and cybercrime.

Court heard that in September 2013, cybercriminals from China
gained unauthorized access to the company's computer database, and
unsolicited text messages were sent to users of the company's
website purportedly from the company, asking them to call a
telephone number in Utah.

These were attempts at "phishing"  --  soliciting money or
information from people by individuals pretending to be from the
company.

The trust company became aware of the possible breach of security
during the week of Oct. 7, 2013 and initiated a forensic
investigation that confirmed the database had been compromised.

The company notified Vancouver police, the RCMP and affected
customers, and reported the matter to the federal privacy
commissioner.

A letter was sent to customers, believed to number between 11,000
and 13,000, of steps the company had taken to mitigate the risk of
fraud and theft.

The letter advised that the company had arranged to have flags
placed on the customers' credit files to alert companies that
their data may have been compromised, with the flags to stay on
the files for six years.

The privacy commissioner investigated the matter and issued a
report in April 2015 that found the company had not implemented
sufficiently strong safeguards in developing its online
application web portal to protect sensitive information.

In addition, the report found that when the security breach
occurred, the company lacked a comprehensive information security
policy. The report added that the company was very cooperative and
demonstrated a timely and comprehensive response to the breach.

In certifying the lawsuit, B.C. Supreme Court Justice David
Masuhara found that it was not plain and obvious that there was no
cause of action for breach of contract or for a negligence claim.

"The plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts capable of
establishing that harm was reasonably foreseeable," said the judge
in his ruling. "The information collected by Peoples Trust was
sensitive and collected in the course of online applications for
financial services."

Ravi Hira, a lawyer for the company, said that nobody involved
suffered any losses because the firm took immediate steps to
address the problem. He pointed out that the RCMP and privacy
commissioner were contacted.

"Nobody suffered any monetary loss or identity theft," said Hira.

The Vancouver lawyer said that what was certified by the judge was
the issue of "nominal" damages, which he said has sometimes been
referred to as "moral" damages.

He said that the company is carefully considering whether to
appeal the class-action certification.

In addition to an office in Vancouver, the company has offices in
Toronto and Calgary and provides financial products and services,
including savings accounts, mortgages and credit cards. [GN]


PEPSICO: Faces Class Action Over Pop Tax on Bottled Water
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
PepsiCo has become the latest soft drinks vendor to be accused of
not properly collecting Cook County's new so-called "pop tax,"
after a Chicago law firm which has already sued 7-Eleven, Subway
and Jewel-Osco, also filed suit against PepsiCo, saying the food
and beverage giant should be made to pay for allegedly forcing
customers to pay the county tax on bottled water purchased at
Pepsi-branded vending machines.

On Aug. 24, the Chicago-based Zimmerman Law Offices, through named
plaintiff Bashiri Williams, filed a class action lawsuit against
PepsiCo in Cook County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit alleges Williams bought bottles of Aquafina-brand
bottled water "from various PepsiCo vending machines in Cook
County," and was charged 25 cents in tax for each $2 bottle of
water he purchased.

The lawsuit alleges the tax was applied to all beverages sold in
all Cook County Pepsi vending machines at the direction of PepsiCo
to comply with the county's 1-cent-per-ounce sweetened beverage
tax.  However, the lawsuit notes the water, which contains no
sugar or other sweeteners, should not be taxed under the county
ordinance.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order PepsiCo to "change
the . . . vending machines' software systems to properly assess
the sweetened beverage tax," and award "actual damages" and
attorney fees.

The lawsuit asks the court to expand the action to include
everyone "who purchased an unsweetened beverage from a PepsiCo
vending machine in Cook County . . . and were charged and paid a
sweetened beverage tax." According to the complaint, the
plaintiffs believe that class could include "thousands of people."

The lawsuit comes as the third such action brought by the
Zimmerman firm since the Cook County soda pop tax took effect at
the beginning of April.

The tax had been enacted in November 2016 by the Cook County Board
of Commissioners, at the urging of Cook County Board President
Toni Preckwinkle, who cast the deciding vote, breaking a deadlock
on the board.

Supporters of the tax say it would bring in about $200 million per
year to help the financially-struggling county government maintain
services, and would help reduce obesity and other public health
concerns in the county by reducing consumption of soda pop and
other sweetened beverages.

Opponents of the tax, however, have said the levy would add a
large burden to the grocery expenses of ordinary families, and
would hit retailers in the county hard, as county residents would
simply go outside Cook County to buy the beverages they had
purchased at Cook County supermarkets and convenience stores.
Further, they said the manner in which the tax ordinance was
crafted would lead to legal headaches for retailers, who would
need to invest large amounts in reconfiguring their register
systems to account for the tax, while opening retailers to
lawsuits.

In rejecting a legal challenge to the tax earlier in late July,
Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak had brushed aside those
lawsuit concerns, agreeing with the county's position that such
worries were "merely speculation."

Since the tax took effect, however, seven class action lawsuits
have been brought against retailers, restaurants and vendors.
Previous lawsuits were brought against Walgreens, 7-Eleven,
McDonald's, Subway, Jewel-Osco and Circle K.

The Zimmerman firm filed the lawsuits against 7-Eleven, Subway and
Jewel-Osco, asserting those retail chains improperly collected the
tax in various ways. [GN]


PEPSICO INC: Faces "Williams" Suit over Sweetened Beverage Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
BASHIRI WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEPSICO, INC., a North
Carolina corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH1.161B (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Aug. 24, 2017), seeks injunction requiring Defendant to
change the PepsiCo vending machines' software systems to properly
assess the sweetened beverage tax.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of the class of
persons, who were improperly charged the Cook County sweetened
beverage tax by PepsiCo on their vending machine purchases of
unsweetened beverages in Cook County, Illinois. The Cook County
Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance imposes a tax at the rate of
$0.01 per ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened beverages in
Cook County, Illinois. The Defendant charged Plaintiff the
sweetened beverage tax on his purchases of bottled water,
resulting in an unlawful tax charge. On information and belief,
under the direction of Defendant, all PepsiCo vending machines are
automatically and uniformly charging the sweetened beverage tax on
all purchases from its vending machines regardless of whether the
consumer is purchasing a sweetened beverage from the machine.

PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. PepsiCo
has interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
grain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          www.attomeyzim.com
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Aug. 29 disclosed that on August 25, 2017,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against PetMed Express,
Inc. (NASDAQ:PETS).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is May 8, 2017 through August
23, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all PetMed
Express, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, October 24,
2017 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


PETTA ENTERPRISES: "Graybill" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Jesse Graybill, et al., for himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Petta Enterprises,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00418-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective FLSA class;

   2 implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
     Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
     to:

     a. all current and former technicians or "techs", SSE's,
        Tier 1-Techs, Tier 2-Techs and any other hourly, non-
        exempt workers of Defendant working out of Petta's
        Cambridge OH Facility who primarily performed
        environmental and oil rig cleaning and related services
        who during the previous three years worked over 40 hours
        in any workweek but were not properly paid time and a
        half for the hours they worked over 40 (the "Technician
        Subclass"); and

     b. all current and former supervisors, and any other hourly,
        non-exempt workers of Defendant working out of Petta's
        Cambridge OH Facility who primarily performed
        environmental and oil rig cleaning and related services
        who during the previous three (3) years worked over 40
        hours in any workweek but were not properly paid time and
        a half for the hours they worked over 40 (the "Supervisor
        Subclass") (Collectively, the Technician Subclass and
        Supervisor Subclass will be referred to as the "216(b)
        Class Members"); and

   3. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time from
      approximately May 16, 2014 through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7K7Tgfpy

Attorneys for Plaintiff Graybill:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787 4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923 7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


QUAKER OATS: Baker & Hostetler Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holly A. Melton, Esq., and Alan L. Friel, Esq., of
Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
Glyphosate is one of the most common herbicides in the world,
useful for killing the weeds that stifle crops.  First formulated
in the 1950s by a Swiss scientist, the chemical had become the No.
1 herbicide in the United States agricultural sector, and the
second-most used in homes and gardens by 2007.  Experts have
described glyphosate as "a one in a 100-year discovery that is as
important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for
battling disease."

Brought to a Boil

The herbicide was front and center in Kathleen Gibson's class
action lawsuit against Quaker Oats, filed in the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, in May 2016.  Ms. Gibson took
exception with Quaker Oats' claim that its products were
"natural," "100 percent natural" and "heart healthy," among other
such claims, given that traces of glyphosate were found after
testing certain Quaker Oats products.

Given glyphosate's ubiquity, it is no surprise that it touches the
production life of many different food products.  The producers of
the oats that find their way into Quaker products use the
herbicide while their harvest is in the ground, to aid in the
drying of the oats and to produce an earlier and more uniform
crop.

Ms. Gibson's suit alleged that the presence of the glyphosate,
while not unlawful in its own right, undermined Quaker's "Green
and environmentally conscious" brand and proved that its
advertising was intended to mislead.  She brought claims alleging
negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and violation of
the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, among others.

The Takeaway

The court granted Quaker Oats' motion to dismiss in August.  While
observing that the consolidated class was bringing a dozen
different claims with a similar theme under Illinois, California,
Florida, New York and common law, the court noted that the
labeling of food is governed by the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, and not by individual states.  The court posed the
question: Did Congress intend to pre-empt the field of nutritional
and food labeling in this case?

The court ruled that it did, and that the state claims brought by
the class could not survive: The Food and Drug Administration's
guidance on the term "natural" did not encompass food production
methods, effectively removing the use of herbicides before
processing as a basis for possible claims.  It also noted that the
use of the word "natural" did not imply a nutrition or health
benefit. [GN]


RADNER LAW: $101K in Atty's Fees Awarded in "Firneno" FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen Murphy III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees in the case captioned
JODY FIRNENO and CHRISTOPHER FRANKE, Plaintiffs, v. RADNER LAW
GROUP, PLLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-10135 (E.D.
Mich.).

The Plaintiffs initiated the Fair Credit Reporting Act on Jan. 14,
2013, and eventually accepted offers of judgment from the
Defendants.  The Court entered corresponding judgments, and closed
the case after the Plaintiffs reached a separate settlement with
Defendant Lasercom, LLC.

All that remains to resolve is the amount of recoverable fees and
expenses: the Plaintiffs seek $133,573.73 of the former and
$4,819.37 of the latter, while the Defendants claim only $37,659
should be awarded.  Having witnessed firsthand the history of the
case and considered the parties' extensive briefing, the Court
finds that a hearing is not necessary.

Here, the Plaintiffs claim that the entries flagged as "not
contemporaneous" are supported by the actual emails which were
sent and received, and the Court's docket entries and emails which
represent tangible documentation supporting the time.  They
attempt to substantiate each of these claims with a single
example.  Judge Murphy concludes that that effort is insufficient.
By failing to at least attempt to provide specifics for each of
the remaining non-contemporaneous entries, the Plaintiffs have not
discharged their burden of providing for the court's perusal a
particularized billing record.

Many of the Defendants' cited instances of so-called block-
billing, however, are inapposite, and sufficiently detailed.  The
instance flagged by the Defendants as the "most egregious
example," however, will be excluded as insufficiently detailed:
the "711 email items" for which a discounted award is requested
are merely tacked on at the tail end of the notice, and
unaccompanied by "file information indicating the dates and times
of work performed."  Thus, Judge Murphy excluded $9,275 from the
total fee award due to insufficiently detailed instances of block
billing and non-contemporaneous fee entries.

Although Plaintiffs' attorneys did not successfully prosecute
their class claims, they succeeded in nearly all other respects by
successfully defending several dispositive motions and eventually
securing significant offers of judgment.  Having considered the
mentioned factors, the documentation offered by the Plaintiffs'
attorneys, and the Defendants' arguments, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' attorneys have successfully prosecuted their clients'
case, and deserve the majority of the fees they request.  He
awards the Plaintiffs their fees and expenses incurred, less
$32,635 associated with the analysis of the reductions stated.
The award will be apportioned against the Defendants jointly and
severally.

Accordingly, Judge Murphy granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees.  The Plaintiffs will recover
$100,938.73 in attorney fees and $4,819.37 in nontaxable costs
from the Defendants 800 Zero Debt, LLC and Radner Law Group, PLLC
on a joint and several basis.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/xvS5p9 from Leagle.com.

Jody Firneno, Plaintiff, represented by John W. Barrett --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser.

Jody Firneno, Plaintiff, represented by Julie A. Petrik, Lyngklip
Assoc Consumer Law Center, Priya Bali, Lyngklip & Associates
Consumer Law Center & Ian B. Lyngklip, Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law
Center, PLC.

Christopher Franke, Plaintiff, represented by John W. Barrett,
Bailey & Glasser, Julie A. Petrik, Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law
Center, Priya Bali, Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center &
Ian B. Lyngklip, Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law Center, PLC.

Lasercom, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by George A. Netschke,
IV, Viviano, Pagano & Howlett PLLC, Joseph C. Pagano, Viviano &
Viviano, PLLC & Joseph E. Viviano, Viviano, Pagano & Howlett PLLC.


REV-1 SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SEIT ALLA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. REV-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01180 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VEAn8Tre

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Must Face Snack Food Franchise Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge in New Jersey has declined to dismiss a putative
class action against the Snyder-Lance snack food company alleging
that it wrongfully terminated independent distributors' franchise
rights.

In an order dated Aug. 25, U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo,
sitting in Newark, declined to dismiss the lawsuit, Scheuer v. S-L
Distribution.

The lead plaintiff is Jonathan Scheuer, who had been a distributor
of Snyder snacks from October 2008 to November 2012, when, after
the merger that created Snyder-Lance, the agreement was suddenly
ended, according to the order.

Mr. Scheuer sued S-L Distribution, a subsidiary of Snyder-Lance,
which makes Lance and Cape Cod snacks, and Archway and Stella
D'oro cookies, as well as pretzels.


Mr. Scheuer alleges in the lawsuit that the abrupt termination of
his distribution agreement was a violation of the New Jersey
Franchise Practices Act.

In its motion to dismiss, S-L Distribution said there could be no
violation of the act since Mr. Scheuer did not have a fixed "place
of business," as required by the act.

Judge Arleo, however, said Mr. Scheuer operated out of a warehouse
in Rockaway and that, since he was a wholesale distributor rather
than a retail distributor, that warehouse qualified as a place of
business under the act.

Judge Arleo also disagreed with S-L Distribution's claim that
Mr. Scheuer's lawsuit should be dismissed because he failed to
abide by the agreement's one-year statute of limitations.  An
original lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff, Joseph McPeak, in
January 2012, but was dismissed in January 2016, Judge Arleo said.
Mr. Scheuer, who had been a member of that putative class action,
filed his timely lawsuit in November 2016, she said.

Lastly, S-L Distribution said Mr. Scheuer's lawsuit should be
removed to a federal court in Pennsylvania, in accordance with a
forum-selection clause in the agreement.  Again, Judge Arleo
disagreed with the company.

"Forum selection clauses are presumptively invalid in an agreement
subject to the NJFPA," the judge said.

Mr. Scheuer's attorney, Justin Klein, issued a brief statement
regarding the ruling.

"We are pleased with the decision. We look forward to proceeding
to class certification and vindicating the rights of all of the
franchisees that were wrongfully terminated in violation of the
New Jersey Franchise Practices Act," said Klein, of Marks & Klein
in Red Bank.

S-L Distribution's attorney, Keith Smith --
ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- of the Philadelphia office of Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, was not immediately available for
comment.

The lawsuit claims the company terminated the franchises of at
least 100 distributors without compensating them for the value of
their distributorships, in violation of the act. [GN]

SCANA: Faces Class Action Over Jenkinsville Project
---------------------------------------------------
Andrea Butler, writing for WACH, reports that a group in Fairfield
County is suing SCANA and utility SCE&G for billing them for the
failed nuclear project in Jenkinsville.

A class action lawsuit was filed on Aug. 28 by ten residents of
Fairfield County.

The suit is seeking damages for more than $1 billion in rate hikes
charged to power customers.

There were a total of nine separate rate hikes to help pay for the
$14 billion project.

The suit claims utility officials knew the project was failing but
failed to share the whole story with the Public Service
Commission, which approved those rate increases. [GN]


SCE&G: Faces Class Action Over V.C. Summer Project's Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Turnage, writing for WISTV, reports that a group has filed
an 11-count class action complaint against SCE&G after both
companies abandoned the construction of two nuclear units at V.C.
Summer in Fairfield County.

According to the complaint, filed by Bell Legal Group, both
companies continue to charge higher rates to pay for the two
abandoned reactors despite the shuttering of the project last
month.

"When power companies have so much control over our lives, they
should not be able to benefit from their own misdeeds and
negligence," Attorney Ed Bell said in a statement.   "It's pretty
simple.  If you don't pay your electric bill, what do they do?
They cut you off.  Now, we should cut them off from future
payments for a failed project.  They should be held to the same
standards as their rate holders."

The suit claims SCE&G "knew years before abandoning the project
that the project was not feasible; not subject to a detailed
construction schedule; not a good investment of the ratepayer's
money; over budget; and failing."

State lawmakers are currently holding hearings on the matter. [GN]


SCENIC TOURS: 1,200+ Travellers Win Class Action Over Bus Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mazoe Ford, writing for ABC News, reports that more than 1,200
unhappy travellers have successfully sued a luxury travel company
after flooding in Europe ruined their holidays.

Extensive rainfall and flooding in France and Germany in April and
May 2013 caused rising river levels, which meant cruise boats were
unable to operate as planned.

In the NSW Supreme Court on Aug. 31, Justice Peter Garling found
Scenic Tours breached Australian consumer law by not informing
passengers about the weather disruptions.

He said the company "played down the significance of what was
occurring on the rivers in Europe", thereby concealing the
company's "internal position that it would offer a full refund for
guests on the identified cruises if requested".

Justice Garling added that Scenic Tours should have given
customers the option to postpone or cancel their trip.

"Scenic had a continuing obligation to provide intending
passengers (at least those who had made bookings which had been
accepted) with information about events, or the consequences of
events, which may have impacted . . . upon the passenger's ability
to travel in accordance with the itinerary and to enjoy the luxury
cruise experience which Scenic had promised."

Most passengers in the class action will be entitled to a refund,
damages and interest, with lawyers for the group estimating Scenic
Tours will have to pay out about $16 million.

The company was also ordered to pay costs, which will be
determined at a later date.

"It's a group of ordinary Australians who paid a lot of money
thinking they were going to get a luxury cruise . . . they didn't
get that, they feel they have been wronged and today they were
vindicated by the court," solicitor Ben Hemsworth said.

"They turned up expecting a luxury cruise going from port to port
and dining on that cruise liner and they ended up being out on
buses and taken to places they were not expecting.
"A lot of the passengers were elderly and wanting to stay in the
one place, so having to be moved around by bus was distressing to
them."

No rescheduling of $13,000 cruise despite flooding

Members of the class action argued that Scenic Tours "should have
known that the rising river levels would, or were likely to,
substantially disrupt, for a period of six weeks thereafter, the
enjoyment of passengers scheduled to embark upon river cruises".

"The plaintiff and group members contend that such knowledge ought
to have been known to the defendant as reasonable tour operators
conducting business in Europe, being river cruises along European
rivers," the statement of claim said.

Lawyers acting for the group said Scenic Tours failed to find out
about the nature and extent of flooding and rising river levels
and failed to determine that it was "inconceivable" that scheduled
river cruises could proceed without substantial disruption.

They also said the company failed to cancel or delay tours then
offer another departure date and failed to warn customers prior to
leaving their home countries that their holiday may be affected.

The statement of claim said the lead plaintiff, David Moore, paid
$13,100 for his cruise and other customers involved in the class
action paid similar amounts.

The statement said they all suffered loss or damage including the
price of the tour, the reduction in the value of services they
paid for and the loss of opportunity to consider any proposed
alternative or receive a refund.

'We are not liable to you for such variations'

In a defence statement filed to the court by Scenic Tours, the
company said it did not believe it was liable for loss and damage.

Scenic Tours said each of the members in the class action signed a
contract in which they accepted its terms and conditions.

The contract stated that "cruise itineraries may be varied due to
high or low water levels, flooding...[and] circumstances beyond
our control".

"We may substitute (at the nearest possible standard) another
vessel or motorcoach for all or part of the itinerary and also
provide alternative accommodation, where necessary.

"Where we make a variation to the itinerary, we are not liable to
you for such variations."

A Scenic spokesperson said the company would review the judgment
in detail before making specific comment on the decision.

However the spokesperson added that company practice is to deliver
itineraries as close to schedule as possible without compromising
on safety or comfort.

"To put some context around the matter, despite the extraordinary
weather conditions in Europe in early 2013, less than five per
cent of Scenic cruises in the past four years resulted in any
itinerary change," the spokesperson said.

"During that time we welcomed around 200,000 guests across more
than 8,300 cruise days, the vast majority of which were
unaffected.

"But while the prospect of schedule interruptions is statistically
very low, we take nothing for granted and have continued to invest
in our river cruising product." [GN]


SEAGATE TECH: Bid to Strike Claims in HDD Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION.
CONSOLIDATED ACTION, Case No. 16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part Seagate's motion (i) to strike certain claims previously
dismissed by the Court and allegations related thereto, (ii) to
dismiss other claims, and (iii) to strike nationwide class
allegations.

Seagate released the Seagate Barracuda 3TB internal hard drive,
model number ST3000DM001, in October of 2011.  It subsequently
released two external 3TB hard drives -- the Backup Plus 3TB and
GoFlex 3TB -- that enclosed the same model number ST3000DM001 hard
drives in external casings with external power supplies and USB
connectors.  In late 2012 or early 2013, Seagate rebranded the
Barracuda 3TB internal drive as the "Desktop HDD" internal drive,
but the model number remained the same.

According to the Plaintiffs, Seagate has continuously and falsely
marketed these model number ST3000DM001 "Barracuda" hard drives as
reliable, dependable, and suitable for use in Network Attached
Storage ("NAS") and Redundant Array of Independent Disks ("RAID")
configurations.  They allege that the Barracuda drives had a
latent, model-wide defect that caused them to fail at annual rate
as high as 47.2% and that the drives are not designed for certain
types of home RAID configurations.

The eight Named Plaintiffs are citizens of eight different states,
each of whom purchased at least one Seagate Barracuda hard drive
from an authorized retailer.  Each of them alleges reliance on
Seagate's advertising representations and express warranty and
that at least one of his Barracuda drives failed under warranty.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals
who purchased at least one Seagate model ST3000DM001 or, in the
alternative, statewide subclasses of purchasers for each of the
states represented by a Named Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted claims for breach of
express and implied warranty (Claims 4-7), violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and the consumer
protection statutes of the eight other states of the current and
former Named Plaintiffs' citizenship (Claims 1-3 and 8-15), and
unjust enrichment (Claim 16).

The case was initially assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald Whyte,
but was reassigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Spero upon consent of
all parties following Judge Whyte's retirement.  On a previous
motion by Seagate, the Court dismissed several claims and theories
of recovery: (i) the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims
(including to the extent such claims are based on the essential
purpose doctrine or the Song-Beverly Act); (ii) the Plaintiffs'
implied warranty claims under the California Commercial Code;
(iii) their affirmative misrepresentation claims based on
Seagate's statements about the drives' read error rate, NAS
capabilities, AcuTrac technology, and general reliability and
performance; (iv) their omissions claims based on NAS capabilities
and read error rates; (v) all CLRA claims by then-Plaintiff John
Smith; and (vi) the Plaintiffs' claims under the unlawful and
unfair prongs of the UCL to the extent that they depend on
theories dismissed in the context of other claims.

Seagate now moves to strike certain claims previously dismissed by
the Court and allegations related thereto, to dismiss other
claims, and to strike nationwide class allegations.  The Court
heard argument on Aug. 25, 2017.

Because Seagate did not move to strike until months after it
answered the complaint at issue, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero
denied as untimely Seagate's motion to strike under Rule 12(f).
He denied Seagate's motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c) as to the Plaintiffs' Florida consumer protection claim
in its entirety and the Plaintiffs' Texas and South Dakota
consumer protection claims to the extent based on omissions, but
granted as to the Texas and South Dakota consumer protection
claims to the extent based on affirmative representations.  The
Chief Magistrate Judge also denied the 12(c) motion as to the
Plaintiffs' South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas implied
warranty claims, but granted as to the Plaintiffs' New York,
Florida, Tennessee, and Massachusetts implied warranty claims.

As for Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims under California's
Song-Beverly Act, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero denied the motion
as to Plaintiff Joshuah Enders' claims, but granted as to the
remaining Named Plaintiffs' claims under that statute.  The
Plaintiffs' Illinois implied warranty claim is dismissed in light
of the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff John Smith.

The Plaintiffs may further amend their complaint no later than
Sept. 15, 2017.  If they choose to file a further amended
complaint, they are instructed to omit any allegations related
solely to claims dismissed by the Court's previous order, or to
claims dismissed by Chief Magistrate Judge Spero that they do not
intend to pursue.

Seagate has at this point filed two motions attacking the
sufficiency of the same complaint.  Chief Magistrate Judge Spero
held Seagate may not file any further motion under any subpart of
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure attacking the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' pleading without leave of the
Court, with the exception that if the Plaintiffs further amend
their complaint, Seagate may file any appropriate motion directed
to their changes to the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pf3zNP from Leagle.com.

Christopher A. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Adam
Goldich, Axler Goldich LLC.

Christopher A. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley A. Bede --
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Noah Axler, Axler
Goldich, Nyran Rose Rasche -- nrasche@caffertyclobes.com --
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dudley Lane Dortch IV, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Adam
Goldich, Axler Goldich LLC, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Noah Axler, Axler Goldich, Nyran Rose
Rasche, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice,
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Dennis Crawford, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Adam Goldich,
Axler Goldich LLC, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Noah Axler, Axler Goldich, Nyran Rose Rasche,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Schechner, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Adam Goldich,
Axler Goldich LLC, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Noah Axler, Axler Goldich, Nyran Rose Rasche,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Seagate Technology LLC, Defendant, represented by Anna S. McLean -
- amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, David Edward Snyder -- dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Richter
Hampton LLP, Lien Hoang Payne -- lpayne@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Mukund Hari Sharma --
msharma@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton,
LLP, Neil A. Friedman Popovic -- npopovic@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tenaya M. Rodewald --
trodewald@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.


SEVCON INC: Wilkinson Seeks to Enjoin Merger with BorgWarner
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACK WILKINSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEVCON, INC., MATTHEW
GOLDFARB, MATTHEW BOYLE, PAUL O. STUMP, DAVID R. A. STEADMAN, RYAN
J. MORRIS, WALTER M. SCHENKER, WILLIAM KETELHUT, GLENN J.
ANGIOLILLO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-11618 (D. Mass., Aug.
28, 2017), the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself
and the public stockholders of Sevcon, Inc. against the Defendants
for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9. Specifically, Defendants solicit shareholder votes in
connection with an attempt to sell the Company to BorgWarner Inc.
through a proxy statement that omits material facts necessary to
make the statements therein not false or misleading. Unless these
disclosure deficiencies are cured, the Company's stockholders will
be forced to decide whether to vote their shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction based upon a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement.

On July 17, 2017, Sevcon and Parent issued separate press releases
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated July 14, 2017, under which Slade Merger Sub Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, would acquire all of Sevcon's
outstanding common stock for $22.00 per share in cash and all of
Sevcon's outstanding Series A Convertible Preferred Stock for a
price per share equal to an as-converted basis of the common
stock, together with any accrued and unpaid dividends. The
transaction between Sevcon and Parent has a total value of
approximately $200 million. On August 8, 2017, Defendants issued
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form
PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") filed with the
SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy is deficient and misleading, the complaint says,
because, inter alia, it omits material information about the facts
and circumstances that led up to the Proposed Transaction, as well
as material information concerning the financial analyses
conducted by Rothschild Inc. ("Rothschild"), the Company's
financial advisor. Without all material information, Sevcon
stockholders cannot make a properly informed decision regarding
whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Sevcon is an electrical engineering company based in Gateshead in
the UK, that manufactures controls for electric vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453 0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com


SLATER & GORDON: Class Action in Final Stages of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
class action law firm Slater and Gordon is set to be owned by a
consortium of international hedge funds after agreeing to a
bailout that will see it emerge with a new board and strategy.

The new plan, revealed on Aug. 31, will involve hedge funds, led
by Anchorage Capital swapping the debt they are owed by Slater and
Gordon into a 95 per cent ownership of the company. That process
is expected to be finalised in mid-November.

The consortium will also provide an additional $50 million of
funding and get sole ownership of Slater and Gordon's troubled UK
business.

The deal also involves the embattled law firm agreeing to settle a
class action with aggrieved shareholders.

The move came as Slater and Gordon unveiled a massive full year
loss of $547 million, including a $350 million impairment in the
value of its disastrous UK business, restructuring costs and
continued poor performance in its key personal injuries business.

"Today is a significant day for the firm.  The announcements mark
a turning point and set in motion a strong plan that will deliver
a new board, a focused business strategy and a very strong capital
structure," said Slate & Gordon's new chief executive Hayden
Stephens.

This shift of control to the Anchorage Capital consortium will
trigger a board spill with chairman John Skippen and Andrew Grech,
who was previously the chief executive, both departing as
directors. Chief financial officer Bryce Houghton will also leave.

Mr MacKenzie is a well-known company director who also has strong
roots in the labour movement and he is known to have a strong
affinity with the clients the law firm represents.

These connections will be needed following a recent exodus of
senior talent which has fuelled concerns the firm could lose key
union clients.

The board refresh is part of a plan the new owners hope will reset
the company to restore its reputation after a destructive debt-
fuelled acquisition binge culminating in the disastrous $1.3
billion acquisition of Quindell's professional services division
in Britain in early 2015.

Before the Quindell acquisition, Slater and Gordon's shares hit a
high of $8 a share, valuing the business at $2.8 billion, compared
with $28 million today.

It is expected the company will look to further cost-cutting as it
focuses the business on building its class action pipeline.

The results show the size of that task as the financial
performance of the flagship Australian business continued to
deteriorate.  It posted a $67 million loss in the last financial
year as fees continued to decline and it suffered an adverse
movement of work in progress and payments to former owners.  Its
UK business lost $98.5 million, compared with a previous loss of
$64.5 million.

The results show the company continues to bleed cash, suffering a
negative net operating cashflow of $39 million for the year to
June 30.

The consortium of lenders has agreed to inject an additional $50
million into an existing $40 million working capital facility set
up in May. Of the $50 million, $25 million will be directed to the
Australian business and $25 million to the UK business.

Slater and Gordon told the market back in February it had to rely
on "the support of its lenders to continue as a going concern".

Since then a class action was lobbed by its shareholders and an
investigation commenced by the corporate regulator into accounting
irregularities.

The regulator found no wrongdoing and the class action is now in
the final stages of settlement and the company hopes to finalise
its debt for equity swap in mid-November.

The swap will dilute the ownership of existing shareholders of the
company to about 5 per cent.

But Slater and Gordon will remain a listed entity, with Anchorage
committing to remain a shareholder for at least three years.

The restructure will exclude the UK business, which will be spun
off into a separate company wholly owned by the senior lenders.

Sources said the arrangement would leave Slater and Gordon with an
appropriate capital structure and strong balance sheet to enable
it to begin the turn-around process.

It will also develop a strategy to grow its personal injury
practices in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, improve its
relationships with the union movement, better leverage third party
relationships to build referral networks and invest in internal
systems and processes

To stem the flurry of departures of high profile lawyers, a new
management incentive plan will be introduced, facilitating the
equivalent of 10 per cent of the company's fully diluted share
capital to be available over time. [GN]


SOLOMON AND SOLOMON: Court Dismisses "Daniels" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case captioned
LATASHA DANIELS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SOLOMON and SOLOMON, P.C., Civil Action No. 17-0757
(E.D. Pa.).

On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received a debt communication
letter from the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff owed Niagara
Mohawk Power Corp. money for utility services in the amount of
$2,850.65, and her obligation was in default.  Niagara retained
the Defendant, a law firm and debt collection agency, to collect
the Plaintiff's debt.

On Feb. 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Court.
Her complaint arises from a debt collection letter that the
Plaintiff received from the Defendant.  The Plaintiff asserts one
count against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), on behalf of herself and the
putative class.  She alleges that the letter falsely implies
attorney involvement, and threatens an action that cannot legally
be taken, in violation of the FDCPA.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss.  On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On May 25, 2017,
the Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response.

Judge Surrick found that the Letter is not signed by an attorney,
does not reference attorney involvement, and does not discuss
undergoing attorney or law firm review.  In addition, the Letter
contains a disclaimer on the front of it that reads that it is an
attempt to collect a debt, that any information obtained will be
used for that purpose, and that the communication is from a debt
collector.  The Judge concludes that the Letter does not imply
attorney involvement at all, let alone falsely imply it.
Accordingly, he dismissed the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant
falsely implied attorney involvement under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(3).

In addition, Judge Surrick found that the Letter makes no
reference to a threat of legal action.  He held that the letter
made no demand or threat of litigation, as the letter gave the
debtor an opportunity to pay the debt to avoid further action.  He
found that the language in the debt collector's letter, "avoid
further action," did not convey a sense of urgency or a threat of
specific action which overshadowed the validation notice.
Similarly, the Letter urges the Plaintiff to act now to resolve
the problem.  The Judge disagrees with the Plaintiff's argument
that that the Letter's reference to a "problem" insinuates a
threat of legal action.  Accordingly, Judge Surrick concludes that
the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a claim under Section
1692e(5) of the FDCPA.

For these reasons, he granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/2TLq7s from Leagle.com.

LATASHA DANIELS, Plaintiff, represented by ARI MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC.

LATASHA DANIELS, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, JONES
WOLF & KAPASI LLC.

SOLOMON AND SOLOMON P.C., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM F.
MCDEVITT -- william.mcdevitt@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker, LLP.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Aug. 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, case No. 5:17-cv-00852, on behalf of
shareholders of Southwest Bancorp, Inc. ("Southwest" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:OKSB) who have been harmed by Southwest's and
its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the proposed merger of
the Company with Simmons First National Corporation ("Simmons").

On December 14, 2016, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"), under
which Southwest's shareholders stand to receive 0.3903 shares of
Simmons common stock and $5.11 in cash for each share of Southwest
stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").  As of August 28,
2017, the Merger Consideration reflected an implied value of
approximately $25.54 per share of Southwest common stock.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/OKSBnotice.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on July 24, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Southwest
shareholders.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
        jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


SUBWAY: 7th Cir. Reverses Settlement in Footlong Sandwich Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: SUBWAY FOOTLONG SANDWICH MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. APPEAL OF: THEODORE FRANK,
Objector, No. 16-1652 (7th Cir.), Judge Diane S. Sykes of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district
court's order certifying the proposed class and approving the
settlement, and remanded the case.

In January 2013 an Australian teenager measured his Subway
Footlong sandwich and discovered that it was only 11 inches long.
He photographed the sandwich alongside a tape measure and posted
the photo on his Facebook page.  It went viral.  The Class-action
litigation soon followed.  The Plaintiffs' lawyers across the
United States sued Subway for damages and injunctive relief under
state consumer-protection laws, seeking class certification under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The suits were
combined in a multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

In their haste to file suit, however, the lawyers neglected to
consider whether the claims had any merit.  Early discovery
established that Subway's unbaked bread sticks are uniform, and
the baked rolls rarely fall short of 12 inches.  The minor
variations that do occur are wholly attributable to the natural
variability in the baking process and cannot be prevented.

With no compensable injury, the Plaintiffs' lawyers shifted their
focus from a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) to a class claim
for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2).  The parties thereafter
reached a settlement.  For a period of four years, Subway agreed
to implement certain measures to ensure, to the extent
practicable, that all Footlong sandwiches are at least 12 inches
long.  The settlement acknowledged, however, that even with these
measures in place, some sandwich rolls will inevitably fall short
due to the natural variability in the baking process.  The parties
also agreed to cap the fees of class counsel at $525,000 and
incentive awards at $1,000 for each Named Plaintiff.  The district
court preliminarily approved the settlement.

Theodore Frank objected.  A class member and professional objector
to hollow class-action settlements, Frank argued that the
settlement enriched only the lawyers and provided no meaningful
benefits to the class.  The judge was not persuaded.  He certified
the proposed class and approved the settlement.  Frank appealed.

Judge Sykes concludes that the procedures required by the
settlement do not benefit the class in any meaningful way.  The
settlement acknowledges as much when it says that uniformity in
bread length is impossible due to the natural variability of the
bread-baking process.  Contempt as a remedy to enforce a worthless
settlement is itself worthless.  Because the settlement yields
fees for class counsel and zero benefits for the class, the class
should not have been certified and the settlement should not have
been approved.  Because these consolidated class actions seek only
worthless benefits for the class, they should have been dismissed
out of hand.  Accordingly, Judge Syckes reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/dpsWhS from Leagle.com.

Howard L. Teplinsky -- hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Theodore H. Frank, for Appellant.

John Doroghazi -- jdoroghazi@wiggin.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Matthew Charles DeRe, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen P. DeNittis -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Bethany L. Appleby -- bappleby@wiggin.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Adam E. Schulman, for Appellant.

Jeffrey Babbin -- jbabbin@wiggin.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

David R. Roth -- droth@joneswalker.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Larson, writing for Louisville Business First, reports that
the Kentucky Supreme Court recently handed down a far-reaching
decision that allows employees in Kentucky the option to certify
class-action lawsuits against employers over unpaid wages and
overtime disputes.

As a result, Louisville-based Sullivan University System Inc.
could face such a class action.

Sullivan University could face a class-action lawsuit from a
former employee after a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling.

At issue is whether the state statute that addresses an employer's
liability for unpaid wages, KRS 337.385, allowed for class-action
lawsuits, even though they are not explicitly authorized by the
statute, or if the statute allowed for a special exemption to
class actions.

The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed two lower court decisions and
ruled that class-action lawsuits do apply to the statute.

The case involved a wage dispute between former Sullivan
University admissions officer Mary McCann and the university.
Ms. McCann is represented by Theodore Walton and Garry Adams Jr.,
partners of Louisville-based firm Clay Daniel Walton Adams PLC.

Sullivan University was represented by Grover Potts Jr. --
gpotts@wyattfirm.com -- Michelle Wyrick, Rania Basha and Emily
Lamb.

In this case, Ms. McCann sued Sullivan in Jefferson Circuit Court
for back pay in February 2010.  But her case was moved to federal
court after the U.S. Department of Labor filled a lawsuit against
the school over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
in March 2010.

Ms. McCann's federal complaint was eventually dismissed as part of
Sullivan's settlement with the Labor Department.  The federal
court sent McCann's case back to the circuit court.

Ms. McCann attempted to file a class-action suit against Sullivan
University in October 2013, but that was denied by the circuit
court and appeals courts, according to the Kentucky Supreme Court
ruling.

Mr. Potts, a partner with Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP, said in an
interview that Sullivan University maintains that McCann was an
exempted employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, meaning that
she did not qualify for time-and-a-half pay for overtime, among
other things.  Mr. Potts said a potential class-action suit would
have to prove to the court that the participants were nonexempt
employees on top of the other court requirement for class actions.

Employees involved in recruitment, like Ms. McCann was, are paid a
salary above the federal minimum wage, he said.  Mr. Potts said
none of the courts addressed the qualification status of
Ms. McCann, and instead focused on if class actions applied to
wage and hours disputes, he added.

Mitchel Denham, partner in Louisville-based Thompson Miller &
Simpson PLC, said in an interview that the Kentucky Supreme Court
ruled that KRS 337.385 did not constitute a special exemption to
class-action suits even though it did not explicitly state they
were allowed.

But Mr. Denham also said plaintiffs still must meet the court
rules to qualify a lawsuit as a class-action suit.  After reading
the court decision, he added that the case applies to all
employers and is not isolated to educational institutions.
Mr. Denham is not representing any of the parties to this case.

Mr. Potts said he argued to the courts that KRS 337.385 shows that
wage and hours disputes don't qualify for class-action status
because the statute contains elements similar to other statues
where class actions are not allowed.  Ultimately, the Supreme
Court disagreed.

A class-action lawsuit allows for several people who have been
similarly affected to have their collective interests represented
by a common counsel.

In part, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the statute
governing employer liability was not comprehensive enough to
constitute a special exception to class actions and that Kentucky
court rules apply to all civil court matters, even if they are not
explicitly authorized in the statute.

In an email, Mr. Walton said that Ms. McCann and counsel will
continue to pursue a class-action lawsuit against the private,
for-profit university. [GN]


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ky. High Ct. Reverses Denial of Class Cert
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky issued an Opinion reversing and
remanding the judgment of the Court of Appeals to Jefferson
Circuit Court for further proceedings in the case captioned in
MARY E. McCANN (INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED), Appellant, v. THE SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, INC.,
D/B/A SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, ET AL. Appellee,
No. 2015-SC-000144-DG (Ky.).

Mary McCann filed a CR 23 motion to certify a class action in
Jefferson Circuit Court. The trial court denied that motion as a
matter of law and McCann appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and held
KRS 337.385 does not authorize class actions.  McCann then moved
the state Supreme Court for discretionary review, and it granted
her motion.

On appeal, McCann argues that the Court of Appeals erred by
reading KRS 337.385 to prohibit class actions.

The Sullivan University System, Inc., hired Mary McCann as an
admissions officer at its Fort Knox Campus. Sullivan transferred
McCann to its Spencerian College campus in Louisville. Sullivan
terminated McCann's employment.

McCann filed an action in Jefferson Circuit Court. Sullivan
removed McCann's action to federal court after the United States
Department of Labor filed a complaint against Sullivan under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Sullivan disputed the Department
of Labor's allegations, but as part of that settlement, agreed to
treat its admissions officers as non-exempt employees, to pay
overtime wages, and to pay back wages to certain admissions
officers.

By agreed order, the federal district court dismissed McCann's
federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Sullivan and
remanded the remaining state law claims to Jefferson Circuit
Court.

The Jefferson Circuit Court denied the motion on purely legal
grounds. In its order denying class certification, the trial court
relied upon dicta in an unpublished Court of Appeals' opinion,
Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Kelley,2012-CA-001508-ME,
2013 WL 6046079.

The Court of Appeals in Kelley did not reach the merits of whether
a class action is available for claims brought under KRS 337.385.
Yet, the panel opined that if it were to reach that question, it
would conclude that a class action is not available for claims
brought under KRS 337.385.

The state supreme court must determine whether the Court of
Appeals erred in its reading of this provision. Determining the
correct reading of a statute is a question of law that the supreme
court reviews de novo without affording deference to lower courts.

The Rules of Civil Procedure and Special Statutory Proceedings

The Statute at issue, KRS 337.385(2), states:

     "If, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or
liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the
court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in
good faith and that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing
that his or her act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020
to 337.285, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no
liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the
amount specified in this section."

Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for
less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such
action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent
jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of
himself, herself, or themselves.

McCann argues that after the adoption of Kentucky's modern CR 23
in 1969, the General Assembly had no need to include language
specifically allowing class actions when it adopted KRS 337.385 in
1974. Sullivan counters and argues that even absent a special
statutory proceeding, CR 23 does not apply because KRS 337.385
omits language specifically authorizing class actions.

The state supreme court agrees that the actual words used in the
statute do not expressly permit the use of a class action, nor do
those words explicitly prohibit its use. Even when reading the
entirety of KRS 337.385, this statute fails to create the
comprehensive, wholly self-contained procedural process necessary
to constitute a recognized special statutory proceeding.
Therefore, the state supreme court holds that the cause of action
created by KRS 337.385 does not constitute a special statutory
proceeding that operates outside of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The General Assembly did not create a special statutory proceeding
for actions brought under KRS 337.385. Therefore, the state
supreme court holds, as a matter of law, that CR 23 remains an
available procedural mechanism applicable to McCann's cause of
action brought under KRS 337.385.

The state supreme court reverses the judgment of the Court of
Appeals and remands this case to Jefferson Circuit Court for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's August 24, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7t3t7mefrom
Leagle.com.

Theodore W. Walton - ted@justiceky.com - Garry Richard Adams, Jr.
- garry@justiceky.com - Counsel for Appellant.

Grover C. Potts, Jr., Michelle Deann Wyrick, Rania Marie Basha,
Emily Christine Lamb, Counsel for Appellees, The Sullivan
University System, Inc., D/B/A/ Sullivan University College of
Pharmacy, Sullivan, College of Technology and Design, Sullivan
University Global, E-Learning, Dale Carnegia Kentuckiana,
International Center, for Dispute Resolution Leadership, Sullivan
University, Louisville Technical Institute, The National Center
for Hospitality Studies, Institute for Paralegal Studies,
Spencerian College and Interior Design Institute.

Jeffrey Alan Savarise - jsavarise@fisherphillips.com - John Choate
Roach, 176 Pasadena Drive, Building One, Lexington, KY 40503,
Timothy James Weatherholt - tweatherholt@fisherphillips.com -
Counsel for Appellees, The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce
("Chamber"), and the Kentucky Society for Human Resources
Management ("Kyshrm").

Thomas J. Schulz, Counsel for Appellee, Jefferson County Teachers
Association (JCTA).

John Christopher Sanders, McKenzie Cantrell, Counsel for Appellee,
Kentucky Equal Justice Center ("KEJC") and Jobs With Justice:
Kevin Crosby Burke, 2200 Dundee Road, Suite C
Louisville, Kentucky, 40205  United States Irwin H. Cutler, Jr.,
303 River Rd, Ste 300. Louisville, Kentucky 40206 United States,
David Lindsay Leightty, Jamie Kristin Neal, 2200 Dundee Road,
Suite C, Louisville, Kentucky, 40205  United States Counsel for
Appellees, Kentucky Justice Association, Kentucky Chapter of
American Federation of Labor and Congress ODF Industrial
Organizations, Kentucky State Building and Construction Trade
Council, River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614, Inc.,
Teamsters Local 783, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union.


TEN NETWORK: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over CBS Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Ten's retail shareholders are calling for a class action or
regulatory investigation into boardroom secrecy ahead of the
broadcaster's administration, as it becomes clear they will be
completely wiped out by the deal KordaMentha and PPB Advisory have
struck with US broadcasting giant CBS.

Shareholder John Homewood says he would "love to have a class
action" and has been frustrated by the lack of communication to
shareholders in recent months.

"It just seems to me that these administrators . . . it is as if
the poor old shareholder has been pushed out of the way of a
business that for all intents and purposes was viable," he told
Fairfax Media.

"I have come to the realisation that effectively shareholders will
have their equity interest just transferred over to CBS. It is
really the lack of information being provided that has got me a
bit hot under the collar."

Mr Homewood owns 1.1 million shares in Ten and stands to lose
hundreds of thousands of dollars.

He said he preferred the deal suggested by Lachlan Murdoch and
Bruce Gordon, which would have seen shareholders receive about
one-fourth of the value of their equity back and Ten re-listed on
the Australian Securities Exchange.  Their offer recently received
competition regulator approval, but was not accepted by
administrators and required a complex ownership structure to fit
within media ownership laws.

Mr Homewood added that Ten hasn't published any financial
information in months because of the administration process. It is
also unlikely to hold an annual meeting.

Shareholder Adam O'Neill said he has already spoken to the market
regulator and legal firms specialising in class actions about
Ten's treatment of retail shareholders.

"I am not going to let it rest," Mr O'Neill said on Aug. 29.

He purchased 9000 shares between 2013 and 2017 and calculates he
has lost about $20,000.  He believes more shareholders will come
forward as they realise their equity has disappeared.

"Two shareholders have acted in their personal interest to put the
company into voluntary administration, disregarding the vote or
concern of 17,000 shareholders," he said, referring to shareholder
guarantors Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon.

Mr Murdoch and Mr Gordon informed Ten's board they were no longer
willing to act as guarantors for Ten's $200 million loan facility.
This move led Ten's board to halt shares before the market opened
on June 13 and then put the company into administration the next
day saying it had "no choice".

Mr Murdoch and Mr Gordon then revealed plans to jointly take over
Network Ten.

Shareholders will not get a vote on the CBS takeover and have not
been able to trade shares since June 13.  It has since emerged
that Ten's board knew since early May that the third shareholder
guarantor, James Packer, was also pulling out, but did not tell
the market.

The Australian Shareholders Association (ASA) is investigating
legal action and will be lobbying Treasurer Scott Morrison, who
gets the final say in Foreign Investment Review Board decisions,
to "see if in part of his review of this proposal he can obtain a
better deal so that shareholders can get some compensation".

"We are very upset that shareholders are likely to lose everything
in the CBS deal," ASA director Allan Goldin said.

Meanwhile shares in Seven and Nine dropped as it dawned on
investors Australia's media landscape may suddenly go from a two-
player market with a weak third player, to a proper three-way
battle.

While CBS Corporation's proposed takeover still needs to clear
several hurdles the market appears to be much more concerned about
the strength of a CBS-owned Ten than they were about the mooted
Murdoch-Gordon-owned Ten.  And the air of urgency surrounding
media reforms has gone.

Southern Cross Austereo has also been caught in the rip because it
switched network affiliations from Ten to Nine in 2016-17.

Southern Cross' recent full-year results showed its television
audience share in regional Australia was up from 22.6 to 32 per
cent thanks to Nine's content.  This boosted television
advertising revenues by 22.5 per cent to $42.8 million.

"I just get the feeling that the market was a bit too relaxed and
complacent about Ten given that Bruce Gordon and Lachlan Murdoch
were the front runners," media and telecommunications analyst at
Morning Star, Brian Han, said.

"And all of a sudden we have a global content and broadcasting
powerhouse that knows how to run a television network [taking
over]".

Mr Han added that the streaming service Stan, which is jointly
owned by Nine and Fairfax Media (owner of The Age and The Sydney
Morning Herald), may also be affected if CBS launches its All
Access streaming service here because Stan has rights to CBS's
premium Showtime content in Australia.

However, Stan's chief executive, Mike Sneesby, said its deal is
long term and even CBS won't be able to stream the shows for which
Stan has rights, such as Billions and Twin Peaks.

"As part of the output deal Stan has, Showtime production will
continue to stream on Stan, they won't be able to be streamed or
broadcast on any other platform," Mr Sneesby said.

"Stan will be the only place you will be able to stream it." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Congdon" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHUCK CONGDON, RYAN COWDEN, ANTHONY
MARTINEZ, JASON ROSENBERG, and JORGE ZUNIGA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, RASIER,
LLC, a Delaware corporation, and RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02499-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Matthew Clark, Ryan Cowden, Dominicus Rooijackers, and
Jason Rosenberg will move the Court on October 31, 2017, for class
certification of:

   "(A) all persons in the United States; (B) who entered the
   2013 Agreement, the June 2014 Agreement, or the November 2014
   Agreement, or a combination of those agreements; (C) opted-out
   of arbitration under the last Uber driver contract the person
   executed; and (D) provided at least one minimum fare ride on
   the UberX platform for which a Safe Rides Fee applied before
   November 16, 2015".

Excluded from each of the proposed classes are 1) the Defendants,
2) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and
the Judge or Magistrate Judge's immediate family, 3) persons who
execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class, 4)
the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person; and 5) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants'
counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h3d4K2hf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G. Crabtree, Esq.
          Charles M. Auslander, Esq.
          Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com
                  btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew A. August, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS, LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 1225
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone (415) 391 7100
          Facsimile (415) 391 7198
          E-mail: aaugust@bgrfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON AND ASSOCIATES
          113 Cherry Street, Unit 34835
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 317 3315
          Facsimile: (206) 397 0875
          E-mail: Mark@mpaclassaction.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ditches Lyft Drivers' Spying Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports a California federal
judge dismissed a Lyft driver's suit accusing Uber of tracking
competing drivers, saying on August 31 the complaint "just copied
an article and put in some statutes," but she gave the putative
class a second shot at explaining how the technology intercepted
private communications in violation of federal wiretap laws.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said at on August
31st's hearing that she would grant leave to amend the suit
alleging Uber Technologies Inc. spies on the locations of Lyft
Inc.'s drivers with a secret software program known internally as
"Hell."

But the judge said the complaint as written relied too heavily on
"someone else's words"  --  namely, a feature article on
technology new website The Information uncovering the covert
software  --  and hadn't properly explained what was being
communicated and how the message was being intercepted. That was
important, she said, because it would determine whether the
content was private and protected by wiretapping laws.

"The statute requires an interception of the plaintiff's
communication," she said. "There may be a distinction if it's a
communication from Lyft that was intercepted. It may go from the
driver, to Lyft, to Uber."

Lead plaintiff Michael Gonzales sued Uber, Uber USA LLC and
Rasier-CA on behalf of drivers across the country in April,
claiming Uber was scoping out its ride-sharing rival's coverage
areas and looking for drivers who worked for both companies.

The spyware Uber allegedly used  --  called "Hell" as a riff on
Uber's software to track its drivers and riders known as "God
View" or "Heaven"  --  allowed Uber personnel to gain unauthorized
access to Lyft computer systems, pose as Lyft customers, and see
the locations of Lyft drivers and their unique Lyft
identification, according to the complaint.

Uber allegedly cross-referenced the location data it gathered on
Lyft drivers with its own internal records to figure out which
drivers were working for both companies. Then, it allegedly tried
to persuade them to quit Lyft by offering more frequent and
profitable fares, according to court documents.

Gonzales seeks injunctive relief and damages on claims Uber
intercepts, accesses, monitors or transmits electronic
communications in violation of the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

All sides at on August 31st's hearing relied on metaphors to
figure out how those laws apply to an application that makes
driver locations semi-public.

Uber attorney Patrick Oot Jr. of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP argued
that nothing had been intercepted since Lyft shares information on
drivers' whereabouts with anyone who downloads its application. He
drew an analogy to postal mail: The names and addresses on the
outside of the envelope were not private, but the "letter to your
mother or your brother inside  --  that is protected content."

"If I put my name in an old-fashioned phone book, I can't later
say that content is private," he said. "The anonymous location and
anonymous user ID is not content."

He also claimed that there were two separate lines of
communication  --  one between the Lyft application and the driver
and one between the app and the passenger  --  and that there was
never any direct communication between driver and passenger to be
intercepted.

Lyft attorney Mark Burton of Audet & Partners said the fact
communications go through a server was "a distinction without a
difference."

"I pick up the phone and I call you. That call may be routed
through an AT&T communication center, but that doesn't change the
fact they're accessing my communication with you," he told the
judge.

Judge Corley said GPS location alone couldn't be considered
"content" under federal law, noting she regularly granted law
enforcement officials GPS search warrants without triggering
federal statutes.

"If your reading were correct, the way every court in the U.S.
handles search warrants would have to change, because none of it
goes through the wiretap statute," she said.

Gonzales is represented by Caleb Marker, Esq. --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed and Mark Burton,
Esq. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- of Audet & Partners.

Uber Technologies Inc., Uber USA LLC and Rasier-CA are represented
by Patrick L. Oot Jr., Esq. and John K. Sherk, Esq. --
jsherk@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The case is Michael Gonzales v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al.,
case number 3:17-cv-02264, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Oct. 6 Opt-in Deadline Set in Raisin Growers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AGNetWest reports that growers have until October 6, 2017, to send
in their "opt-in" claim forms as part of a class action lawsuit on
behalf of the California raisin industry.  After a court order
issued by Judge Loren A. Smith of the U.S. Court of Claims,
Washington, D.C., forms have been mailed to 6,000 raisin growers
allowing them to participate in the Raisin Reserve Class Action.

Class Action LawsuitBob F. Hansen and other family members
originally filed the class action lawsuit on August 26, 2015,
after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the USDA raisin program
constituted a "taking" of private property subject to just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in
June.

After the harvest of 2010, the USDA no longer enforced the reserve
pools program, however, claims in this litigation go back to the
2002 raisin crop.  The United States government argues that the
Horne decision does not justify payment in this case and that the
statute of limitations should be limited to just the 2009 raisin
crop.

The class action has been filed on behalf of all California raisin
growers and is intended to recover damages that growers incurred
by following the law as they knew it at the time, prior to 2015.
Federal law requires growers who wish to sign up as part of the
lawsuit must "opt in", or they will not be included. Claim forms
must be returned to the claims administrator before the deadline.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Govt. Employees Await Data Breach Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Swoyer, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
government employees are still waiting to see whether the federal
government will compensate them for losing their most personal
data in the 2015 cyber breach of the Office of Personnel
Management, which saw hackers make off with financial, family and
other sensitive information on roughly 22 million people.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of the employees has been
churning through a federal court in Washington, D.C., for roughly
two years, where first the Obama administration and now the Trump
administration say the employees can't prove the data breach has
caused them any injury.

Nearly everyone who has held or applied for a federal job over the
last three decades had information stolen.

The employees are demanding compensation for both past and
potentially future identity theft, but government lawyers say
there's no evidence the information stolen has actually been used.

"Plaintiffs do not plead any facts showing that these disparate
harms -- which range from unauthorized charges on credit cards to
the filing of fraudulent tax returns to the misuse of a Social
Security number -- are attributable to any data breach, let alone
the OPM data breaches," OPM's lawyers said in a motion asking the
court to toss out the lawsuit.

The hack itself exposed major problems in the government's cyber
infrastructure, and the government is already paying tens of
millions of dollars in credit monitoring for those whose
information was snared.

OPM revamped its cybersecurity protection with new tools since the
2015 breach, and enacted a two-factor authentication log in for
employees in order to increase security. It also created a
position for a cyber security adviser to report directly to OPM's
director.

Federal authorities have signaled they believe the hackers had
links to the Chinese government, though China has denied
involvement.

The FBI arrested Yu Pingan, a Chinese man authorities said went by
the hacker name GoldSun, and who the FBI said sold malware,
including Sakula.  News reports say Sakula was linked to the OPM
hack.

The employees suing OPM say they want the government to pay for
economic injuries and provide free lifetime identity theft
protection services.  They also want OPM to implement an updated
security plan.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is considering the
government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of a provable
injury.

Judge Jackson sent both sides back to submit briefs after an
appeals court ruling in another data breach case against CareFirst
BlueCross BlueShield, which saw data on 1.1 million customers
hacked.

Christopher Hikida, an attorney for Girard Gibbs LLP, which is the
firm representing the employees against OPM, said the new round of
filings was usual when another case could shed light on important
legal issues.

"One thing that we have been telling people is that there is
nothing they have to do at this point, but in the meantime to
preserve any documents that they have regarding the breach of any
identity theft or fraud they've experienced," said Mr. Hikida.

In testimony months after the hack became public, then-Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said the hack wasn't a
cyberattack, because information wasn't destroyed or manipulated.
Instead, it was a theft -- the data was stolen.

Mr. Clapper said there was no evidence the data had been used,
which could bolster the government's case that the employees who
had their information stolen haven't suffered any specific harm.
Paul Rosenzweig, a law professor at George Washington University,
said it is very difficult to prove who actually was behind the
hack.

"Attribution is notoriously hard to accomplish. And most of how we
do it is through circumstantial evidence and inference," Mr. Mr.
Rosenzweig said.

But Peter Swire, a law professor at Georgia Institute of
Technology, said he's confident it was China based on what he has
seen in public reports. He said a nation-state like China would
have hacked OPM in order to detect under cover agents, use
information for blackmail and to put pressure on federal
employees.

Mr. Swire said it's been difficult to link a data breach to an
individual's identify theft and the federal courts have split on
how strong the link and evidence must be for a plaintiff to
succeed.

"The federal judge doesn't have expertise in what China's role has
been or might be in the future.  They don't have special technical
knowledge," said Mr. Swire. [GN]


UNITED STATES: "Jenkins" Subclass II Settlement Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEVEN JENKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 09-241L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Nancy Beth
Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the parties'
request for final approval of a settlement for the one remaining
Plaintiff.

The case arises from the conversion of a railroad corridor in
Dallas County, Iowa to a recreational trail.  In Jenkins v. United
States, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class.  Following the Court's determination of liability and a
trial on compensation, it found that the appraiser should have
taken into account the physical remnants of the railroad when
determining the value of each landowner's property before the
taking occurred.  On remand, the parties determined that the
Federal Circuit's decision potentially affected 27 class members.

On April 26, 2017, the Court divided the certified class into two
subclasses for settlement purposes and approved the parties'
proposed settlement for the 26 Plaintiffs in Subclass I.  It
entered judgment for the 26 members of Subclass I on April 28,
2017. The parties now propose to settle the case for Subclass II,
which consists of the one remaining class member: the Ronald K.
Bender Revocable Trust.

The parties' proposed settlement for Subclass II was filed with
the court on June 26, 2017.  Under the proposed settlement, the
Subclass II Plaintiff would receive $13,416.50 in principal,
interest of $10,410.96 through June 1, 2017, and additional
interest beyond June 1, 2017 at the daily rate of $2.24 until the
date of payment.  In addition, the parties have agreed on
statutory attorneys' fees and costs of $36,659.57, consisting of
$29,130.00 in fees and $7,529.27 in costs, pursuant to the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 ("URA").

On July 10, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and notice plan and scheduled a public
fairness hearing.  The Class counsel mailed the approved notice to
the Subclass II Plaintiff on July 14, 2017.  The class member
responded on July 20, 2017 that the class member approved of the
settlement.  The class member did not provide any comments or
request to participate or speak at the fairness hearing held on
Aug. 25, 2017.

Pending before the Court is the parties' request for final
approval of a proposed settlement for the one remaining claimant
in the case pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Rules of the Court of
Federal Claims.

Judge Firestone approved the parties' proposed settlement
agreement for the Subclass II Plaintiff.  She directed the clerk
to enter judgment for the Ronald K. Bender Revocable Trust in the
amounts of $13,416.50 in principal and $10,410.96 in interest
through June 1, 2017.  The interest will be payable at a daily
rate of $2.24, beginning on June 2, 2017, until the date the
judgment is paid.  In addition, the clerk is directed to enter
judgment for the Subclass II Plaintiff in the amount of $36,659.57
for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the URA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Lp5F0d from Leagle.com.

STEVE JENKINS, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Scott Stewart --
STEWART@SWM.LEGAL -- Stewart Wald & McCulley LLC.

DONALD BURG, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Scott Stewart,
Stewart Wald & McCulley LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown --
jacqueline.c.brown@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice.


VACASA: Faces Class Action Over Vacation Rental Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Rogoway, writing for Oregon Live, reports that a Portland
woman sued Vacasa, alleging the vacation rental management company
collects more in fees than allowed under its agreement with
property owners. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of vacation home
owner Barbara Fisher, seeks class-action status and $3 million in
damages.

"We're aware of Ms. Fisher's complaints and we believe they have
no merit," Vacasa said in a brief statement.

Vacasa is one of Portland's fastest-growing young companies. It
helps property owners market and manage their vacation rentals,
serving more than 5,100 properties.

That included a property Fisher owns in Rhododendron, near Mount
Hood. Fisher's lawsuit, filed on August 31 in Multnomah County
Circuit Court, alleges that their contract allows Vacasa to take a
flat, comprehensive "management fee" of 35 percent.

However, Fisher alleges that Vacasa collects extra fees from
renters that effectively increase the share it collects from each
rental to approximately 50 percent. The fees amount to "disguised
rent," according to the suit.

"These so-called 'fees' include nightly pet fees, nightly hot tub
fees, and fees for early check-in and late check-out, as well as a
so-called 'booking fee' which is typically around 10% of the
nightly rental rate," the suit says. "Under the contact, Vacasa is
required to remit these fees to property owners, but instead keeps
them for itself, in violation of Oregon law."

For example, the suit says Vacasa collects the pet fee even though
homeowners are responsible for repairs and maintenance associated
with the costs of allowing pets, and that Vacasa does not use the
fee to offset costs associated with cleaning or maintaining homes
that allow pets. [GN]


VERIZON NEW JERSEY: "Struzynski" Suit Moved to NJ Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICH STRUZYNSKI, LESLIE
STRUZYNSKI, and RACHEL WULK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON NEW JERSEY
INC. and Verizon Online LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-03-
00017, was removed on Aug. 28, 2017 from the New Jersey Superior
Court, Camden County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-06485 to the proceeding.

Verizon New Jersey, Inc., formerly New Jersey Bell Telephone
Company, is the Bell Operating Company serving the U.S. state of
New Jersey.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
          PO BOX 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Telephone: (973) 360 7900
          E-mail: sellingerp@gtlaw.com


VIGO COUNTY, IN: Jail Inmates' Suit Granted Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Greninger Tribune-Star, writing for Tribune Star, reports
that Vigo County must inform jail inmates dating from October 2016
of the possibility they may be able to participate in a federal
lawsuit against county officials.

The notice is part of a court order issued in May as part of a
federal lawsuit on behalf of Jauston Huerta and other inmates,
claiming unconstitutional conditions in the Vigo County Jail.

The class action status applies to all inmates in the custody of
the county from Oct. 13, 2016 to the present.

David Rardin, former director of the Northeast Region for the U.S.
Bureau of Prisons and a jail consultant for the county, said
having a federal court order a class action status "is a high
hurdle for a court to grant.  The court has decided that there is
potential for a substantial argument of a problem" at the jail.

Mr. Rardin said the class action status "gives monumental
additional financial loss exposure to the county as a result in
terms of liability."

By Sept. 1, the notice is to made part of the electronic kiosk
system that individuals incarcerated at Vigo County Jail use for
phone calls, video visitation and other services.

The notice will also be posted at the book-out area of the jail. A
paper copy of the notice will be provided to every inmate in the
jail on Sept. 1.

Additionally, a list of every individual in the custody of the
Vigo County sheriff, but located at another jail facility, will be
provided to plaintiffs' attorney Michael Sutherlin.

The class-action status does not entitle an inmate to any damages
merely because the person was in the county jail.

It also does not include any claim for personal injury.  However,
an inmate can contact his or her attorney if they believe they
have suffered individual harm while detained or incarcerated at
the jail.  There is a two-year statute of limitations on such
claims and a tort claim notice must be filed within 180 days of
any injury, according to the notice.

Inmates in the class action are entitled to know the status of the
case, with Mr. Sutherlin to issue a status report on the lawsuit
"from time to time," according to the court order. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Actions in Canada Over Alleged Cartel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Osborne, Esq. -- mosborne@agmlawyers.com -- of Affleck
Greene McMurtry, in an article for The Lawyer'sDaily, wrote that
class actions have been filed in Ontario against German carmakers
alleging that they co-ordinated the design and pricing of
components in their cars.  Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky,
who along with Ken Rosenberg of Paliare Roland acts for the
plaintiff, said: "Collusion of such a scale among such large
companies is a serious issue. Consumers should not pay more, or
receive an inferior product, so that such companies can maximize
profits."  Despite these strong words, the plaintiffs may have an
uphill battle establishing that the German carmakers breached
Canada's Competition Act.

The case was triggered by explosive revelations by German magazine
Der Speigel, which reported in late July that the "Circle of Five"
German carmakers, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW and Daimler
(Mercedes-Benz), have been conspiring over technology, costs and
suppliers since the 1990s.  The carmakers had 200 employees in 60
working groups on such things as gasoline and diesel engines,
brakes, transmissions and environmental technologies, Der Speigel
claimed, adding that they conspired to reduce the size of urea
tanks used by clean diesel technology in a bid to reduce costs,
with the result that the technology could not scrub enough
nitrogen from diesel exhausts.

Indeed, problems for the German car industry began with VW's
admission that it had installed cheat software on its cars to
defeat emissions tests.  VW has since recalled millions of cars in
Europe and North America, and agreed to settlements with
regulators and class action plaintiffs in the United States and
Canada worth nearly $20 billion.

According to Der Speigel, Daimler self-reported the conspiracy to
German competition authorities, followed by VW. Both the German
and EU competition authorities are investigating.

Inevitably, class actions were filed in the U.S. and Canada
seeking damages on behalf of consumers.

The Canadian class action has yet to be particularized; the only
document filed to date is a Notice of Action containing a bare-
bones allegation that the Circle of Five "held regular meetings to
co-ordinate a unified approach to the design and price of
components found in vehicles" and that at these meetings, they
fixed the technical specifications of vehicles and components. The
plaintiff has also added the supplier of the clean diesel
technology, Robert Bosch GmbH, as a defendant.

Complaints filed in the U.S. provide greater detail. According to
U.S. plaintiffs, the carmakers agreed to work together on
developing new technologies to ensure that none of them was left
behind by innovations of the others, which "ensured that
improvements in design and engineering occurred haltingly and in
lockstep."  They agreed on such things as the maximum speed at
which convertible roofs could be opened and closed (50 km/h) and
on when parking brake locks should be activated. They also agreed
on suppliers for particular components.

Central to the plaintiffs' case will be proving that the carmakers
breached the conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act.  They
will face several hurdles.

First of all, Volkswagen AG owns the Volkswagen, Audi and (since
2012) Porsche brands (among others).  The Competition Act exempts
co-ordinated behaviour, including price setting, among affiliated
companies from the reach of the conspiracy provisions.  This is as
it should be; we expect affiliated companies to collaborate and
realize efficiencies.

Next, the plaintiff will need to contend with a major change in
conspiracy law in Canada that occurred in March 2010.  Before
March 2010, s. 45 of the Competition Act made it an offence to
conspire to lessen competition "unduly."

As of March 12, 2010, a new section 45 came into effect, banning
agreements between competitors to fix prices, allocate markets or
restrict output.  The undueness requirement was removed, making
these prohibited agreements per se unlawful.

The plaintiffs are likely to face challenges under both the old
and new section 45.  To prove their case under the old section 45,
the plaintiffs must show that the arrangement between the
carmakers had the effect of lessening competition unduly. This
will require a showing of market power, in the sense of the
ability to behave independently of the market.  In order to work
out whether the Circle of Five have market power, the product
market must be defined.  That is, one must identify the firms and
products that compete with one another.

The Circle of Five had less than eight per cent of the Canadian
vehicle market in 2010.  Such a small market share could not
support a finding of market power.

American plaintiffs claim that German cars constitute a separate
product market.  Given that German cars compete with and have been
losing market share to Japanese carmakers, it seems artificial to
restrict the market to cars from one country.

The plaintiffs might succeed in defining luxury vehicles as a
separate product market.  The Circle of Five's market share of a
luxury vehicle market may be as high as 54 per cent.  This could
be enough to establish the undueness element.  But this market may
also be artificial; it may be necessary to segment markets by car
type (sedans, SUVs, etc) and size. As well, one of the brands
involved, Volkswagen, likely would not be in the luxury vehicle
market.

To prove their case under the new section 45, the plaintiffs need
to fit the facts within one of the three types of prohibited
agreements. Nothing published so far suggests that the carmakers
conspired to fix prices they charge consumers for their cars.

The U.S. complaint suggests that the collaboration on technology
by the Circle of Five could be characterized as an agreement to
limit improvements in the quality of their cars.  The Competition
Bureau takes the view that such an agreement is an unlawful output
restriction agreement. This view is not directly supported by the
text of section 45, however, nor has it been considered by a
court. [GN]


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hammoud"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court dismissal of Plaintiff/s
complaint in the case captioned ZAINAH HAMMOUD; SHAEFA MOHAMED;
ELEANOR EWALD; ERIC EWALD; CHERYL DEANDA; GENO DEANDA; PAULA
NEWCOMB; ROBERT RADFORD; ANDREA ROWE; GARY ZELONY; ANTHONY CRUMP;
ERNEST FOREST; BRANDY GUITERREZ; HENRY KOPPOE; TIMOTHY PADDEN;
SONIA VARGAS; JENNIFER WICK; WARREN WICK; CARL NOVAK; RICHARD
ROBBS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAYNE COUNTY; RICHARD HATHAWAY,
Wayne County Treasurer; RAYMOND WOJTOWICZ; DAVID SZYMANSKI;
FELECIA TYLER; CITY OF DEARBORN; ROBERT MUERY; ALLYSON BETTIS;
RANDY WALKER; CITY OF LINCOLN PARK; BRAD L. COULTER; CITY OF
WAYNE; LISA NOCERINI; REDFORD TOWNSHIP; TRACY KOBYLARSZ; JSR
FUNDING, LLC; JAMES BUDZIAK; ENTERPRISING REAL ESTATE, LLC; MILAN
GANDHI; RISHI PATEL; NANDAN PATEL; HP SNAP INVESTMENT, LLC; HETAL
GANDHI; GLOBAL REALTY, LLC; RICHARD INGBER; RANCILIO & ASSOCIATES;
RICHARD KOSMACK; KAREN FROBOTTA; NANCY JACKSON; CITY OF GARDEN
CITY, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-2371 (6th Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants are all former owners of real property in
Wayne County, Michigan. They became delinquent in paying their
property taxes, and, pursuant to the Michigan General Property Tax
Act (GPTA), the Wayne County Treasurer's Office took steps to
foreclose upon the properties. Plaintiffs failed to timely redeem
the properties, and the Wayne County Circuit Court entered
foreclosure judgments against Plaintiffs, transferring the
properties to Wayne County in fee simple absolute by quit claim
deed.

Plaintiffs did not appeal the foreclosure judgment.

Plaintiffs brought a purported class action on behalf of
approximately 800 similarly situated property owners, seeking
equitable and compensatory relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs
alleged that Wayne County and affiliated individuals Defendants
illegally and unconscionably and without required notice under
Michigan and federal law foreclosed  Plaintiffs' real properties.
The district court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, finding
that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1341, stripped it
of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs' due-
process and equal-protection claims.

The district court also dismissed Plaintiffs' civil RICO claim,
finding that the Wayne County and municipal Defendants cannot be
held liable as a matter of law and that Plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently plead a civil RICO claim against the other
Defendants.

Having dismissed Plaintiffs' federal claims, the district court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law claims.

The Sixth Circuit said it is convinced that the district court did
not err in its conclusion that the Tax Injunction Act barred it
from adjudicating Plaintiffs' due-process and equal-protection
claims. Neither is it convinced that the district court
erroneously dismissed Plaintiffs' civil RICO claim.

The district court's opinion carefully and correctly sets out the
law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision.  Thus, issuance of a full written
opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. And, with no
federal claims remaining, the district court's decision to decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law
claims was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's August 24, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybtgmrmgfrom Leagle.com.


WELL LIFE: Oct. 31 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT CA No. 1577CV02000D SHANNON BLAZAK, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. WELL LIFE MEDICAL, P.C., Defendant.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ORDERED MEDICAL
RECORDS FROM Well Life MEDICAL, P.C. AND who HAD THEIR MEDICAL
RECORDS REQUESTS PROCESSED AND RESPONDED TO at any time from
December 8, 2011 to December 31, 2013.

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff, Shannon Blazak filed the above-
captioned class action litigation against Well Life Medical, P.C.
(Well Life) on behalf of all those persons who either directly, or
through an authorized agent: (A) requested their medical records
from Well Life; (B) received an invoice in connection with their
medical records, which invoice unlawfully demanded/charged an
amount in excess of what Well Life was permitted to charge in
connection with the fulfillment of the medical records request;
and (C) paid Well Life the full amount demanded by Well Life for
the fulfillment of the medical records request in an amount
greater than what Well Life was allowed to charge under M.G.L. c.
111, Sec. 70.  The lawsuit alleges violations of M.G.L. c. 111,
Sec. 70, including that Well Life overcharged for postage when
responding to certain medical records requests made by Class
Members.

The parties have agreed to settle the litigation on the following
terms.  Given Well Life's admitted inability to identify certain
class members Unidentifiable Class Members for the period between
December 8, 2011 through December 31, 2013, the parties agreed
that Well Life will pay $1,750.00 to Health Law Advocates, Inc., a
public interest law firm whose interest is to provide pro-bono
legal representation to low-income residents experiencing
difficulty accessing or paying for needed medical services.
Additionally, Well Life will make payment in the amount of $25.00
for each qualifying transaction of certain class members
identified between January 1, 2014 through December 8,
2015(Identifiable Class Members).  Identifiable Class Members will
receive separate Notice of their claims via First Class Mail. Well
Life has affirmed that it does not, and will not, charge amounts
for postage in excess of what it allowed by M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 70
when processing and responding to medical records requests.
Lastly, Well Life has agreed to pay Plaintiffs reasonable
attorneys fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the
court at the Final Approval Hearing.  All such amounts will be
paid by Well Life and will not be distributed from the Settlement
Class funds.  The Essex County Superior Court preliminarily
approved this settlement.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on October 31, 2017 at 2:00
p.m. (the Final Approval Hearing), before the Court at the Essex
County Superior Court, 43 Appleton Way, Lawrence, MA 01841, at
which time the parties will ask the Court to: (i) determine
whether, for settlement purposes only, the Courts preliminary
certification of the non-opt-out Class, pursuant to Massachusetts
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and M.G.L. c. 93A, should be made
final; (ii) determine whether the Court should grant final
approval of the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Parties Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class;
(iii) determine whether judgment should be entered dismissing the
litigation with prejudice; (iv) consider the Plaintiffs
application for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses; and
(v) hear and determine other matters relating to the proposed
Settlement.  Any claims you might have against Well Life for non-
compliance with M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 70 in connection with Well
Life's processing of medical records requests at any time from
December 8, 2011 to the present, will be forever released and
dismissed as a result of this Settlement and the Courts approval
thereof.

If you have any objection to this Settlement, you must deliver
said objection in writing to the Court and the lawyers involved in
the Action by no later than September 7, 2017 to the following
three addresses:

1. Civil Clerks Office, Salem Superior Court, Ruane Judicial
Center, 56 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970;

2. John R. Yasi, Esq. at Forrest, LaMothe, Mazow, McCullough, Yasi
& Yasi, P.C., Two Salem Green, Suite 2, Salem, MA 01970 (counsel
for Plaintiff); and

3. Thomas J. Delaney, Esq., Goddard, Scuteri and Delaney, 27
Congress Street, Salem MA 01970 (counsel for Well Life).

Any Objections must be verified by a declaration under the penalty
of perjury or a sworn affidavit and state:

   A. The name and case number of at least one of the Action:
Shannon Blazak, et al. v. Well Life Medical, P.C.., CA
No.1577CV02000D;

   B. The full name, address, and telephone number of the person
objecting;

   C. The words Notice of Objection or Formal Objection;

   D. Whether the objector intends to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing, either in person or through counsel, and, if through
counsel, identifying counsel by name, address and phone number;

   E. The legal and factual bases for each and every objection,
and if through counsel, a legal memorandum in support of the
objection; and

   F. A list of any witnesses, along with the expected testimony
of each such witness, and photocopies of exhibits which the
objector intends to introduce at the Final Approval Hearing.

In addition, if the objecting Class Member is represented by an
attorney, said attorney must comply with all applicable
Massachusetts laws and rules for filing pleadings and documents in
Massachusetts courts.  The objection, to be considered, also must
be sent by the objector or a legally authorized representative on
an individual basis and not as part of a group, class or subclass.
Any Settlement Class Member who fails to file such a written
statement of his or her intention to object or oppose shall be
foreclosed from making any objection to this Settlement Agreement
and/or filing any opposition to the Fee and Expense Application,
except as permitted by the Court. IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY MAKE YOUR
OBJECTION, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED ALL OBJECTIONS AND
WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO SPEAK AT THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING. If
you file and serve an Objection, you may appear at the Final
Approval Hearing, either in person or through personal counsel
hired at your expense, to object to the Settlement Agreement.
However, you are not required to appear. If you, or your attorney,
intend to make an appearance at the Final Approval Hearing, you
must also deliver to Class Counsel and Well Lifes Counsel, and
file with the Court, no later than (i.e., postmarked by) September
7, 2017, a Notice of Intention to Appear.  If you intend to appear
at the Final Approval Hearing through counsel, your Notice of
Intention to Appear must identify the attorney representing you
who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing and include the
attorneys name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and the
state bar(s) to which counsel is admitted.  Also, if you intend to
request that the Court allow you to call witnesses at the Final
Approval Hearing, such request must be made in your Notice of
Intention to Appear, which must also contain a list of any such
witnesses and a summary of each witnesss expected testimony.  For
the full details of the lawsuit, the claims that have been
asserted by Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, you may refer to the papers on file with the Court.
You or your attorney may examine the Courts files during regular
business hours of each business day at the Civil Clerks Office,
Essex County Superior Court, Ruane Judicial Center, 56 Federal
Street, Salem, MA 01970.


WELLS FARGO: Arbitration Push Questioned in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
B. Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Wells Fargo is accused of potentially "strip[ping] customers" of
their constitutional rights by pursuing arbitration, according to
a brief filed by plaintiffs in the leading class action suit over
forced car insurance by the bank.

Plaintiff Katherine Jacob, in a reply to the embattled bank's
opposition to a preliminary injunction, said Wells Fargo was
threatening to invoke arbitration clauses "burie[d]" in customer
agreements, rather than face plaintiffs in court.
"Wells Fargo reveals that it will provide no relief that is not
forced," Jacob said.

An internal review made public in July revealed the bank
inappropriately charged some 800,000 auto loan customers with
insurance that they didn't want. The move forced tens of thousands
into delinquency, according to the report.

Wells Fargo argues against a preliminary injunction that would
force the bank to take steps to help customers whose credit scores
were harmed by the allegations in the class suit ahead of class
certification. In its brief on the matter, the bank notes that the
arbitration clause was part of the agreement that Jacob -- and
presumably all potential members of the class -- signed, and that
it included a class-action waiver.

The bank argues that a mandatory injunction like that proposed by
the plaintiff is an attempt to get the court "to award her
principal relief on the merits that could be more appropriately
determined in a different proceeding."

"Whether corrective credit reporting is appropriate is an ultimate
issue for the arbitrator," Wells Fargo's counsel argues.
The case, before U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern
District of New York, is currently moving towards consolidation
through multidistrict litigation procedures.

Chicago-based DiCello Levitt & Casey name attorney Adam Levitt,
Esq. - alevitt@dlcfirm.com - of DiCello Levitt & Casey leads
representation for Jacob. He declined to comment.

McGuireWoods partner Jeffrey Chapman, Esq. --
jeff@chapmanfirmtx.com - of the Chapman Firm heads the firm's
defense for Wells Fargo. He could not be reached for comment. [GN]


WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Court Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled WAYNE MEETZ, the Plaintiff, v. WISCONSIN
HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-1313
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an
order:

   1. granting Meetz's motion for conditional certification and
      court authorization to send notice to potential class
      members, on behalf of:

      "all persons who have worked as a delivery driver for a
      Pizza Hut franchise operated by Wisconsin Hospitality
      Group, LLC and PH Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut at
      any time since September 30, 2013, and who received an in-
      restaurant wage of $7.25 per hour and a delivery wage of
      $5.25 per hour"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as collective action
      counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1mZ34F5g


YAHOO INC: Must Face Nationwide Litigation, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
said Yahoo must face nationwide litigation brought on behalf of
well over 1 billion users who said their personal information was
compromised in three massive data breaches.

August 30's decision from US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose,
California, was a setback for efforts by Verizon, which paid $4.76
billion for Yahoo's Internet business in June, to limit potential
liability.

The breaches occurred between 2013 and 2016, but Yahoo was slow to
disclose them, waiting more than three years to reveal the first.
Revelations about the scope of the cyber attacks prompted Verizon
to lower its purchase price for the company.

In a 93-page decision, Koh rejected Yahoo's contention that breach
victims lacked standing to sue and said they could pursue some
breach of contract and unfair competition claims.

"All plaintiffs have alleged a risk of future identity theft, in
addition to loss of value of their personal identification
information," the judge wrote.

Koh said some plaintiffs also alleged they had spent money to
thwart future identity theft or that fraudsters had misused their
data.

Others, meanwhile, could have changed passwords or canceled their
accounts to stem losses had Yahoo not delayed disclosing the
breaches, the judge said.

While many claims were dismissed, Koh said the plaintiffs could
amend their complaint to address her concerns.

"We believe it to be a significant victory for consumers and will
address the deficiencies the court pointed out," John Yanchunis, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs who chairs an executive committee
overseeing the case, said in an interview. "It's the biggest data
breach in the history of the world."

Verizon spokesman Bob Varettoni said the New York-based company
declined to comment on pending litigation.

Yahoo is now part of a Verizon unit called Oath.

In court papers, Yahoo had argued that the breaches were "a
triumph of criminal persistence" by a "veritable 'who's who' of
cybercriminals" and that no security system is hack-proof.

On March 15, the US Department of Justice charged two officers of
the Russian Federal Security Service and two hackers in connection
with the second breach in late 2014.

The August 2013 breach affected more than 1 billion accounts,
while the 2014 breach affected more than 500 million. A third
breach occurred in 2015 and 2016.

The case is In re: Yahoo Inc Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 16-md-02752. [GN]


YIN WALL: Court Certifies Ginseng Growers Class in "Baumann"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned BAUMANN FARMS, LLP a
Wisconsin limited liability partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON
KAISER, Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois
corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS,
INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendants. YIN WALL CITY, INC.
(Illinois), YIN WALL CITY, INC. (Texas), and YIN WALL CITY DALLAS,
INC., Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BAUMANN FARMS,
LLP; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Counterclaim Defendants, and
GINSENG BOARD OF WISCONSIN, INC.; THOMAS HACK, JOE HEIL and KURT
BAUMANN, Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-605 (E.D. Wis.).

On May 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 to certify the action against the Defendants as
a class action.

Baumann asks the court to certify a class defined as all
individuals and entities engaged in the business of cultivating
ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng
growers with Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection ("DATCP") between January 2010 and the date of
judgment of the case, as mandated by Wis. Stats. Section 94.50(2).

According to the Plaintiffs, in 2017 there are 180 ginseng growers
registered with the DATCP.  They are all Wisconsin ginseng growers
and would be the class representatives and their lawyer would be
the class counsel.  The defendants oppose the motion.

The Plaintiffs allege that Wisconsin ginseng is of superior
quality to ginseng grown elsewhere.  They allege that the
Defendants sold ginseng labeled as having been grown in Wisconsin
when, in fact, it had not -- most likely, it had been grown in
China.  According to them, by passing off ginseng grown in China
as having been grown in Wisconsin, the Defendants harm Wisconsin
ginseng growers in two ways: first, it floods the U.S. market with
ginseng root which purports to be grown in Wisconsin, which
depresses the price at which ginseng root actually grown in
Wisconsin may be sold; and, second, by selling ginseng root of
lesser quality identified as Wisconsin ginseng root, the sales
erode the status and desirability of Wisconsin ginseng in the mind
of the consuming public, decreasing the market demand for
Wisconsin-grown ginseng.

Magistrate Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  He certified the class of all individuals and
entities engaged in the business of cultivating ginseng in the
State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng growers with
Wisconsin's DATCP as mandated by Wis. Stats. Section 94.50(2),
from January 2010 through the date the defendants stopped selling
ginseng in boxes labeled as "grown in Wisconsin," excluding
defendants and all officers, directors, employees, and agents of
the Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2)(B), the
Magistrate Judge appointed Michael T. Hopkins of IP-Litigation US
LLC as the class counsel.

He ordered that within 28 days of the order, the class counsel
will provide the Court with a proposed form of notice to potential
class members consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/h0Iiby from Leagle.com.

Baumann Farms LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Hopkins,
IP-Litigation US LLC.

Glenn Heier, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-
Litigation US LLC.

Aaron Kaiser, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-
Litigation US LLC.

Yin Wall City Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Phillips --
pjphillips@lmiplaw.com -- Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Sut I Fong, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas &
Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby
LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD &
Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Choeng Sat O, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas &
Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby
LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD &
Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Phillips,
Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley &
Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD
& Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Dallas Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter J.
Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley &
Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Inc, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Peter J.
Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley &
Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Dallas Inc, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Inc, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Peter J.
Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley &
Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Thomas Hack, Third Party Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.

Joe Heil, Third Party Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.

Ginseng Board of Wisconsin Inc., Third Party Defendant,
represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.

Kurt Baumann, Third Party Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.

Yin Wall City Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Peter J.
Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley &
Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Smith" Suit over Automotive Insurance Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, NATIONAL GENERAL
HOLDINGS CORP., and NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04938-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover compensatory, statutory, and other damages
sustained by Plaintiff and the Class, restitution and/or
disgorgement of Defendants' profits from its unfair and unlawful
practices, and all other relief allowed under applicable law.

Wells Fargo has admitted to engaging in a long-running scheme that
forced hundreds of thousands of customers of automobile financing
to unwittingly pay for automotive insurance they did not need,
leading to hundreds of thousands of erroneous loan delinquencies
and tens of thousands of illegal vehicle repossessions. The scheme
was first reported by the New York Times on July 27, 2017, after
the Times obtained an internal, non-public report commissioned by
Wells Fargo executives that estimated that more than 800,000
people who financed car loans through Wells Fargo were wrongfully
charged for force-placed Collateral Protection Insurance ("CPI")
or Gap insurance ("Gap"), despite having insurance of their own.
By forcing hundreds of thousands of customers to purchase the
unnecessary Gap or CPI insurance, which was underwritten by
National General, and by then automatically deducting the Gap or
CPI premiums from customers' bank accounts, Wells Fargo earned
millions of dollars in interest payments, penalties, fees, and
kickbacks in the form of commission payments. Wells Fargo's
customers, in turn, were subjected to deceptive late fees,
insufficient fund charges, wrongful repossessions, and downgraded
credit scores, even after many customers complained directly to
Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo & Company is an American international banking and
financial services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254 6808
          E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822 5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822 4997
          E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Mortgage Interest Rate-Lock Extension Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., the law firm that filed the first class
action lawsuit over the Wells Fargo fake account scandal, on
Aug. 28 filed a new class action case alleging the bank wrongly
charged residential borrowers fees to extend their mortgage
interest "rate locks."

Keller Rohrback filed the lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Company,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in the
Northern District of California on behalf of first-time home buyer
Victor Muniz and a proposed nationwide class of similarly situated
individuals.

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo systematically charged its
customers a fee to extend the period that their offered mortgage
interest rate was "locked in," even though the Bank caused delays
in the closing process.  Recent reporting in ProPublica first
disclosed the practice, which has been the subject of online
complaints, as alleged in the complaint.  Wells Fargo has
reportedly hired a law firm to conduct an internal investigation
and fired several managers who were allegedly involved.  The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also now reportedly
investigating the practice.

"The same profit-over-people culture that fostered Wells Fargo's
fake account scandal appears to have led the bank to stick
borrowers with unwarranted fees," said Derek Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner with Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. in Seattle.  "Mr. Muniz and we hope to hold the bank
accountable."

Here is how the practice works, according to the complaint, which
is based on publicly available information and Keller Rohrback's
investigation: When a customer approaches a bank for a home loan
or to refinance an existing loan, banks and consumers often agree
to "lock in" a stated interest rate for a set period of time;
usually for 30 to 90 days.  If paperwork or other delays prevent
the closing of the loan and that period expires, the period can be
extended.

If the reason for the delay was the borrower's fault, the banks
will often charge the borrower a fee to extend the rate-lock
period.  But if the delay is the bank's fault, the bank is
supposed to absorb the cost of extending the rate-lock period.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo regularly and
systematically charged borrowers with unwarranted rate-lock
extension fees when the closing delays were the fault of the bank,
and that Wells Fargo managers pressured employees to find any
excuse (even potentially manufacturing an excuse) to blame the
borrowers for the delays.  Borrowers often found themselves in the
difficult position of paying these unjustified fees or risk not
closing on a home, or paying a higher rate.

The complaint includes claims under the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, and state common
law and statutory consumer claims.

According to a whistleblower letter attached to the complaint, the
practice has cost borrowers millions of dollars in the Los Angeles
area alone.

If you believe that you may have been improperly charged a fee to
extend a lower interest rate by Wells Fargo and want to learn more
about your rights call attorney Matthew Preusch at (800) 776-6044
or via email at consumer@kellerrohrback.com to discuss your
potential legal claims.

                About Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. -- http://www.krcomplexlit.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 6 locations.
[GN]


ZB NA: Referral Bid Hearing in "Evans" Suit Continued to Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RONALD C. EVANS, an individual; JOAN M.
EVANS, an individual; DENNIS TREADAWAY, an individual; and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZB, N.A., a national
banking association, dba California Bank & Trust, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01123-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i)
continued the hearing on the Defendant's Referral Motion from
Sept. 18, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. to Oct. 2, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.; and
(ii) moved the Defendant's deadline to file a reply to any
opposition to the Referral Motion on or before Sep. 25, 2017.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint
against CB&T.  On May 30, 2017, they served the Summons and the
Complaint upon CB&T via personal service.  The deadline for CB&T
to file and serve its answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
was initially June 20, 2017.

On June 12, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties'
Stipulation to extend CB&T's Response Deadline to July 31, 2017.
On July 24, 2017, CB&T filed a Motion to Refer this Class Action
Complaint to the Honorable Robert S. Bardwil in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(a) and the Court's General Orders 182,
223, and 330.

The Referral Motion was initially scheduled to be heard by the
Court on Aug. 21, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.  The parties stipulated to
continue the hearing date to Sept. 18, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., with
the Opposition to the Referral Motion to be filed on Aug. 28,
2017, and the Reply to be filed on Sept. 11, 2017.

In another action filed in Sacramento Superior Court involving the
same purported Ponzi scheme, JTS Communities, Inc., et al. v. ZB,
N.A., et al. action, CB&T removed the case to U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of California, Judge Bardwil
presiding.

On Aug. 3, 2017, Judge Bardwil issued an order remanding the JTS
Action to the Sacramento Superior Court.  The Parties are meeting
and conferring regarding whether Judge Bardwil's ruling in the JTS
action has any bearing on CB&T's Referral Motion in this action,
and whether CB&T may withdraw its Referral Motion.  Thus, they
agree to the following schedule with respect to the Referral
Motion while the parties continue to meet and confer as to whether
ZB, N.A., will withdraw its Referral Motion:

      a. the Plaintiffs will file and serve their opposition, if
any, to the Referral Motion on or before Sept. 11, 2017;

      b. CB&T will file and serve its reply to any opposition to
the Referral Motion on or before Sep. 25, 2017; and

      c. the hearing on Referral Motion will be continued from
Sept. 18, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. to Oct. 2, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

To allow time for the Court to hear and determine the Referral
Motion in the event that it is not withdrawn by CB&T, the Parties
agree to further extend CB&T's Response Deadline such that CB&T
will have until 20 calendar days after notice of withdrawal of the
Referral Motion or notice to the Parties of the Court's entry of
its written order ruling on the Referral Motion, whichever is
first, in which to file an answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint.  This deadline will apply regardless of whether the
Court retains jurisdiction, or refers all or part of the case to
the Bankruptcy Court.

Judge Shubb approved the parties' Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2017 Second Stipulated
Order is available at https://is.gd/dosycz from Leagle.com.

Ronald C. Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Curtis --
rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle Curtis LLP.

Ronald C. Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin D. Gamarnik --
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP &
Aaron Lee Arndt -- aarnt@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP.

Joan M. Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin D. Gamarnik, Foley
Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP & Aaron Lee Arndt, Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP.

Dennis Treadaway, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin D. Gamarnik,
Foley Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP & Aaron Lee Arndt, Foley Bezek
Behle & Curtis, LLP.

ZB, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert Scott McWhorter --
robert.mcwhorter@leclairryan.com -- Buchalter, A Professional
Corporation.


* Class Actions Deter Corporate Misconduct, Draft Paper Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Vanderbilt law
professor Brian Fitzpatrick has impeccable conservative
credentials.  After graduating first in his class from Harvard Law
School, he clerked for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, then for U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Mr. Fitzpatrick was a
corporate lawyer at Sidley Austin before he entered academia.

Based on that history, you would expect Mr. Fitzpatrick to be a
class action stickler, if not outright skeptic.  But in a recently
published draft paper, "Do Class Actions Deter Wrongdoing?", Mr.
Fitzpatrick not only argues that the primary justification of
class actions is to deter corporate misconduct -- in contrast to
recent conventional conservative wisdom that class actions are
intended to be merely a procedural vehicle to promote litigation
efficiency -- but that the admittedly scant empirical evidence
shows the cases do, in fact, serve that purpose. (The paper is a
shortened version of a chapter in Mr. Fitzpatrick's soon-to-be-
published book, "The Conservative Case for Class Actions.")

"The theory of deterrence remains just as strong today as it was
when it was introduced 50 years ago by the 'classical' law and
economics movement," Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote.  "Moreover, although
there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to support the
theory for class actions, there is some, it is uncontroverted, and
it is consistent with reams and reams of empirical evidence in
favor of deterrence for individual lawsuits.  In short, I think
the conventional view that the class action can be justified by
the deterrence rationale alone remains sound."

Mr. Fitzpatrick's paper is remarkably good at laying out the
theory of deterrence, as well as criticism of the theory, without
resorting to jargon.  You really can't do much better than his
opening paragraph to summarize debate over the purpose and
practicality of class actions:

"When the claims at issue in a class action are small, as they
usually are in the United States, it is unlikely that any
litigation efficiency is gained because there would be no
individual litigation at all in the absence of the class action,"
he wrote.  "This leaves us with compensation and deterrence.  But
the class action is not known for its success at delivering
compensation to class members; sometimes it does it well -- and it
may get better as technology improves -- but, in the run-of-the-
mill case, only a small percentage of victims are made whole. None
of this has bothered me or many other scholars because we have
always pointed to the deterrence virtue of the class action,
arguing that alone is enough to justify the class device."

Underlying that theory, he explains (with copious footnotes
showing his mastery of class action scholarship) is the assumption
that corporations act rationally.  When they face the prospect of
punishment, in the form of a class action, they are less likely to
misbehave.  That seems obvious but critics, as Fitzpatrick
explains, have raised two arguments against the theory.  First,
corporate officers may not be deterred because they're not held
personally responsible in class actions and second, class action
litigation is too inherently unpredictable for corporations to
predicate behavior on the risk of being sued.

Mr. Fitzpatrick knocks back both theories. Corporations hire rafts
of lawyers to advise them on litigation risk, he said, and if we
were to assume that officers and directors are not influenced by
class action risk, then we have to assume their conduct is
unaffected by any prospective reaction.  "If class action lawsuits
can't deter corporate misconduct . . . then nothing else that
costs the corporation money can either," he wrote.  "Thus, if we
contend that class action lawsuits are failures, then we have to
admit that other lawsuits and the market feedback loops are, too.
But no one wants to admit all that."

Mr. Fitzpatrick is such a good writer that you don't really get a
sense of the roiling controversy over the very idea that
deterrence is a legitimate justification for class actions.  In a
phone interview, Fitzpatrick told me that the Rules Committee that
drafted modern class action rules in the 1960s didn't really
contemplate corporate deterrence through small-dollar consumer
class actions. (In fact, he said, committee members were focused
on their concern that the class action vehicle would unduly favor
defendants, which just goes to show that even very smart lawyers
aren't good prognosticators.)

Mr. Fitzpatrick argues that if you accept the proposition that
corporations shouldn't be allowed to extract even small amounts of
money from hoodwinked consumers, then class actions are actually a
conservative way to make sure they don't.  The other options are
to provide no vehicle to litigate small-dollar claims, thus
allowing businesses to steal from customers, or to rely on the
government to enforce corporate honesty.  I suggested that perhaps
we can rely on the market to punish deceptive businesses; Mr.
Fitzpatrick said class actions act as a megaphone to amplify
warnings to consumers.

That point brings me to Mr. Fitzpatrick's empirical evidence that
class actions influence corporate behavior for the better.  His
first conclusion is that consumers benefit from injunctive relief
corporations grant in class action settlements. Roughly speaking,
a quarter of class settlements include an injunction. As
Fitzpatrick acknowledges, there's considerable debate over whether
those injunctions are worth the paper they're printed on (let
alone the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in
legal fees for plaintiffs' lawyers.) He concludes, however, that
in the dozens of cases in which he has served as an expert witness
and examined the merits of injunctions, "none of the provisions .
. . were toothless."

Class action reformer Ted Frank, who will be debating Fitzpatrick
at an American Bar Association conference in October, has a much
dimmer view of the merits of injunctions. (As you may recall, the
7th Circuit sided with Mr. Frank on Aug. 25 when it tossed an
injunction-only settlement in a "worthless" class action accusing
of Subway of falsely advertising its foot-long sandwiches.)

"When there is a meaningless injunction, the corporation is either
getting away with something or being penalized by the class action
system," said Mr. Frank, who accuses Fitzpatrick of confirmation
bias.  "If the system isn't adequately distinguishing between good
corporations and bad ones . . . it is exactly backward."
(Fitzpatrick, noting that two other federal circuit courts have
recently affirmed injunctive settlements in which Frank
represented objectors, said he has looked at all of the
injunctions Mr. Frank specifically cited as meritless in a recent
paper and found many of them were legitimate.  "Just because Ted
Frank thinks something is toothless doesn't mean it is,"
Fitzpatrick said.  "When the federal judiciary hears and
thoughtfully rejects his arguments, I don't think we can count
those injunctions as toothless.")

A bigger question than the specific deterrence a particular
injunction might provide is the generally cautionary impact of the
prospect of the prospect of a class action.  Mr. Fitzpatrick cites
copious empirical evidence that the threat of individual suits
makes prospective defendants more careful but said a half-dozen
studies find the same correlation between corporate conduct and
the risk of facing a class action.  One study examined the market
for white bread to distinguish the disparate deterrent effects of
government and private antitrust enforcement.  It concluded that
white bread makers seemed to be more wary of class actions than
government enforcement.  The other studies generally found
corporations made more robust disclosures to shareholders when
they faced greater risk of securities class actions.

"Although these studies of class actions and deterrence are not
numerous, they are unanimous: Class action lawsuits generate
general deterrence," Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote.

Ms. Frankel asked Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus, who frequently
represents class action detractors, what he thought of
Fitzpatrick's argument.  Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Pincus said the
professor didn't pay enough attention to the impact of unwarranted
class actions.  "The article skillfully avoids the critical
question relating to general deterrence," Mr. Pincus said in an
email.  "Of course companies are aware that they may be subject to
class actions -- that's inevitable for anyone doing business in
today's world.  But the deterrence argument works only if
companies believe that lawful conduct will not trigger class
action suits that impose high costs.  That just isn't true:
Because class actions are almost never decided on the merits, the
system does not filter out legitimate from illegitimate
claims . . . Class action costs and settlement liability are the
unavoidable cost of doing business, present no matter what steps a
company takes to comply with the law, and therefore have no
beneficial deterrent effect."

Mr. Fitzpatrick's paper and upcoming book obviously aren't going
to be the last word on class action efficacy.  But he's putting
out provocative ideas and backing them up with evidence.  Let the
debate rage on! [GN]


* Trump Administration Fights Class Action Provision in BICE
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Iacurci, writing for Investment News, reports that the Trump
administration delivered a clear signal it aims to kill one of the
most hotly contested parts of its fiduciary rule -- the provision
about class-action lawsuits.

Beginning Jan. 1 or July 2019 if the DOL delays that
implementation date -- financial advice firms will have to enter
into a contract with retirement savers if the firm receives
variable compensation, such as commissions, when delivering
investment advice.  The contracts cannot waive investors' right to
bring class-action litigation against the financial institutions.

The Trump administration is currently reviewing the Obama-era
rule, and the possibility of this provision going away raises a
number of important questions and takeaways for broker-dealers and
registered investment advisers.

Will the best-interest contract stay or go?

The contract, which affirms a broker or adviser is giving
investment advice in an investor's best interest, is the rule's
primary enforcement mechanism.

The contract is part of the best-interest contract exemption, a
section of the rule allowing firms to receive variable
compensation if they meet certain conditions.  Attorneys generally
believe there will be some sort of contract requirement associated
with BICE.

If there were, enforcement of the rule's provisions would likely
come via individual arbitration if an investor felt he or she
didn't receive advice adhering to the contract's terms.  Firms
would most likely insert mandatory-arbitration clauses into these
contracts.

Absent a contract, most individual retirement account holders
wouldn't have an enforcement remedy under the rule if they felt an
adviser breached his or her fiduciary duty, said Andrew Oringer,
co-chair of the employee benefits and executive compensation group
at Dechert.

If there's no contract, the DOL will likely completely re-jigger
BICE, said Jason Roberts, CEO of Pension Resource Institute, a
compliance consulting firm.

While this is something for which rule opponents have lobbied, it
could represent a be-careful-what-you-wish-for type of scenario -
while BICE is challenging from a compliance standpoint, it's
expansive in terms of admissible conduct and activity for firms
and brokers, Mr. Roberts said.  A replacement exemption might be
less flexible.

"It'll be harder to live in that world than the BICE world from an
adviser perspective," he said.

401(k) participants can still bring class-action claims

Doing away with the class-action provision won't eliminate the
ability of 401(k) participants and participants in other
retirement plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to file class-action litigation.

That mechanism has been available to participants since ERISA's
inception.  It's the same mechanism under which participants have
been suing employers for excessive 401(k) fees.

The fiduciary rule's first phase of implementation, which began
June 9, broadened the definition of who is an ERISA fiduciary. So,
thousands more advisers and their firms are, as of June, subject
to this ERISA litigation risk.

Those at risk are advisers providing employer-level advice on the
investment lineup of a 401(k)s with less than $50 million in
assets, as well as those advising individual participants on their
investments, said Joshua Lichtenstein, an attorney in the tax and
benefits department at law firm Ropes & Gray.

Rollovers still aren't safe

Advisers and firms soliciting rollovers from 401(k) participants
are subject to this same class-action-litigation risk.  ERISA
covers this sort of recommendation because 401(k) money is
involved in the solicitation, and plan participants can bring
suit.

May make BICE more attractive

Removing the class-action provision from BICE "could make the BICE
more appealing than other exemptions that could be available," Mr.
Lichtenstein said.  "This really could shift the balance."

For example, some firms had been considering an alternative
exemption called 408(g) in place of operating under BICE,
attorneys said.

408(g) is a section of ERISA that predates the fiduciary rule, and
applies to level-fee advisers (or, those whose fees don't vary
based on their investment advice).

But, not many, if any, firms currently comply with 408(g) in order
to provide investment advice due to the compliance requirements
involved with it, such as an annual audit, Mr. Lichtenstein said.

408(g) makes the most sense under the fiduciary rule for firms
with affiliated investment products, such as broker-dealers owned
by asset managers or insurance companies, Mr. Roberts said.  "We
have some clients using that in cases where it makes sense," he
said.

However, it's a "very limited exemption," and doing away with
BICE's class-action provision would likely make BICE a more
appealing alternative, he added.

Attorneys less likely to bring litigation

Taking away class-action litigation would probably greatly reduce
attorneys' appetite for pursuing a breach-of-contract claim on
behalf of an individual investor.

"The practical reality is that a plaintiff's layer interested in
pursuing this is much less likely to want to pursue 30,000
separate claims than one single claim covering 30,000 people," Mr.
Oringer said.

Morningstar senior equity analyst Michael Wong had earlier this
year estimated the brokerage industry should expect to absorb
between $70 million and $150 million annually in class-action
litigation costs.

Of course, the fiduciary rule's trajectory will likely play out
over several years.  If the Trump administration ultimately amends
the Obama-era regulation, and attempts to remove the class-action
provision, proponents of the rule may challenge the decision in
court. [GN]


* Trump Targets Class-Action Right in DOL Fiduciary Rule
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schoeff Jr., writing for Investment News, reports that even
before the Labor Department has finished its review of its
fiduciary rule, the Trump administration has made clear that it is
targeting a part of the measure that would make it easier for
investors to pursue class-action lawsuits against financial
advisers.

The latest evidence is a DOL Field Assistance Bulletin released on
August 30, that said that the agency would not bring enforcement
actions against advisers relying on exemptions in the measure if
they include class-action bans in retirement account contracts.

The bulletin, which mentions that the Trump administration is no
longer opposing class-action bans in a Supreme Court case, comes
shortly after the DOL said in a brief for a lawsuit against the
fiduciary rule that the class-action provision would "likely be
mooted in the near future."

The class-action provision is part of the best interest contract
exemption that would allow brokers to receive variable
compensation for investment products they put in individual
retirement accounts as long as they sign the legally binding
agreement to act in their clients' best interests. Also on August
30, the DOL released a proposal to delay implementation of the
contract and two other exemptions from Jan. 1, 2018, to July 1,
2019.

It's not clear how much of the rule the DOL is going to change
under a directive from President Donald J. Trump to reassess the
rule. If the best-interest contract survives in some form,
financial firms could still face significant liability risk.

Joshua Lichtenstein, an associate at the law firm Ropes & Gray,
noticed this line in the preamble of the delay proposal: "IRA
owners, who do not have statutory enforcement rights under ERISA
[the federal retirement law] would be able to enforce their
contractual rights under state law."

Although the Trump administration may not want investors banding
together in a legal action, it might not be opposed to state
cases.

"It seems like a clear intent to shift the enforcement mechanism
away from class-action lawsuits toward state-law breach of
contract claims," Mr. Lichtenstein said. "The actionable claims
could differ from state-to-state. That could mean some behavior is
a breach of fiduciary duty to an IRA in one state but not in
another."

When it comes to class actions, the Financial Regulatory Authority
Inc., the broker-dealer self regulator, still looms. In Finra
arbitration, class action waivers are banned. Presumably, a group
of retirement investors who think their broker has committed a
fiduciary violation would be able to pursue a class-action through
the Finra system.

"Finra views [allowing class actions] as a reasonable step to
protect investors," said George Friedman, an adjunct law professor
at Fordham University and a former Finra director of arbitration.
"I don't see the delay in the DOL rule having any effect on their
thinking."

The DOL's decision not to enforce class-action waivers is still
significant because the fiduciary rule would make IRA class
actions possible, according to Marcia Wagner, managing director of
The Wagner Law Group.

"You very, very infrequently see class actions with IRAs, and if
this is the position of the administration, that will continue,"
Ms. Wagner said. "It may be a signal that when this regulation is
modified there won't be a private right of action for class action
lawsuits as part of the exemption."

It's almost a certainty that class-actions will drop out of the
DOL fiduciary rule. The question is how much of its legal bite
will remain. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Argues It Was Sued for Ransom
--------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reported that Fifth District appellate
judges must ponder how much evidence a plaintiff needs to sue a
defendant, in the context of a Madison County asbestos suit that
the Gori Julian firm filed against more than 100 companies.

Avocet Enterprises wants the Fifth District to sanction Gori
Julian under a Supreme Court rule requiring a complaint to be well
grounded in fact.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied sanctions as moot in April,
finding Gori Julian client Theresa Causey dismissed claims against
Avocet in March.

In Avocet's appeal brief on Aug. 3, David Chizewer of Chicago
wrote, "The closing of a case does not have any bearing on whether
sanctions should be awarded."

"Plaintiff named Avocet without any good faith basis, intending
only to harass Avocet into a decision to settle the case rather
than incurring the fees and costs to defend.

"Plaintiff completely failed to provide any facts whatsoever from
which one could infer that Avocet was responsible for plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.

"This failure was not an innocent oversight."

He wrote that Gori Julian added Avocet to suits by "a habit, if
not an addiction."

"Plaintiff's counsel has sued Avocet in more than 400 similar
cases and, like this case, all but four of those cases resulted in
dismissal without liability and without a single dollar in
settlement payments," Chizewer wrote.

He alleged "a conscious and repeated effort to hold Avocet hostage
to the byzantine world of asbestos litigation and to then seek its
settlement ransom."

He wrote that defending baseless suits has cost Avocet $720,000.

Gori Julian filed suit for Causey in 2013.

She administers the estate of her father, Thomas Griffith of
Raymond, Miss.

According to the complaint, he was an electrician and fireman for
the U.S. Coast Guard from 1950 to 1961, and a merchant marine from
1963 to 1994.

Stobbs set a trial date for this March 13.

On Feb. 1, Chizewer sent Gori Julian a demand that it dismiss all
claims against Avocet unless it could provide a specific factual
basis for liability in each case.

According to Avocet, Gori Julian didn't respond.

On Feb. 7, Avocet counsel Timothy Hayes of Chicago moved to
dismiss Causey's complaint.

Hayes wrote that the complaint "fails to allege particular dates,
job sites or products as to Avocet, as required by Illinois case
law establishing pleading requirements for cases alleging injury
due to asbestos exposure."

He moved on the same date for summary judgment, writing that
Causey failed to adduce any evidence of Griffith's exposure to
asbestos associated with Avocet.

The suit did not proceed to trial on March 13.

On March 22, Chizewer moved for sanctions.

"Any reasonable inquiry would have revealed that Avocet has no
connection to the alleged asbestos exposure and no liability," he
wrote.

He wrote that naming Avocet was part of an unapologetic and
systematic abuse of the legal system.

"A simple visit to Avocet's website would have revealed that
Avocet is a relatively small company in Chicago, and the nature of
its products make it almost impossible that it would have wound up
on a ship," Chizewer wrote.

Next day, Causey dismissed her claim against Avocet.

On April 7, with a hearing on sanctions about to start before
Stobbs, Erin Beavers of Gori Julian filed an objection.

She wrote that Griffith died a year before the case was filed.

"With resources limited by this time frame, plaintiff's counsel
had to determine the best and most likely asbestos companies whose
products led to Mr. Griffith's death."

Griffith wrote that Avocet was one of them.

She wrote that Causey's counsel formed the belief after reasonable
inquiry.

"Avocet holds the liability for producing an asbestos flexible
connector," she wrote.

"This connector is connected to dampen and reduce vibration of
ducted heating and cooling systems."

She wrote that if a client installed or repaired heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning systems, or if a client worked
with sheet metal or tin, "there is a high probability of exposure
to asbestos from flexible duct connectors."

"It should be noted that defendant Avocet's product line
previously included a material called Ventbestos, which was
comprised of 80 percent asbestos," she wrote.

She wrote that when counsel was unable to obtain evidence to
support the burden of proof against Avocet, the case was
concluded.

"Securing a dismissal for a defendant does not mean that a good
faith basis did not exist at time of filing a complaint against
that defendant," she wrote.

At the hearing, Chizewer told Stobbs he practiced law in Illinois
for 26 years and believed it was his first sanctions motion.

"We do not file sanctions motions lightly," he said.

"There is not a single allegation in the complaint that says
Avocet had anything to do with ship building or that their
products were ever used on ships."

He said the approach in their brief was that they are permitted to
name Avocet without any basis and it's up to Avocet to explain why
they don't have liability.

He said dismissal didn't moot the sanctions motion.

Stobbs said, "For purposes of this motion I'm going to find that
it does moot it."

Chizewer persisted, saying he cited cases explaining that a
plaintiff can't moot a sanctions motion with a dismissal.

Stobbs said he'd let Beavers make an argument.

She said, "We typically have very good ship records in Navy cases
but do not have very good ship records in the Coast Guard and
merchant marine ships."

She said Gori Julian named Avocet in fewer than 15 percent of
cases since 2008, and named it in three percent of cases last
year.

She said that wasn't evidence of abuse or indiscriminate naming.

Chizewer said, "None of the facts that were just laid about
Avocet, not even a single one of them, is in their complaint."

He said they were free to say things but they didn't allege them
or prove them.

Stobbs denied the motion and began rambling.

"Plaintiff isn't in a position to amend the complaint to allege
the things that you say weren't alleged, which of course they
could if the case was still open," he said.

"I guess we'd have to, you know, consider your motion in light of
what could have been an amended complaint, but the case has been
ordered closed, and so I don't see the need for monetary
sanctions.

"The point that there should be some representation in the
complaint that your company is in some way responsible for the
plaintiff's injuries and, you know, give sufficient facts that
would give rise to knowledge or, you know, information as to your
alleged responsibility, there probably should be something in
there that would give me notice of the nature of the claim, you
know, as would pertain to your client, so I think that's a point
well taken and, you know, could be considered as we move forward."

In Avocet's appeal brief, Chizewer argued that Gori Julian
violated a Supreme Court Rule providing that an attorney's
signature constitutes a certificate that a document is well
grounded in fact and warranted by law.

"Avocet recognizes that it is often difficult for a plaintiff to
know precisely who caused the asbestos exposure, and in any event,
many of the liable parties are defunct," Chizewer wrote.

"But the courts have not created an exemption to the pleadings
standards that would permit counsel for asbestos plaintiffs to
name repeatedly the same defendants, and over 100 others, in every
asbestos case, without any factual predicate."

He wrote that Stobbs's consideration of what could have been in an
amended complaint was clear error that should be reversed.

"It is not contested that plaintiff's complaint contained no facts
whatsoever from which to infer that defendant Avocet could
possibly be liable for the alleged asbestos exposure," Chizewer
wrote.

He wrote that Stobbs recognized the complaint was defective in
that regard.

"Illinois courts readily award sanctions where plaintiffs include
the wrong defendants out of laziness, or simply to add a deep
pocket," he wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised About Asbestos Exposure at Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stevenson, writing for CBC News, reported that a renovation
project at a northwest Edmonton hotel has drawn safety concerns
from some employees due to the handling of asbestos removal.

The employees say construction work continued at the New West
Hotel despite a stop-work order issued by Occupational Health and
Safety.

The hotel, located at 15025 111th Ave., has been a fixture in
northwest Edmonton since opening in 1954.

"Apparently some of that project includes asbestos abatement and
certainly we're aware of that site and we're aware of some of the
concerns expressed," said Alberta Labour ministry spokesperson
Trent Bancarz.

Stop-work orders issued

Bancarz initially told CBC News that an inspection was carried out
on July 5 but no stop-work order was issued. But a source provided
CBC with documents showing Occupational Health and Safety did
issue a stop-work order on that day.

Alberta Labour has since confirmed that a stop-work order was
issued to the hotel on July 5 because there had been no testing
for asbestos. The order was lifted Aug. 18 after testing confirmed
there was asbestos and an asbestos abatement company, C.G.A.
Environmental Construction, was hired.

But another stop-work order was issued to C.G.A. Environmental
Construction on Aug. 23 due to ventilation issues.

CBC News was contacted by a number of people associated with the
hotel about possible health and safety infractions. Health Canada
says breathing in asbestos fibres can cause cancer and other
diseases.

'Disorganized, unhealthy, and unsafe'

Rebecca Grant, who worked as a housekeeper at the hotel until
recently, said renovation work was carried out after the initial
stop-work order was issued on July 5.

"They kept busting drywall after the stop-work order was in
place," she said. "It was my job to clean the rooms they had
renovated."

Grant describes the renovation site as "disorganized, unhealthy,
and unsafe." She claims after a month on the job her health began
to suffer. Three weeks ago she had enough and quit.

Ortona Armouries renovation leaves uncertain future for artists
"It was making me sick. I'd go into work and I'd have a really
hard time breathing as soon as I hit the upstairs," Grant said. "I
have asthma. So I decided I had to quit because of the work
conditions. I mean, you could see the shiny, crystallized dust
particles in the air."

The 31-year-old mother of two is now unable to pay her rent
without an income, she said. She's angry more wasn't done to
ensure the safety of employees and guests.

"It made me feel less than important," she said. "I needed the
job. I'm getting back up on my feet in my own personal life."

Grant said the experience has left her with a harsh, lingering
cough and a bad taste in her mouth.

"To work in a place with those types of conditions and lack of
respect for the workers, it's just better for me to cut my
losses," she lamented. "I'm not going to subject myself to getting
physically sick."

Her safety concerns were shared by Warner Stevenson, who has
worked as a maintenance man at the hotel for four years.

Stevenson said he was told to continue doing work connected to the
renovations despite the stop-work order issued by the province on
July 5. He's currently on stress leave.

"It just got to be too much, mentally and physically too much"
said Stevenson. "They're just not going about it the right way.
They're not getting permits. The hotel is full of asbestos."

Stevenson told CBC News he only learned about the asbestos during
a recent inspection by OHS. He's now getting his lungs tested to
see if there's any damage.

Stevenson said he would also like OHS to take more action.

"They should tighten things up," said Stevenson. "When there's a
stop-work order they should go in and make sure it's actually
stopped."

'Anybody in the hotel can be affected with it'

A man who teaches federal government employees about occupational
health and safety issues also said renovation work continued at
the hotel after the stop-work order was issued in July. He didn't
visit the site in any official capacity, but says he was concerned
by what he saw.

"I've gone in at different times of day and nights and you can
hear banging and stuff being ripped out," said the man, whose
identity CBC agreed to keep confidential.

"The construction would go on later at night. Some of the tenants
upstairs in the rooms were saying 'Oh yeah, they've been working
up here 10, 11 o'clock at night.' "

The man told CBC he saw no proper asbestos abatement measures in
place at the site.

"You seal off the area, you put ventilation fans there, you wear a
mask and gloves. None of the workers upstairs were wearing any of
that stuff. I didn't see any of it around at all," he said.

He also said he observed a large amount of possibly contaminated
construction debris being thrown directly into bins outside the
hotel where anyone could be exposed.

In her father's name: Edmonton woman campaigns for asbestos ban
"I didn't go in to touch it to see if it was asbestos or just old
insulation, but it was just thrown into the garbage bins outside
the hotel," he said. "There were hordes of plywood, two-by-fours,
insulation and whatever else."

The man said he called Occupational Health and Safety a number of
times due to safety fears for employees and guests.

"For the residents still living in the rooms upstairs, if the dust
gets into a fine powder and gets into the ventilation system,
anybody in the hotel can be affected with it," he warned.  "It may
be five or 10 years before you could get sick, right? It doesn't
show up right away."

When asked if hotel staff or guests were ever at risk, Alberta
Labour spokesperson Shirley Lin wrote in an email: "We can't speak
to what happened before OHS was onsite. We suggest you follow up
with the building owner. The stop-work order was issued to protect
workers."

The hotel owner did not respond to repeated requests for an
interview.

CBC also attempted to contact C.G.A. Environmental, the asbestos
abatement company that was hired after the initial stop-work
order, but was unable to find any contact information for the
business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Costs Dunedin Hospital $5.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Goodwin, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that the
cost of dealing with asbestos has reached almost $5.5million at
Dunedin Hospital as an internal report reveals it took at least 10
days to change a light fitting.

The financial figure provided by the Southern District Health
Board includes almost $2million for a retrofitted air-conditioning
system in the radiology department.

It is needed because the ceiling area cannot be accessed to
service the air conditioning.

The figure reflects the cost of dealing with the problem since an
October 2015 asbestos scare.

Released under the Official Information Act, building and property
reports from earlier this year show pressure on staff, safety
concerns, urgent requests for funding and support, and warnings of
clinical disruption. Staff were monitoring dozens of affected
areas, and in some cases struggled to cover their other duties.
The reports reveal the air testing result in the now off-limits
records room at the hospital was 75% positive. A light failed in
part of an operating theatre. It would normally be fixed in an
hour or less.

"Due to asbestos precautions such as building and testing a three-
stage decontamination tent for access, the repair has so far taken
10 days."

The work was mainly done out of hours.

"However, in the future there may be repairs which simply cannot
be completed due to access issues, or areas which need to close
because the faulty equipment is essential to the operation of that
area.

"Those delays . . . cause additional cost, work for [building]
staff and disruption to hospital departments."

The reports talk about safety concerns for staff working in full
protective gear in hot, asbestos-affected plant rooms. The
building and property team requested funding to decontaminate the
plant rooms, which was approved.

"Failure to undertake this work will impact on several other DHB
projects, including critical electrical upgrades."

A temporary tunnel had been constructed in one plant room to
enable safe access to the helipad for staff to transfer patients.
The facilities team leader was "basically working full-time on
asbestos management", leaving little time for other work.

Yesterday, chief executive Chris Fleming said senior staff were
considering recommendations in an independent review of its
handling of asbestos.  It was likely to lead to improvements. He
was not ready to release the report, but would in due course. Mr
Fleming said it was not feasible to move or copy the records, and
access was managed on a case-by-case basis.

"The records room remains a very difficult problem to have,
because there are so many records in there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man to Sue Former Employer Over Exposure Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Rae, writing for Dundee Born and Read Evening Telegraph,
reported that a dying Tayside man is suing his former employer
after claiming he was exposed to asbestos at work and became
terminally ill as a result.

Alexander Darling, of Muirend Road, Perth, has raised the action
against A&J Stephen Ltd of the Fair City's Edinburgh Road.

Mr Darling, 69, a former joiner who worked for the construction
firm in the 1960s and 1970s, has claimed he was exposed to
asbestos due to the nature of his work and the lack of adequate
health and safety measures to protect employees.

Mr Darling has mesothelioma, a fatal, asbestos-related type of
cancer.

The action has been raised against his former employer and their
insurers.

The first calling of the case was heard at the Court of Session in
Edinburgh.

A spokesman for Digby Brown Solicitors in Edinburgh, who are
representing Mr Darling, said: "A key point in cases of this
nature is that we will make the legal argument that the employers
were aware of the dangers of asbestos to individuals' health by
this time, but were not properly protecting them from these
dangers.

"The next stage in the case will likely call later this year,
around the start of November, though it is always possible that
cases of this nature will settle out of court."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining that
covers the outer surface of some of the body's organs and kills
about 2,500 people each year in the United Kingdom.

It mainly affects the lining of the lungs, although it can also
affect the lining of the stomach, heart or testicles.

More than 2,600 people are diagnosed with the condition each year
in the UK.

Of those, about 50% will live at least a year after diagnosis, and
about one in every 10 with will live at least five years after
diagnosis.

A&J Stephen Ltd has been approached for comment but had not
responded at the time of going to press.

Mr. Darling could not be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Loses Restitution Appeal
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Strickler, writing for Law360, reported that a New Jersey
lawyer jailed for inserting made-up clients into asbestos
complaints to rack up more than $1 million in extra defense fees
and other costs lost an appeal of a decision denying his challenge
to a restitution order.

A Third Circuit panel concluded that an appellate waiver signed by
Arobert Tonogbanua, a onetime attorney at Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote PC, covered petitions asking a court to correct a
fundamentally flawed order, also known as a coram nobis writ.

Moreover, even if Tonogbanua's agreement not to challenge his
conviction didn't cover a coram nobis, he'd previously passed up a
chance to argue that $100,000 shouldn't have been tacked on to his
court-ordered restitution.

The circuit "is not inclined to relieve Tonogbanua of the
consequences of his knowing and voluntary collateral appeal waiver
by allowing him now to pursue through coram nobis a challenge to a
restitution order whose validity he did not challenge on direct
appeal," a unanimous panel said.

"We further agree with the district court that the error alleged
here is not fundamental in nature," the panel said, affirming an
April decision denying the petition.

Tonogbanua, a former attorney with the Haddonfield office of
Dickie McCamey, pled guilty in 2014 to doctoring copies of more
than 100 asbestos complaints in New York to make it look like firm
clients were defendants.

The scheme generated more than $1 million in bogus fees, costs and
settlements and brought him bonuses and increased compensation,
prosecutors said.

A federal judge last year gave Tonogbanua a two-year stay in
prison and ordered him to pay $350,643 in restitution to the firm
and others who bore costs from the bogus lawsuits. Tonogbanua, now
a federal inmate in Brooklyn, was additionally ordered to pay
personal restitution of some $232,000.

Despite agreeing not to challenge any aspect of the sentence,
Tonogbanua then filed an appeal notice arguing that his counsel
should have fought the inclusion of $100,000 in the firm
restitution because it was improperly included, according to the
order.

In its response, the government noted that Tonogbanua's plea deal
was favorable -- the firm had claimed direct losses from the fraud
of $1.2 million -- and successfully argued that coram nobis was
inappropriate in light of the waiver. Tonogbanua then appealed
that order.

The Third Circuit panel noted that Tonogbanua's lawyer, Michael
Miller, had objected at the district court to the inclusion of the
$100,000 but then withdrawn that objection, telling the court that
he was aware the money had been handed over to two clients, even
if the exact reason for that reimbursement wasn't clear.

Miller's fear that an evidentiary hearing on restitution might
backfire on Tonogbanua was not unreasonable, and Tonogbanua knew
that the $100,000 in settlement funds were included in the
restitution contemplated by the plea agreement," the panel said.

U.S. Circuit Judges Theodore A. McKee, Kent A. Jordan and L.
Felipe Restrepo sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.

Tonogbanua was represented pro se in the Third Circuit appeal.

The government is represented by Mark E. Coyne of the Office of
the United States Attorney in New Jersey.

The case is U.S. v. Arobert Tonogbanua, case number 17-1815, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mobile Police Has $20,000 Asbestos Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Knight, writing for WKRG.com, reported that city council
gave the Mobile Police Department the green light to use $20,000
to remove asbestos located in their evidence room. The building
has been headquarters for police for over 20 years.

Manufacturers used asbestos to help strengthen and fireproof
various products. Then, it wasn't until 2009 folks found out it is
the leading cause of mesothelioma, a type pf cancer. Police Chief
Lawrence Battiste tells News 5 they didn't know it was even here
until they started on plans to expand the building.

At MPD headquarters, two small rooms and one long room is the only
space police have to store 20-plus years of evidence. Chief
Battiste says they've had to make do with what they had.

"Everything is stacked so high, so what we have to do is make some
adjustments to where it makes it safe and accessible for our
officers," says Battiste.

In order to make it safe, they decided they needed to expand.

"As we grow as an organization, as we continue to take in new
property and evidence, we need the ability to expand," says Police
Chief Battiste.

But it was during that expansion process that they discovered
asbestos. Evidently, the contractor used the material in between
the floorboards and the floor tiles. They've removed all evidence
from these rooms to get ready for an asbestos abatement that can
start immediately, thanks to the city council approving the
$20,000 needed to do so.

"It gives us the ability to grow our property section because, as
an organization, we continue to take in evidence daily," says
Battiste.

He would like the expansion to last them another ten years at
least. Battiste says he has heard no reports of anyone having
breathing or health issues due to the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officer Denies Bid to Open Asbestos Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hopey, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that an
Allegheny County Health Department hearing officer denied a
request to allow the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to attend a
proceeding that was closed to the public at the request of Ramesh
and Vikas Jain, who were appealing a $1.47 million fine for
multiple violations of the county's asbestos-removal regulations.

The fine -- the largest asbestos-related fine ever levied by the
department -- was part of a June 2 enforcement order alleging that
more than 130,000 square feet of asbestos floor tile and pipe
insulation was illegally removed from multiple buildings on the
former George Westinghouse Research and Technology Park corporate
campus in Churchill.

The Jains, father and son, own the 135-acre property and are in
the midst of a multimillion-dollar redevelopment project for which
they have a $3.5 million state grant commitment. They have denied
the allegations.

Although such appeal hearings are normally open to the public, the
Jains, who have claimed a financial inability to pay the fine,
asked that it be closed. Max Slater, the health department hearing
officer, granted that request prior to the initial hearing, which
was held Aug. 7.

At the continuation of that hearing at the Clack Health Center in
Lawrenceville, attorney Maurice Nernberg, who represented the
Jains, said the decision had been made to close the hearing and
that the Post-Gazette "had no right to be here."

But Post-Gazette attorney Frederick Frank challenged the earlier
decision to shut out the public, saying the hearing was a judicial
proceeding subject to the public's right of access. He argued that
the Post-Gazette, as a representative of the public, had both the
right to intervene at the hearing and also the right to attend.

He said the Jains' request for "secrecy" did not outweigh the
public's right to know, and the amount of the fine, the possible
endangerment of public health and safety, and the substantial
public investment in the redevelopment project all weigh "heavily
in favor of the public access."

The health department did not oppose the Jains' original request
for a closed hearing, and Tuesday, Jason Willis, assistant
solicitor for the department's air quality division, said the
department wouldn't oppose opening the hearing to the public.

Mr. Slater denied the Post-Gazette's motion to intervene and the
motion to open the hearing to the public, because, he said, the
hearing was half done, both the health department and the Jains
has agreed that it would be closed, and it would be "unfair to
both parties to open it now."

Should the Jains decide to appeal the enforcement order, the
decision to close the penalty appeal hearing would not apply to
the enforcement order appeal, although the Jains could file a new
request to close that hearing.

According to the health department enforcement order, the Jains
did not have required permits to handle or remove asbestos,
workers were not provided with protective clothing or breathing
masks when grinding and handling the material, and no precautions
were taken to prevent asbestos dust, which can cause cancer, from
becoming airborne outside the buildings.

In addition, there is no record that the asbestos-containing
material was disposed of in an approved landfill.

The asbestos-removal work was discovered Feb. 28 by Shawn Jacobs,
a certified building inspector for Churchill. The redevelopment
project, alternately known as "Shoppes at Pittsburgh Studios" and
then "Churchill Crossings," was shut down in May because of the
asbestos issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns at Canon City Middle School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that Canon
City Middle School teachers are concerned for their students'
safety as they are starting to return to school. Constructed in
1925, the school building's floors are cracking, and the building
in general is falling apart, teachers claim, exposing the school-
age children -- along with the faculty, administrators, and staff
at the school -- to the dangers of asbestos exposure.

"I just worry about their safety, teaching Special Education, we
may have kids that are in wheelchairs that it's kind of hard for
them to get up to our rooms," said Special Education Teacher Amber
Withers.

As the building deteriorates, asbestos exposure could occur if the
hazardous material gets disturbed. There are federal laws in place
to help schools remove asbestos, but before that can be done, the
school needs to develop a management plan.

According to Superintendent George Walsh, "What each school
district is required to do is have an asbestos plan to identify
where things are, and we've done that. You don't have to remove
it, you have to encapsulate it, and we've done our best to do
that."

As a result of an act established in the 1980s by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all management plans must
be updated, and new inspections must occur periodically in order
to decide if the discovered asbestos should be left as is,
encapsulated, or removed by an abatement professional.

Custodians are also trained to recognize asbestos and taught how
to avoid an episode should it pose a health threat to individuals
inside a school.

By law, parents can review management plans in place, and if no
action is taken to correct any situations shortly thereafter, the
local EPA should be notified immediately. As parents send their
kids back to school this fall, they should also check out this
safety list to see what actions they can take.

Students aren't the only factor to consider. In a 1999-2001 study
by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) a substantially elevated rate of mesothelioma cancer was
found amongst teachers where the only known exposure for each
participant was on the job.

In May, the Canon City Middle School received a "Building
Excellence Schools Today" grant (BEST). BEST is possible because
of tax dollars from the commercial sale of marijuana in Colorado,
but the Canon City government needs to match the $5 million grant
in order to receive it. This November, the district will need
voters supporting a property tax increase to get the additional
money required.

Canon City Middle School isn't the only place where back to school
could mean exposing students to asbestos. The Canon City School
District says it's even more worried about Washington Elementary,
due to a structural study reporting the building would only be
safe for five more years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Floods Raise Risks of Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that people around the world have their
eyes on Houston, reaching out to provide financial and emotional
support to those who have lost their homes to historic flooding
from Hurricane Harvey, but one thing that is not getting enough
attention in these early days is the very real risk of
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases in the aftermath
of the disaster. Though immediate thoughts turn to what has been
lost, and to concerns about mold and water damage, it is important
to remember that every natural disaster raises the risk of
exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos is widely known to be the single cause of mesothelioma,
as well as of other serious and sometimes deadly diseases, but
most people think of the mineral as having been banned in the
1980s, and no longer a concern to people in their every day lives.
Unfortunately, this is not correct. Asbestos continues to be used
in the United States, including in the fabrication of drywall and
sheetrock in homes. The carcinogenic material is considered to be
safe because it was encapsulated with paper covering on both sides
of the product. Though this process effectively prevents asbestos
fibers from entering the air under normal circumstances, once
drywall is damaged or needs to be removed or cut open during
renovation or demolition, those fibers can easily become airborne
and become a health hazard. Though a licensed asbestos tester or
remediation expert would take the appropriate steps under normal
circumstances of a home renovation, the widespread damage
represented under current circumstances raises the risk that
people will undertake these projects on their own, unknowingly
risking their long term health in the process.

Of chief concern is that untrained, unprotected homeowners will
inadvertently expose themselves to asbestos particles: breathing
these fibers in can lead to mesothelioma, asbestosis, asbestos-
related lung cancer, and other conditions that will only
materialize decades after the hurricane itself is nothing but a
memory. Houston-area residents are urged to protect themselves and
seek professional assistance instead of moving in a way that may
provide immediate emotional gratification, but long-term risk.

If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or
another asbestos-related disease, you need all the information you
can get. Contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-
800-692-8608 for immediate access to the resources you need.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Singla Gets $2,500 Fine for Asbestos Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
BC Local News reported that a construction and rental housing firm
that demolished a house with asbestos inside will pay a total of
$3,000 in penalties for the late November incident.

Singla Bros. Holdings Ltd. was denied its $500 safety deposit from
the City of Penticton, according to building and permitting
manager Ken Kunka, but more recently the firm was handed a $2,500
fine from WorkSafeBC.

"A large rubble pile was covered by tarps, and there was spilled
vermiculite insulation in several areas of the pile," says the
WorkSafeBC report posted on its website on Aug. 7.

"The hazardous materials assessment conducted for the site had
identified the vermiculite as being an asbestos-containing
material. The firm's failure to safely contain hazardous materials
was a high-risk violation."

The firm was initially caught in the act, after it attempted to
bring materials from a demolition at 242 Van Horne St. to the
Campbell Mountain garbage dump, but was determined not to have
followed the city's orders at the time.

Singla Bros. Holdings had obtained a demolition permit from the
city, which had expired by the time demolitions began. On the
permit was an order to properly remove the asbestos before
destruction.

On Dec. 1, a WorkSafeBC report issued a stop work order, due to
"reasonable grounds to believe there is a high risk of serious
injury, serious illness or death to a worker at this workplace,"
according to a report at the time.

By Dec. 16, the WorkSafe inspector was satisfied that abatement
had been completed.

Asked for comment on WorkSafeBC's reasoning for the amount in the
fine a spokesperson pointed to their website, which indicates a
balance of the severity of the violation, the company's history of
violations and the size of the company's payroll.

"Penalties can be greater if certain specific factors are present,
such as for high-risk or intentional violations, or if the company
has received a prior penalty for substantially the same violation
in the past three years."

Asked if he felt the fine fit the violation, Kunka said he was
satisfied with WorkSafeBC's decision. Singla Bros. gave a brief
email statement on the issue.

"We are working with WorkSafeBC with any projects we have now or
in the future. No other comment at this time."

Kunka said he is aware of other projects that Singla Bros.
Holdings has gotten to work on since the incident, adding that the
city is hoping to build up trust with the firm.

A new city bylaw

At the time, Kunka said the city was looking at ways to mitigate
the risks of similar incidents in the future. In an interview this
week, Kunka told the Western News they're currently working on a
rewrite of the buildings bylaw, which could clean up the language,
among other things.

In the new regulations, Kunka says rather than issuing a permit
with an order to remove hazardous materials, the city will
withhold permits until they've received proof that abatement is
either unnecessary or finished if the building is older than 1992.

"Based on this and another one kind of on the edge of non-
compliance, we decided we would be a little more rigorous on the
front-end stuff, regarding the paperwork and the remediation,"
Kunka said.

"That will be our mantra from now on: if it's an old building, get
the hazard assessment done, you deal with your abatement issues,
and then you can come to us and we can move through the demolition
process."

The other incident involved a firm that began demolishing a
building before getting the go-ahead from the city.

The new regulations get a bit more complicated when it comes to
work being done involving evictions to renovate, which require
proof of a demolition permit to legally evict.

In a sort of workaround, the city is looking to enter contractual
agreements that the city will provide a demolition permit,
providing some paperwork proving the intent of eviction is for a
cause, but also avoiding handing out the actual permit before
demolitions.

"Probably two out of 10 demolition permits revolve around renters
and ensuring that that process is followed properly," Kunka said,
acknowledging the process could incur some confusion.

"The more steps you add, the more confusing you get. We've
actually been working on a checklist or kind of a flowchart, so,
again, somebody asking about a demolition permit, they can
actually follow this flowchart."

That's part of the key to avoiding issues in the first place --
education. Kunka said the city would rather inform and avoid
issues than have to impose penalties after, adding that the city
is looking to hold some events with developers to ramp up
knowledge of the proper processes.

"We want to make sure people are aware of the rules. We can help
them through that process. We figure in the way we were laying it
out now, it's going to be a really . . .  clear process," he said.
"As long as they're following the rules, everybody's protected,
and things move quickly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DDT Judge Rejects Claim for Pension
----------------------------------------------------
David Greenhalgh, Esq. -- dgreenhalgh@bartier.com.au -- in an
article for Mondaq.com, wrote that on August 22, 2017, Judge
Russell of the Dust Diseases Tribunal handed down his judgments in
Dib v Amaca Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDDT 6 and Londos v Amaca Pty Limited
[2017] NSWDDT 7. The cases were not related to each other, but had
an important common issue.

These cases have been keenly watched by the asbestos community, as
they contained the unusual feature of the plaintiff asserting that
he should be entitled to receive damages for the pension he would
otherwise have been paid in the "lost years" (the time between his
likely date of death, and normal life expectancy).

Many of the facts in the cases, and therefore the judgments, are
unremarkable. The plaintiffs had no difficulty establishing that
they were exposed to James Hardie products, and there were also
few unusual features about the mesothelioma from which they both
suffered.

The course of the disease for the two plaintiffs was slightly
different, although each had a life expectancy of about 12 months.
Judge Russell awarded each of them $350,000 for general damages,
being the same figure as in his recent judgment in Zanetic v Amaca
[2017] NSWDDT 5.

In relation to domestic care, Judge Russell accepted the views of
Joanne Oates, an occupational therapist often relied on by
plaintiffs. This resulted in awards for domestic care (including
interest) of $189,705 and $141,960 respectively.

However, the main distinguishing point of the case was the
plaintiffs' claim to be compensated for the pension they would
otherwise have received in the lost years. Judge Russell reviewed
the Australian authorities, including various High Court
judgments, and noted that the focus of those judgments was to
award damages for interference with earning capacity, not
interference with the ability to receive income from other
sources, like the pension. The judge noted that the pension is
received without reference to the ability of a person to earn
income, or without reference to whether there has been any
interference with the ability to earn income.

Therefore, Judge Russell rejected the plaintiffs' claim for this
head of damage.

With one eye on the possibility of an appeal, Judge Russell went
on to consider what the plaintiffs' loss would actually have been
if this head of damage had been allowed. He relied on information
from the Australian Bureau of Statistics about typical living
expenses. When also noting the payments to be received from the
Dust Diseases Authority, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs
would not in fact have suffered a loss, even if they had been
allowed to be compensated for the pension they would have been
paid if not for the mesothelioma.

Comment

Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the plaintiffs -- and
the recent acceptance of such arguments in the South Australian
District Court, which is subject to an appeal -- it seems to us
from first principles that Judge Russell's analysis of the earlier
decisions is likely to be correct, and would therefore survive any
appeal.

Certainly, from the point of view of defendants in the Dust
Diseases Tribunal, this result offers a degree of certainty: if
compensation for a lost pension had been allowed, then a plaintiff
being deprived of income from other sources in the lost years may
also have been compensable. In any event, the calculations suggest
that the true value of the loss of that pension is negligible, or
nil.

On the other hand, the fact that Judge Russell has again awarded
$350,000 for general damages, and has accepted Joanne Oates'
assessment of domestic care in both cases, further reinforces the
idea that the long-suspected upward drift of damages in the
Tribunal is now definitely under way.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Provides Pleural Mesothelioma Risk Plateau
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
another new study has confirmed the idea that pleural mesothelioma
risk does not appear to increase indefinitely after asbestos
exposure, but instead may eventually hit a plateau.

The newest study involved more than 1,800 asbestos cement workers
in Pavia, Italy. Researchers in the department of public health at
the University of Pavia and the University Eastern Piedmont in
Novara computed the mortality ratios for the major causes of death
among the workers.

Major Causes of Death Among Asbestos Workers

Not surprisingly, they found that asbestos workers faced a higher
risk of dying from pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, lung
cancer, and asbestosis, all of which have been directly linked to
asbestos exposure.

In contrast to some other mesothelioma studies, the researchers
did not find an elevated risk of laryngeal cancer among the
asbestos workers. There was an increase in ovarian cancer deaths,
however it was deemed not to be statistically significant.

Among the male asbestos cement workers, the risk of contracting
pleural mesothelioma appeared to correlate with how long they were
exposed to asbestos, but not with how long the disease took to
develop (latency period). Mesothelioma has one of the longest
latency periods of any cancer, which can last up to 40 years.

The Mesothelioma Risk Ceiling

Although some previous studies have suggested that, the older an
asbestos worker gets, the higher his or her chances are of
developing malignant mesothelioma, several newer studies --
including this one -- indicate that this is not the case.

Instead, mesothelioma risk appears to hit a plateau, and may even
start to decrease slightly, at about 40 years since first asbestos
exposure.

"Our results do not support the hypothesis that pleural malignant
mesothelioma risk indefinitely increases after exposure,
suggesting instead that the alternative hypothesis of a risk
plateau or decrease after a time since first exposure of more than
40 years is more consistent with the observed data," states the
report in a recent issue of the American Journal of Industrial
Medicine.

Confirming Earlier Data

An even larger Italian study published reached a similar
conclusion.

That study used data from 43 previously-studied groups for a total
of more than 51,000 people, primarily asbestos cement and
shipbuilding workers.

Those figures, published in Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, indicated that the rate of pleural mesothelioma among
the studied workers tended to increase during the first 40 years
after initial exposure but then plateaued.

Notably, the suggestion of a mesothelioma risk plateau in both
studies applies to the pleural variety of mesothelioma around the
lungs but not necessarily to the peritoneal variety, which grows
on the membrane that lines the abdomen.

Sources:

Oddone, E, et al, "Mortality in asbestos cement workers in Pavia,
Italy: A Cohort study", August 18, 2017, American Journal of
Industrial Medicine

Farrante, D, et al, "Italian pool of asbestos workers cohorts:
mortality trends of asbestos-related neoplasms after long time
since first exposure", August 3, 2017, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-up Needed at Regeneration Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inverclyde Now reported that Inverclyde council officials are
warning there could be 'significant' clean-up costs involved after
asbestos was found at the site of a high profile regeneration
project in Greenock.

The council and regeneration company Riverside Inverclyde are
working on a GBP3million scheme to demolish old industrial
buildings, create a new enterprise hub and realign the road at the
top of Baker's Brae.

Work is due to start in November but a document updating
councillors reveals that the land is contaminated.

The report states: "The team has been alerted to a significant
risk following receipt of the contamination report on test piles
taken throughout the site.

"The report identified the presence of asbestos in a number of the
trial pits and, depending on the amount discovered once on site,
costs relating to its removal and remediation could be significant
and may not be contained within the budget allowance for the
project.

"The consultants recommend, and the Corporate Director
Environment, Regeneration and Resources is in favour of, tendering
on the worst possible case, that is treatment of the full cut and
fill area from Baker's Brae corner down to Ingleston Street.

"Firm costs based on tender rates will be brought back to
committee following the tender process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Has Mesothelioma Due to Secondary Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that an
individual is suing numerous companies, alleging second hand
exposure to asbestos caused him to develop mesothelioma.

Roger Huff filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial
Circuit Court against the 4520 Corp. Inc., Advance Auto Parts
Inc., Afton Pumps Inc., Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al.,
alleging the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and
caution for the safety of their employees and others working with
or around their products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
first exposed to asbestos as a child due to his father's job as a
pipefitter. Due to his proximity to asbestos, the plaintiff claims
he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because allegedly
failed to provide warnings to people working with or around the
products, failed to provide adequate instructions on how to avoid
inhaling asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the asbestos-
containing products.

The plaintiff seeks judgment for a sum in excess of $25,000, which
will fairly and reasonably compensate for plaintiff's injuries. He
is represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of
SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10915


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Issues Rallying Call for Justice
--------------------------------------------------------
Alex Grove, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the family
of a Hull construction worker who died after being exposed to
dangerous asbestos for decades have called on his former
colleagues to help them in their fight for justice.

John Savage died in May last year aged 75, with his death thought
to be linked to asbestos exposure after working for Hull-based
demolition firm Sam Allon and DJ Broady Limited over the course of
the 1970s and 80s.

During that time, his wife Iris claims he had to work in
environments riddled with asbestos, with no safety equipment to
prevent him from breathing in dangerous particles.

She said: "John had been ill for some time which he found very
difficult. He always had such a strong constitution and then to
discover it was related to asbestos exposure, it was just
devastating.

"He worked hard all of his life and prided himself on that, not
realising he may have been in danger from it.

"John was well known and often socialised with the people he
worked with.

"We would like his legacy to be raising awareness of the dangers
of being exposed to asbestos and encouraging people to seek help
if they think they might have been in the same situation, anyone
who worked with John at that time would be helping others by
coming forward."

John's family believe his death is linked to asbestos exposure
Mr. Savage's family have since launched a campaign for justice and
now want anyone who worked with the construction worker to help
confirm the presence of asbestos in certain building sites.

They also want to raise awareness of the harsh reality of what
exposure to asbestos can do so other families affected by the loss
of a loved one due to asbestos can get the help they deserve.

James Burrell, an Asbestos specialist and partner at Bridge
McFarland Solicitors, the firm representing the family, said:
"This is one of numerous tragic cases which Bridge McFarland have
been instructed to investigate in the past few years.

"We are currently looking for information from Mr Savage's former
colleagues who are able to confirm the presence of asbestos in the
work sites they frequented for Sam Allon (Hull Limited) and/or DJ
Broady Limited.

"It would also be helpful to know what, if any, safety equipment
or training was provided to the staff we believe were exposed to
this asbestos.

"We appreciate that news of the cause of John's death may be
alarming for those who worked alongside him and may have been
exposed to asbestos.

"We will endeavour to provide what support and advice that we
can."

In June this year, a similar appeal for information was issued by
Cottingham widow Patricia Peacock, who lost her husband Brian to a
brutal cancer caused by long-term exposure to the poisonous
substance in July 2016.

Anyone with information relating to Mr Savage's previous working
conditions or anyone who thinks that they may have been affected
by asbestos in the workplace should contact Mr Burrell on 01482
320620 or email him at jmb@bmcf.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Wins Coverage in Asbestos Insurance Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reported that global
manufacturing company ITT Corp. notched a win in a long-running
suit seeking more than $1 billion in coverage for asbestos
liabilities when a California state judge ruled that the policies
at issue are triggered at the time of asbestos exposure and that
ITT can put the policies in any triggered year on the hook for its
full liability.

The decision follows a bench trial in Los Angeles between ITT and
more than two dozen excess insurers that was focused on
determining how ITT's umbrella and excess policies are implicated
by asbestos-related losses.

The trial centered on what defines "bodily injury" to trigger
coverage, how to allocate losses, and to what extent the loss must
be allocated to now-insolvent Home Insurance Company umbrella
policies.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones first agreed with
ITT's argument that the liability policies at issue are triggered
when a claimant is initially exposed to asbestos, while the
defendants had argued bodily injury doesn't occur until someone
gets cancer or asbestosis.

"Earlier decisions have held that 'bodily injury,' within the
meaning of liability insurance policies, takes place with the
initial cellular injury that occurs upon exposure to asbestos
fibers and progresses continuously as the damage cascades, over
time, into disease, frequently ending in death," Judge Jones said.
"This continuous injury trigger affords coverage for the
continuing and progressive injuries occurring during successive
policy periods subsequent to the established date of the initial
injury in fact."

Then Judge Jones turned to the issue of allocation, or how
responsibility for the losses is divvied up among insurers. She
agreed with ITT that the terms and conditions of the policies
provide for all sums allocation -- under which each of an
insured's policies can be held liable for an entire loss. She
found the policies are not limited to a pro rata method, which
spreads out liability proportionally among all triggered policies,
as the defendants argued.

"Once a policy has attached and is selected by the insured, each
triggered policy has a separate and independent obligation to
cover ITT in full for its liability arising from a given claim, up
to the policy's product liability limits," Judge Jones said.

In examining the policy language, Judge Jones referenced the
Viking Pump decision from the New York Court of Appeals in 2016
that found vertical exhaustion -- which allows policyholders to
reach excess coverage for certain years even if their primary
polices haven't been depleted -- is consistent with an all sums
allocation method.

"Each of the policies at issue primarily hinge its attachment on
the exhaustion of the underlying policies that cover the same
policy period and that are specifically identified," Judge Jones
said. "Accordingly, the excess policies are triggered by vertical
exhaustion of the underlying available coverage during the same
policy period."

The third issue in the case -- whether ITT can access policies
that are based on umbrella policies from Home Insurance Co. in the
wake of its insolvency -- saw Judge Jones examine the liquidation
proceeding that Home went through more than 10 year ago. She
ultimately determined that Home has been held liable to pay its
policy limits for umbrella and excess policies at issue, citing
the county judge's order approving ITT's priority allowance.

"The policy language 'held liable to pay' is satisfied by the
Merrimack County Superior Court's order approving ITT's Class II
priority allowance in the amount of $80,730,000 which makes Home
liable to pay the applicable limits of each of its umbrella and
excess umbrella policies at issue," Judge Jones said.

ITT's attorney Paul Zevnik of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP told
Law360 the decision was well-written and comprehensive in tackling
three critical issues for policyholders and insurers -- but he
said the findings on the allocation and vertical exhaustion are
particularly important.

"It really underscores why vertical exhaustion or all sums
exhaustion, which is what the policies say, should be the rule,"
he said. "Horizontal exhaustion is not the way policies were
purchased. It puts the policyholder in a position where it has to
end up, in many cases, bearing the risk of nonpayment by
insurers."

Zevnik also said the issues around Home's insolvency and liability
were being litigated for the first time -- and that there are more
than 3,000 insolvent insurers in the nation.

"The language 'paid or been held liable to pay' is fairly common
and has never been adjudicated in this context, which is the
context of a liquidation proceeding for an insurer," he said.

Calculations of the defendants' obligations to ITT are reserved
for a later trial phase, according to the decision.

This summer's trial, dubbed Phase III, took place more than 14
years after ITT first filed its breach of contract suit claiming
that the damages are alleged to have taken place during the
defendants' policy periods and seeking a ruling affirming the
insurers' obligation to pay the company's legal costs and
expenses.

A representative for General Reinsurance Corp. declined to
comment. Attorneys for other defendants didn't immediately respond
to requests for comment on Wednesday.

ITT is represented by Paul A. Zevnik, Michel Y. Horton, David S.
Cox, Gerald P. Konkel, David A. Luttinger Jr., Leah N. Houghton
and Colin C. West of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Arrowood Indemnity Co. is represented by Laura L. Goodman and
Ashley L. Milnes of Sedgwick LLP. Travelers Casualty and Surety
Co. is represented by Sonia S. Waisman and Heather L. McCloskey of
McCloskey Waring & Waisman LLP and Ronald D. Kent and Susan W.
Walker of Dentons LLP. General Reinsurance Corp. is represented by
Alan D. Hamilton of the Law Offices of Alan D. Hamilton and
Michael J. Balch of Budd Larner PC. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., TIG
Insurance Co. Associated International Insurance Co., Mt. McKinley
Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co. are represented by
Kenneth G. Katel and Lawrence A. Tabb of Musick Peeler & Garrett
LLP and Matthew Thomas Walsh of Kennedys CMK. Affiliated FM
Insurance Co. is represented by Alan E. Swerdlow of Boornazian
Jensen & Garthe and Jason R. Schulze of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
Northwestern National Insurance Co. is represented by Kevin
McNamara of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. Munich
Reinsurance America Inc. is represented by Ira Revich of
Charleston Revich & Wollitz LLP. Allstate Insurance Co. is
represented by Louise M. McCabe and Tara L. Goodwin of Troutman
Sanders LLP. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, Certain
London Market Insurance Cos., North River Insurance Co., Lamorak
Insurance Co., AIU Insurance Co., American Home Assurance Co.,
Birmingham Fire Insurance Co., Granite State Insurance Co.;
Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, Landmark Insurance
Co., Lexington Insurance Co., National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh PA and The Continental Insurance Co. are represented by
Gretchen A. Ramos of Squire Patton Boggs LLP and Patrick T. Walsh,
Laura S. McKay and David C. Butman of Hinkhouse Williams Walsh
LLP.

The case is Cannon Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty
Insurance Co. et al., case number BC290354, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirm Asbestos Found at CFA Burn-off Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bendigo Advertiser reports that the Environment Protection
Authority has confirmed CFA crews were exposed to asbestos during
a controlled burn in Flagstaff.

Carisbrook CFA undertook the burn-off at the former Penney and
Lang abattoirs site at the request of the CEntral Goldfields Shire
Council in mid-August.

"EPA attended the premises and is currently investigating
potential breaches of the Environment Protection Act 1970," an EPA
spokesperson said.

"Those investigations have already revealed that asbestos was
present at the site."

A clean-up notice has been issued to Central Goldfields Shire
Council and the asbestos has already been removed.

Compliance with the clean-up notice must occur by September 7.

The EPA spokesperson said it cannot comment further while the
investigation is ongoing.

"(We are) satisfied there is currently a low risk to the public at
this time due to the asbestos being removed," the spokesperson
said.

At the time, the shire's former mayor Geoff Lovett said council
staff led members of the Carisbrook CFA to believe the recently-
burnt waste pile did not contain asbestos.

Cr Lovett also said a risk assessment was not conducted on the
mound at the former Penney and Lang abattoirs site, in Madmans
Lane, Flagstaff.

An asbestos-accredited company, dressed in "moon suits", cleaned
up what remained of the pile the day after the burn, erecting
asbestos warning signs, Cr Lovett said.

"There was no risk assessment done and I find that absolutely
appalling," he said.

"I'm very, very concerned about the processes we didn't follow."

Central Goldfields Shire Council interim chief executive officer
Vince Haining said: "The processes associated with the clearance
of the site were inadequate and we acknowledge that."

"If the issue has caused distress to any individuals we apologise
unreservedly."

Community members who may have concerns about similar incidents
should contact the EPA pollution hotline on 1300 372 842.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halt on Coal Mining Study Has Asbestos Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the U.S.
Department of the Interior has ordered a halt to a study on the
public health risks of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia --
an area ripe with natural asbestos deposits.

A letter from the Interior Department directed the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to "cease all
work" on the study, citing responsible spending of taxpayer
dollars as the reason for the decision.

The $1 million National Academies study began in 2016 and was
expected to take two years to complete. It aimed to evaluate
health risks of a common mining technique for people living near
surface coal mine sites in Central Appalachia.

National Academies, a nongovernmental institution, had assembled a
12-member expert committee to assess "new approaches to safeguard
the health of residents living near these types of coal mining
operations."

Central Appalachia covers portions of Tennessee, Kentucky and West
Virginia. The Appalachian mountain range is a hotspot for natural
deposits of asbestos, a toxic mineral linked to serious
respiratory conditions including asbestosis, asbestos lung cancer
and mesothelioma.

"Mountaintop removal mining has been shown to cause lung cancer,
heart disease, and other medical problems," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-
Ariz., the ranking Democrat on the House Committee of Natural
Resources, said in a statement. "Stopping this study is a ploy to
stop science in its tracks and keep the public in the dark about
health risks as a favor to the mining industry, pure and simple."

How Mountaintop Mining Could Lead to Asbestos Exposure

Mountaintop mining is used to extract underlying coal. The
technique dates back to the 1960s as a way to harvest coal
deposits too thin to remove from a coal mine.

According to a report published in the journal Environmental
Health Perspectives, mountaintop removal has occurred on at least
500 of the Appalachian Mountains. After the land is cleared of
forests and vegetation, explosives break up the first layer of
rock into smaller pieces, known as "spoil."

Mining companies often dump the rubble into surrounding valleys
and streams, which can lead to pollution.

A 2002 report from the National Research Council found heavy
metals, such as lead, arsenic, selenium and manganese, in local
streams and ground wells in Central Appalachia. High
concentrations of these metals can be toxic.

But another major cause for concern is the dust created by the
mining explosions. Although asbestos is no longer mined in the
U.S., naturally occurring deposits can be stirred up during mining
efforts for other minerals.

Toxic asbestos fibers released into the air can be inhaled or
ingested by workers or nearby residents, potentially leading to
asbestos-related diseases. Symptoms of mesothelioma typically
don't arise until 20 to 50 years after a person is exposed to
asbestos, meaning mining efforts decades ago could lead to cancer
today.

A 2010 study published in Science Magazine linked mountaintop
mining to increased lung and kidney disease rates. A separate
study from researchers at Washington State University found birth
defects are significantly more common in these mining areas.

Trump Administration Cutting Back on Stringent Reviews

The halt to the mountaintop mining study is part of an agency-wide
review of the Department of the Interior of its grants and
cooperative agreements in excess of $100,000.

In the letter sent to the National Academies, Glenda Owens, the
acting director of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, said the review is largely a result
of the department's "changing budget situation" under the Trump
administration.

"The Trump Administration is dedicated to responsibly using
taxpayer dollars and that includes the billions of dollars in
grants that are doled out every year by the Department of the
Interior," the administration said in a statement.

Owens agreed to let the National Academies continue with a
previously scheduled public meeting in Kentucky, but no future
plans can be made.

Democrats and officials from environmental groups were quick to
express criticism over the decision to cut funding to the study.

The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition released a statement
saying the budget proposals and department cuts are an "attack on
science, [and] are a slap in the face to the people of Appalachia
as well as poor and middle class folks nationwide."

Bill Price, senior Appalachia organizing representative for the
environmental advocacy group Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign
said the decision is an injustice to the residents of the region.

"It's infuriating that Trump would halt this study on the health
effects of mountaintop removal coal mining, research that people
in Appalachia have been demanding for years," he said.

A review conducted earlier this year by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences called for more careful research to
determine the precise consequences of mountaintop mining, noting
it can be difficult to control variables like poverty.

"Every time some reckless industry hurts working people, this
administration is there to provide political cover," Grijalva
said. "Clearly this administration and the Republican Party are
trying to stop the National Academy of Sciences from uncovering
exactly how harmful this practice is."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OHSU, Contractor Fined for Asbestos Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that state
environmental regulators have fined Oregon Health & Science
University and a prominent contractor it hired a total of $37,600
for violating asbestos regulations during renovations at OHSU's
Oregon National Primate Research Center.

The renovations took place in July 2016 at OHSUs Colony Annex, at
505 NW 185th Ave. in Beaverton. The violations likely released
asbestos fibers into the air and exposed the public, the state
Department of Environmental Quality said.

OHSU was fined $10,400 for hiring an unlicensed asbestos abatement
contractor. It also was cited for failing to have an accredited
inspector survey the facility for asbestos prior to the
renovation.

The penalty was reduced because OHSU later hired a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor to remove remaining asbestos at the
facility, and decontaminated the Farmington Landfill in Aloha,
where the asbestos had been taken.

The contractor, Aloha-based In Line Commercial Construction, was
fined $27,200 for conducting an asbestos abatement project without
being licensed to do so, and for disposing of asbestos-containing
waste at the landfill, which was not authorized to accept it.

The company also was cited for failing to have an accredited
inspector survey the building for asbestos before the renovation,
and for storing asbestos containing waste in uncovered drop boxes
at the facility.

In Line Commercial Construction has completed other major
renovations for OHSU, including a remodel of the emergency room.

Asbestos fibers are known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis, DEQ said. There is no safe level of exposure.

Both OHSU and the contractor were negligent, DEQ said.

OHSU has a facilities division responsible for overseeing its
buildings and ensuring that renovations comply with safety and
environmental regulations, and has hired licensed abatement
contractors on numerous occasions, DEQ said.

OHSU has not decided whether to appeal the penalty, spokeswoman
Tamara Hargens-Bradley said.

"We do hundreds of projects each year, and to the best of our
knowledge, this is the first accidental release of asbestos on
OHSU property," she said. "Although we have robust asbestos
management processes in place, as a result of this incident we
have implemented new mitigation strategies, including increasing
the number of construction inspectors overseeing our project
work."

In Line Commercial Construction is a general contractor licensed
by the Oregon Construction Contractors Board and is aware of
asbestos requirements, DEQ said.

The construction company has appealed the penalty, vice president
Trygve Berge said.

Berge said he was unable to comment further because the company's
contract with OHSU contains a confidentiality agreement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidation of Cantarano, Gladu Cases Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware has
issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs, Craig Cantarano and Donald
Gladu, to Consolidate Cases scheduled for trial in September 2017.

The Plaintiffs claim that consolidation is appropriate because
Defendant, Georgia Pacific, is the only defendant left in the
case, and the Plaintiffs share the same causation expert.

The Court finds that consolidation of these cases is not
appropriate. The Court maintains that consolidation would require
the jury to apply different substantive law to each Plaintiff,
which creates a risk of juror confusion. More importantly, the
Court points out that there is no significant nexus between the
two cases as there is different product exposure, different State
substantive law, and different fact and expert witnesses.

The case is In Re: Asbestos Litigation. Limited to: Craig
Cantarano Donald Gladu, C.A. Nos. N15C-10-030 ASB, N15C-09-093
ASB, (Super. Ct.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 29, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/b4Rwyl from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Pneumo Abex Dropped in "Bagwell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware has
issued an order granting Pneumo Abex's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned IN RE: SHERRIE BAGWELL, as personal
representative of the estate of DAVID BAGWELL, and SHERRIE
BAGWELL, individually, Plaintiff, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, LLC, et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-06-023 ASB (Del. Super.).

Sherrie Bagwell contends that decedent David Bagwell contracted
lung cancer from asbestos in Defendant Pneumo Abex's products.
The only product identification witness is Clyde Bagwell, Mr.
Bagwell's brother.

Pneumo Abex contends that under South Carolina law, the
Plaintiff's case must be dismissed because wrongful death claims
must be filed within three years of the date of decedent's death -
- Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

In response, Sherrie Bagwell claims that decedent was diagnosed
with lung cancer in May 2009 and passed away on January 28, 2010.
Subsequently his wife did not know that her husband's cancer was
caused by asbestos until the Complaint was filed.

In personal injury actions, this State applies a two year statute
of limitations from the date of plaintiff's injury. Mr. Bagwell
passed away from lung cancer on January 28, 2010, and the
Plaintiff's Complaint was not filed until June 2, 2014.

The Plaintiff argues that under Delaware law, "the two-year
statute of limitations on asbestos-related personal injury
cases "begins to run when the plaintiff is chargeable with
knowledge that his condition is attributable to asbestos
exposure."

The Plaintiff's situation is distinguishable from other asbestos
cases because Mr. Bagwell passed away more than two years prior to
contact with legal counsel. Mr. Bagwell was diagnosed with lung
cancer in May 2009 and passed away on January 28, 2010. The
Plaintiff avers that she contacted an attorney in August of 2012,
and the Complaint was not filed until June 2, 2014. The Plaintiff
urges that she did not know that her husband's lung cancer was
caused by asbestos until "after June 2, 2014 when his case was
filed."

Although it is clear that asbestos cases fall into the latent
disease category, and the time begins to run when the plaintiff is
chargeable with knowledge that his condition is attributable to
asbestos exposure, the Court cannot infer, beyond speculation,
when the Plaintiff became aware her husband's disease was related
to asbestos.

The Court notes that the Plaintiff provided no medical records
from Mr. Bagwell's initial diagnosis or any other evidence of
medical treatment for the Court to analyze the four part DaBaldo
test. The only piece of evidence that the Court can take into
consideration is a document titled "Affidavit of Sherrie Bagwell."
However, this document has little to no probative value because it
is neither notarized nor signed by an attorney. Without additional
information, the Court cannot infer, beyond speculation, the date
that Ms. Bagwell became chargeable with knowledge that her
husband's disease was asbestos related was August 2012.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 29, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/uq5BJQ from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. 7 Cos. Dismissed in "Haynes"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
District Delaware has issued an order approving and adopting the
July 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge
Sherry R. Fallon in the case styled HAROLD HAYNES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-607, (D. Del.), and thereby,
dismissing the following filing Defendants with prejudice:

     (a) Air & Liquid Systems Corporation;
     (b) Aurora Pump Company;
     (c) BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC;
     (d) FMC Corporation;
     (e) Honeywell International, Inc.;
     (f) Pfizer, Inc.; and
     (g) Warren Pumps, LLC.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 29, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/VXsj5k 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..

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.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams & Timothy S. Martin,
White & Williams.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Maremont Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

Viking Pump, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Claim vs. Texaco Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Peter H. Moulton of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, affirms the order entered on
January 5, 2016, denying Defendant Chevron Corporation's alleged
predecessor in interest's (Texaco) motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION. ANNE M. SOUTH, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION, ETC., Defendant-Appellant, JOHN CRANE INC.,
Defendant, 4048, 190029/15, (N.Y. App. Div.), as against it.

Plaintiff's decedent, Mason South, and plaintiff, South's wife,
commenced this action alleging that South's mesothelioma resulted
from his exposure to asbestos during his 37-year career in the
Merchant Marine. They claimed that defendant Texaco manufactured,
produced, sold, supplied, merchandised and/or distributed
asbestos-containing products that were located on the ships South
worked on. The claims were brought under the Jones Act. South's
wife asserted derivative claims and was substituted as plaintiff
after South died of mesothelioma.

Texaco moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as
against it. The basis for the motion was a release that South had
given to it in connection with an earlier lawsuit, also in
connection with his exposure to asbestos on merchant ships.

The release that South executed in connection with the settlement
of the 1997 action stated that South, "for himself, his heirs,
administrators, beneficiaries, executors and assigns," released
Texaco "forever" from any and all "actions, suits, [and] claims"
which he "has now, has ever had, or which may accrue in the
future." The release included any "bodily and/or personal
injuries, sickness or death" which allegedly occurred as a result
of South's asbestos exposure.

Furthermore, the release acknowledged that the "long term effects
of exposure" to asbestos might result in "obtaining a new and
different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this
Release." South stated in the release that despite this, he knew
that he would be giving up the right to bring an action in the
future for "any new or different diagnosis that may be made" as a
result of his exposure to any asbestos or other product. This
provision also pertained to South's executors, administrators, and
heirs. South acknowledged that he had read the full release,
discussed it with his attorney, and was signing it with full
knowledge of its contents, and that he would be legally bound by
it. In return for furnishing the release, South was paid $1,750.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs argued that the release
did not preclude the claim for mesothelioma, based on section 5 of
the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which requires strict
scrutiny of releases and prohibits agreements that exempt common
carriers from liability. Under that standard, Plaintiffs asserted
that at the time South signed the release, he did not have
mesothelioma and was not aware of the risk of mesothelioma as a
potential injury from his asbestos exposure.

The motion court then denied Texaco's motion, holding that Texaco
failed to establish that South understood he was releasing a
future claim for mesothelioma. As such, the 1997 release was
inadequate because although it referred to future claims arising
out of asbestos exposure and contemplated a second injury, it did
not mention cancer or mesothelioma explicitly. Moreover, the court
characterized the settlement payment South received as
consideration for the 1997 release as, "based on this court's
experience. . . extremely low, given. . . South's alleged
extensive asbestos exposure." The court alternatively described
the amount as "meager."

On appeal, Texaco asserts that the 1997 release should be enforced
because it constitutes a settlement of a known claim. In that
regard, Texaco notes that the release resolved the decedent's
action arising out of his exposure to asbestos and that the
parties contemplated all injuries that might later arise due to
that exposure. Texaco points out that the 1997 complaint
specifically mentioned mesothelioma as one of the known diseases,
and argues that thus the release clearly intended to resolve any
future claim of mesothelioma.

Texaco also highlights the expansive language of the release,
including the decedent's recognition that his exposure to asbestos
might result in "obtaining a new and different diagnosis" from the
diagnosis at the time of the release but that he would be giving
up the right to bring an action against Texaco in the future for
"any new or different diagnosis that may be made" as a result of
his exposure to asbestos.

The Jones Act provides merchant mariners, such as South, with a
right of action for injuries and death arising out of the
performance of their duties.

The Court finds that Texaco failed to establish the burden that
the release is enforceable, as well as the burden of demonstrating
that South fully understood his rights and received adequate
consideration. The Court finds that the release does not pass
muster. The Court determines that the 1997 complaint, while making
generalized allegations that South had been exposed to asbestos,
is exceedingly vague as to whether he had actually contracted an
asbestos-related disease. Specifically, it mentions a "devastating
pulmonary disease Plaintiff now suffers" and an exhaustive grab-
bag of asbestos-related diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma
to brain cancer. However, the Court holds that it is impossible to
conclude from the complaint that South had actually received a
diagnosis.

In addition, the Court opines that the "meager" consideration he
received for resolving the claim suggests that he had not been
diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, much less one even
approaching the severity of the mesothelioma that the complaint
specifically alleges he had. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
risk of contracting an actual asbestos-related disease remained
hypothetical to South, and we decline to read the release as if
South understood the implications of such a disease but chose
nonetheless to release Texaco from claims arising from it.

Further, the Court explains that if South had not received a
definitive diagnosis at the time the 1997 complaint was filed,
then the release, to the extent it warns him of the possibility of
"a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date
of this Release," does not reflect the actual circumstances known
to him. Rather, the lack of an actual diagnosis reveals the
language in the release as mere boilerplate, and not the result of
an agreement the parameters of which had been specifically
negotiated and understood by South.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 29, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/hZRDiX from Leagle.com.

Jones Day, New York (Meir Feder of counsel), for appellant.

Motley Rice LLC, Washington, D.C. (Louis M. Bograd of the bar of
the State of Kentucky and the District of Columbia, admitted pro
hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Webber, JJ.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Given More Time for Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
grants Derry L. Middleton and Janice Middleton time for additional
discovery regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction in the case
styled IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DERRY L. MIDDLETON and JANICE
MIDDLETON, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. MCCORD CORPORATION et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-05-261 ASB, (Super. Ct.).

Defendant McCord Corporation filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
arguing, in part, that the Plaintiffs' claims fail because the
Court has no personal jurisdiction over Defendant, claiming that
it is a Michigan corporation, with its principal place of business
in Michigan, and it is not otherwise essentially at home in
Delaware.

In response, the Plaintiffs requested the opportunity to perform
limited discovery on the subject of personal jurisdiction in wake
of the Supreme Court decision which Defendant relies on, Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, decided on June
19, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/wFJCsB from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damages Claim vs. PACCAR Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
dismisses Nagel T. Cobb's willful and wanton conduct claims
against PACCAR Inc. as he failed to plead specific facts to
support a punitive damages claim against the Defendant.

PACCAR Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Willful and
Wanton Conduct Claims pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rules 8(a),
9(b) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiff's claim lacks
specific supporting factual allegations. PACCAR also argues that
this Court has held that simply "adding the words 'willful and
wanton' to an allegation does not transform automatically a case
to a punitive damages claim."

On the other hand, the Plaintiff contends that under Delaware law,
"for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss it need only
general notice of the claim asserted."

The Court agrees with the Defendant. As the Court has noted in In
re Asbestos Litigation (In re Asbestos Litigation (Ardis), C.A.
No. N13C-10-020 (ASB)(Del. Super. Feb. 6, 2014)), the claim is
insufficient without a factual basis or the elements of the claim
under the substantive state law the claim is brought under.

The Plaintiff, however, may move to amend, if he discovers
evidence that supports a punitive damages claim.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/2ghayp from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damages Claim vs. Daimler Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
dismisses Nagel T. Cobb's willful and wanton conduct claims
against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, as he failed to plead
specific facts to support a punitive damages claim against the
Defendant.

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Willful and Wanton Conduct Claims pursuant to Superior
Court Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the
Plaintiff's claim lacks specific supporting factual allegations.
The Defendant further argues that this Court has held that simply
"adding the words 'willful and wanton' to an allegation does not
transform automatically a case to a punitive damages claim."

On the other hand, the Plaintiff contends that under Delaware law,
"for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss it need only
general notice of the claim asserted."

The Court agrees with the Defendant. As the Court has noted in In
re Asbestos Litigation (In re Asbestos Litigation (Ardis), C.A.
No. N13C-10-020 (ASB)(Del. Super. Feb. 6, 2014)), the claim is
insufficient without a factual basis or the elements of the claim
under the substantive state law the claim is brought under.

The Plaintiff, however, may move to amend, if he discovers
evidence that supports a punitive damages claim.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/0xR2Fl from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Goodyear Dismissed in "McSwain"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court,
Western District of North Carolina, has issued an order dismissing
with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the case styled MINERVA McSWAIN,
Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD
McSWAIN, Plaintiffs, 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 August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/JjwVed 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.

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..

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..

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

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: Murphy Oil Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware has
issued an order granting Defendant Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s Motion
for Summary Judgment, in the case styled IN RE: ASBESTOS
LITIGATION. SANDRA KIVELL, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of MILTON J. KIVELL, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. MURPHY OIL USA INC. et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N15C-07-093 ASB, (Sup. Ct. Del.).

The Plaintiff alleges that her husband, Milton Kivell contracted
mesothelioma while working at the Defendant's refinery, and Mr.
Kivell's illness eventually caused his death. In August 2015, Mr.
Kivell was deposed. Mr. Kivell stated that he worked construction
jobs at Defendant's facility in 1972 and 1979. Mr. Kivell was
employed by Litwin Construction during 1972 where Mr. Kivell cut
shipping brackets.

A Litwin employee, Vincent Vicidomina, stated that Mr. Kivell's
work for Litwin included part of the construction of the Crude
Distillation, Platformer, and Hydrobon units by Litwin at the
refinery. According to Mr. Vicidomina's affidavit, Defendant hired
Litwin Construction as a "turnkey contractor," which is a
"contractor who exercised total control of the construction of the
new unit . . . and then turned the new unit over to Murphy upon
completion." Mr. Kivell also testified that the 1972 project was
directed by his Litwin foreman.

In 1979 Mr. Kivell worked at Murphy while he was employed by
Matthews McCraken Rutland, a subcontractor of the general
contractor McDermott/Hudson Engineering. McDermott constructed the
FCC Unit and Alkylation Unit in Area 4 of the Meraux refinery from
1977-1980. Mr. Kivell's job involved installation of tubing. Mr.
Vicidomina stated that asbestos insulation products were not used
in the construction of the FCC and Alkylation Unit in Area 4 of
Defendant's refinery.

The Defendant provided the McDermott Contract which states that
McDermott maintained the right to direct and control the
construction and the workers. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant ignores Mr. Kivell's testimony that his work at Murphy
involved significant maintenance of existing equipment, and "tie-
ins" of new equipment, and that Murphy specified the use of
asbestos in its facility.

The Defendant argues that it did not owe a duty to Plaintiff under
Louisiana law, thus Plaintiff's negligence action fails. The
Plaintiff argues that these cases demonstrate that a landowner has
a duty to protect independent contractors from unreasonable risks
of injury or harm. Likewise, the Plaintiff claims that her husband
was exposed to asbestos from products used while employed by an
independent contractor at Defendant's facility.

The Court finds that the Defendant has presented evidence that
asbestos insulation was not used during construction of the FCC
Unit and Alkylation Unit in 1979. On the other hand, the Court
determines that the Plaintiff did not provide evidence, such as,
the Defendant's knowledge that asbestos was being used, the
Defendant's specific request for asbestos use, or knowledge of the
dangers of asbestos at the time Plaintiff was employed on
Defendant's premises. The Court also determines that the Plaintiff
has not presented any evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact that Defendant breached a duty owed to Mr. Kivell
under Louisiana law.

Likewise, the Court grants the summary judgment on Plaintiff's
strict liability claim. In Louisiana, to hold a defendant strictly
liable, "the plaintiff must prove: (1) the thing which caused the
damage was in the care, custody and control of the defendant; (2)
the thing had a vice or defect which created an unreasonable risk
of harm; and (3) the injuries were caused by the defect."

Additionally, the Court explains that custody, "for the purposes
of strict liability, does not depend upon ownership, but involves
the right of supervision, direction, and control as well as the
right to benefit from the thing controlled." The "mere physical
presence of the thing on one's premises does not constitute
custody." Accordingly, the Court holds that the Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment on the strict liability claim as well
because there is nothing in the record indicating that Defendant
had any type of direction, control, or ownership of an asbestos
product used by the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/0JrVex from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Products Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware has
issued an order granting Defendant Air Products and Chemicals
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment because the Plaintiff Sandra
Kivell failed to present any evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact that the Defendant breached a duty owed to Mr.
Kivell under Louisiana law.

Under Louisiana law, "property owners are not liable for the
negligence of an independent contractor" unless the (1)
independent contractor was involved in inherently or intrinsically
dangerous work, or (2) the land owner exercised "control over the
contractor's method of operation or giving express or implied
authorization to an unsafe practice."

The Plaintiff Sandra Kivell alleges that her husband, Milton
Kivell contracted mesothelioma which ultimately caused his death.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Air Products and Chemicals Inc.
was the premises owner of one of the facilities in New Orleans,
Louisiana where Mr. Kivell worked for an independent contractor in
the 1970s. Mr. Kivell worked at the Defendant's facility while he
was employed by Lou Con Inc. Mr. Kivell changed old pipe, valves,
pumps, insulation, and stop leaks, and worked around Defendant's
employees performing other jobs. Mr. Kivel reported to the foreman
from Lou Con for his jobs.

The Defendant argues that Mr. Kivell performed routine maintenance
such as changing old pipes, valves, pumps, insulation, and
stopping leaks, which is not inherently or intrinsically dangerous
work. Additionally, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not
presented evidence showing that Defendant had control over Mr.
Kivell's employer's method of operation or gave express or implied
authorization to use asbestos.

Likewise, Plaintiff claims that her husband was exposed to
asbestos from products used while employed by an independent
contractor at Defendant's facility.

The Court, however, finds nothing in the facts for a jury to infer
that asbestos was inherent in Defendant's premises because the
Plaintiffs have not provided evidence, such as, the Defendant's
knowledge that asbestos was being used, the Defendant's specific
request for asbestos use, or knowledge of the dangers of asbestos
at the time Plaintiff was employed on Defendant's premises.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. SANDRA KIVELL,
individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
MILTON J. KIVELL, deceased, Plaintiff, v. MURPHY OIL USA INC. et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-07-093 ASB, (Sup. Ct. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/bJArGl from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos P.I. Claims vs. LG Electronic Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court,
Western District of North Carolina, has issued an order dismissing
without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant LG
Electronic U.S.A. Inc. in the case styled ROBERT A. MULLINAX,
Individually as Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh,
Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, INC., et al., Defendant, Civil
Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/mWv1PE from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone,
Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert A. Mullinax, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor-
in-interest to other Buffalo Pumps, 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.

Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Blackmer Pump Company, 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.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Defendant, represented by David L.
Levy, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates
LLP & Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Deere & Company, 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.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Fluor Constructors International, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ray
Kiger, Smith Anderson, Kirk Gibson Warner, Smith Anderson & Addie
K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Shannon
Strickland Frankel, Young Moore and Henderson P.A., Heather B.
Adams, Alston & Bird LLP & Molly Fraser Martinson, Young, Moore &
Henderson.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., 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.

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.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
T. Hawkins, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Pfizer, Inc., 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.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy,
Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP & Gerald Anderson Stein,
II, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo.

Viad 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.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C..

Whirlpool 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.

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B. Oakley,
Poole Brooke Plumlee PC.

Yuba Heat Transfer, 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.




                             *********


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  * * *