CAR_Public/170915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Friday, September 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 183



                            Headlines

ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in N.D. Tex.
AIC COMMUNICATIONS: St. Louis Judge Awards $32.4MM in Lawsuit
ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Valladares" Suit over Data Theft
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued over Defective Eclipse Glasses
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Must Face Retired Flight Attendants' Suit

ANTHEM INC: Feb. 2018 Final Hearing to Approve $115-Mil. Accord
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Boswell Says
BB&T CORPORATION: Court Certifies ERISA Class in "Sims" Suit
BRASSELER USA: Orrington's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sued For Poor Care of Elderly

BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Clark's Bid for Class Cert.
BURNS NATIONAL: Cunningham Sues over Repossession of Vehicle
CANADA: Plaintiffs in 5 National Class Suits Team Up vs AF
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey
CENTRAL FUMIGATION DEPARTMENT: Faces "Morales" Wage-and-Hour Suit

CITGO PETROLEUM: Settles TCPA Class Action
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fernandez Sues over Collection Practices
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Waldrup Moves for Certification of Class
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Koch Says Debt Collection Unlawful
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Unlawfully Collects Debts, Dominguez Says

CURLY'S FOODS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit With Workers
DELAWARE NORTH ISLANDIA: Faces "Sofia" Suit in E.D. New York
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Garnett Suit over Food Stamp Program
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Garnett Seeks Certification of Two Classes
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Siddiqi's Bid to Certify Entered and Continued

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tachera Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ENVOY AIR: Schroeder' Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
EQUIFAX: 2 Oregon Residents File Class Action Over Negligence
EQUIFAX: AG Schneiderman Issues Statement on Arbitration Clause
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hadjimarkos" Suit in W. Dist. of Wisconsin

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bahnmaier" Suit in N.D. of Oklahoma
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cole" Suit in Massachusetts
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Veytsman" Suit in S.D. New York
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Overtime Pay Miscalculated, Preston et al. Say
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Emissions Defect Suit

FRONTLINE ASSET: Collection Practices Unfair, "Ferreira" Claims
FUTURE INCOME: Faces "Underwood" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
GALIZ RESEARCH: Violates Labor Laws, "Gomez" Suit Claims
GRANT COUNTY, IN: Timbs Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York

HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE: Rangel and Romano Sue over ERISA Breach
HOUSTON, TX: Law Against Homeless Blocked Temporarily
ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Rutherford" Suit
ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Sundling" Suit
INDIANA: Judge Says Civil Forfeiture of Vehicles Illegal

INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Faces "Young" Suit over Homeless' Rights
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces "Alatortev" Suit in N.D. California
KREISLER MANUFACTURING: Bid to Dismiss "Kahn" Granted
LAMB WESTON: "Albright" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri Court
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Claims Handlers

LLEWELLYN PHILLIP: Car Wash Workers Underpaid, "Joseph" Suit Says
LMCHH PCP: Kusnick and Delaney Appeal in WARN Act Suit
LYCHEE HOUSE: "Dai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage and OT Pay
M3 USA CORP: Comprehensive Health Amends Bid to Certify TCPA Class
MARYLAND: Dismissal CP Violation Claims Affirmed

MAURY COBB: Faces "Palacios" Suit in District of New Jersey
MCDONALDS CORP: Class Suits Filed over Illinois Soda Tax
MIDAS PROPERTY: Underpays Construction Workers, "Reyes" Suit Says
NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Debt Collection
NEBRASKA: Corrections Department Sued over Overcrowding in Jails

NESTLE: Poland Spring Water "a Colossal Fraud," Patane Suit Says
NY EDUCATION DEPT: Doesn't Pay OT to Custodians, Fernandes Says
OTTER PRODUCTS: iPhone Waterproof Case Doesn't Work, Aikman Says
PANDORA MEDIA: Fails to Pay Indie Musicians, "Cupolo" Suit Says
PELLA CORP: "Opalka" Suit over Defective Windows Moved to D. S.C.

PETMED EXPRESS: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PFIZER: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lipitor & Effexor Antitrust Claims
POCATELLO, ID: State Supreme Court Ruling Could Cost Millions
PPI INC: Underpays Poker Dealers, "Rosenberg" Suit Claims
QUARTER AT A TIME: Faces "Watson" Suit in California

QUINTIS: Hit With CA Over Losses of More than $120 Million
QUORN FOODS: Agrees to Change Labels to Reveal Main Ingredient
RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL: "Vigueras" Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Unlawfully Collects Debt, "Burgos" Claims
RIVAS METALS DESIGN: Faces "Arroyo" Wage-and-Hour Suit

RUBY TEQUILA: Hot With Class Action Over Back Wages
SAN JACINTO, TX: Potts Law Firm Sues on Behalf of Flood Victims
SHAMROCK FOODS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in Central District California
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Suit over NJ Superfund Site Cleanup
SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Faces Suits over Mayweather-McGregor Fight

SNA CONCRETE: Faces "Fabre" Suit in E.D. of New York
SNY LEE: Barajas et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
SOTHEBYS HOLDINGS: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
SPOKEO INC: Must Defend Against Class Suit, 9th Cir. Says
STATE FARM: Mitchell Moves for Certification of Liability Class

SUGAR FACTORY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. of New York
TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA
TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Servers Class Under Rule 23
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Army Exposed to Radiation, "Burbach" Suit Says
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lacks Standing to Collect Debts, Jackson Says

UBER TECH: Mejia Sues in Florida over Ban on Guns
UBER TECH: Embedded Terms of Service Link Valid, 2nd Cir. Says
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Circ. Won't Revive $350M Insurance Feud
UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Launches Class Action
VERIZON: 9th Cir. Revives Suit over Collection of Personal Data

VERIZON: Customers Can Sue Ad Company Over "Zombie" Cookies
VOLKSWAGEN: Files Motion to Dismiss 4 Appeals in TDI Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration for Overdraft Fees Suits
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Reply to "Magee" Suit Due Sept. 18

* Cy Pres Only Settlement Can Work in Privacy Class Action


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldberg Nabs Segal McCambridge Toxic Tort Team
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NJ Justice Says No Impropriety as Master
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Urged to Rethink Excess Coverage Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Co. Fined for Asbestos Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Blames Asbestos for Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Upholds $9MM Mesothelioma Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Wins $13MM Judgment in Mesothelioma Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Sydney Asbestos Dumper Faces New Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., Over Failure to Warn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Fines GPS for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Asbestos Found at Shopping Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman May Have Been Exposed During Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Unaffected by Ambient Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Puts Six School Staff at Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Gets $1.7MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Mine Workers' Mesothelioma Cases Undiagnosed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Lung Cancer Caused by 4520 Corp. Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Prompts Search for Co-Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims St. Louis-based Cos. Failed to Warn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Summary Judgment for Foster
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Partial Summary Ruling for JCI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Allied Fluid Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Siemens Industry Junked

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Honeywell Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Armstrong Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Baldor Electric Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. M. Slayen Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Parker-Hannifin Dismissed


                            *********


ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in N.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Services
Collections Inc.  The case is titled as Era Gillespie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Account Services Collections Inc, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02144-D, (N.D. Tex., August 14, 2017).  The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.  The
case is assigned to Judge Sidney A Fitzwater.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Crosland Law Seth, Esq.
     CROSLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
     1848 Norwood Plaza, Suite 205B
     Hurst, TX 76054
     Telephone: (972) 591-6919
     Facsimile: (972) 804-0713
     Email: seth@croslandlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Ari Marcus, Esq.
     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (732) 695-3282
     Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
     Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


AIC COMMUNICATIONS: St. Louis Judge Awards $32.4MM in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
federal judge on September 7 awarded $32.4 million to a St. Louis
County couple and 3.2 million others who improperly received
robocalls in 2012.

U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber could have awarded $1.6
billion, or $500 per call, under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, but wrote "the amount of damages prescribed by the statute
are so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to
the offense and obviously unreasonable."

Webber wrote in his ruling that the $32 million penalty, or $10
per call, "reflects the severity of the offense" and one of the
purposes of the TCPA -- to have a "deterrent effect and to account
for unquantifiable losses including the invasions of privacy,
unwanted interruptions and disruptions at home, and the wasted
time spent answering unwanted solicitation calls or unwanted voice
messages."

The calls went out to promote the "Last Ounce of Courage," a movie
about "faith, family and freedom" that opened Sept. 14, 2012. More
than 3.2 million of the calls violated the act by going to people
who had not consented to the calls, Webber has ruled.

Ron and Dorit Golan, of St. Louis County, received two calls that
went to voicemail. They are on the Do Not Call registry. They sued
in 2012 and came to represent the class of call recipients.

Webber ruled during a trial in U.S. District Court in St. Louis
last month that Gabriel Joseph III, of Virginia, and his
affiliated companies had violated the act, but withheld a ruling
on damages. Those companies, AIC Communications LLC and
Freeeats.com Inc., do business as ccAdvertising.

A jury then found in favor of James R. Leininger, a billionaire
Texas doctor, philanthropist and Republican donor who is a part
owner of the San Antonio Spurs.

Leininger sank $10 million into the marketing of the movie, part
of which went to fund the robocall campaign, but jurors found that
Leininger did not have the necessary control over the robocall
campaign to be held liable for it.

Former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was
the voice of the campaign, and testified during the trial that he
did not talk to Leininger about it. Huckabee had been dismissed
from the suit long before his testimony.

At an Aug. 29 hearing, lawyer Teresa Young, Esq.  suggested a
penalty of 10 cents per call.

Joseph believed he had consent to call the households in the
campaign and had never had a TCPA violation or complaint, Young
told Webber. He also believed that there was 45 seconds of
political information "before you ever got to a commercial,"
meaning the movie promotion.

She also said Joseph's two companies were unlikely to have any
money, as they are going out of business.

Golan lawyer Kevin Carnie Jr. responded that Webber did not have
discretion to reduce the $500 per call award, citing other similar
court cases.

He said the actual harm was not pertinent to the issue, but the
greater harm to the public of the proliferation of millions and
millions of robocalls.

"This practice has to be made unaffordable," he told Webber.

Carnie, by phone on September 7, said that he was "pleased" with
the verdict.

But he also said that the plaintiffs would appeal both Webber's
reduction of the $500 per call penalty in the TCPA and jury
instructions during the trial concerning Leininger's role in the
campaign.

"We believe that he personally participated in and authorized the
telephone campaign," Carnie said.

Young could not immediately be reached for comment. [GN]


ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Valladares" Suit over Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in a federal
lawsuit in Chicago, that Alvarado Manufacturing's "intelligent
admission control" turnstile system violates Illinois law by
collecting fingerprints and other biometric identifiers without
consent.

The case is captioned, BENITO VALLADARES, individually and on
behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
ALVARADO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., a California corporation,
Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-06052 (N.D. Ill. August 18, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
             eturin@mcgpc.com
             wkingston@mcgpc.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Sued over Defective Eclipse Glasses
---------------------------------------------------
Ellen Robinson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a federal class action in Charleston, S.C., two South
Carolinians claim they were partially blinded by watching the
Great American Eclipse through defective Solar Eclipse Glasses
they bought from Amazon.com.

In their August 29 lawsuit, Thomas Corey Payne and Kayla Harris
say Amazon did not notify them that the eclipse glasses it sold
them were defective. Now, they say, they suffer from central blind
spots, impaired vision, discomfort and dizziness.

Amazon bought 10 million of the 37 million Solar Eclipse Glasses
manufactured by American Paper Optics, according to a July 7 USA
Today story cited in the complaint. Two days before the Aug. 21
eclipse, Amazon issued an email warning about the glasses.

But Payne, who bought a three-pack of the glasses on Aug. 1, says
that Amazon's "email 'recall' was tragically too little, too
late."

American Paper Optics is not a party to the lawsuit.

"(M)any Eclipse Glasses sold by Amazon were sold in packs of 3 and
20, and distributed to individuals who never received a warning
email," the complaint states. "Notwithstanding Amazon's woefully
inadequate email notification, any and all users of Eclipse
Glasses were subjected to unreasonable and foreseeable risks of
severe and permanent eye injury due to the negligence of Amazon."

Payne and Harris seek class certification and damages. They do not
know what size the class may be, but says it can be found through
discovery of Amazon's sales records.

The total eclipse of Aug. 21 was one of the most viewed in
history. Nearly half of America's 323 million people watched it in
some way, 20 million of them from the area of totality, according
to the lawsuit.

Looking directly at the sun can permanently damage the retina and
can cause blindness called solar retinopathy. Eclipses are
particularly dangerous because the infrared radiation continues,
but the pupils of the eye do not contract, due to the darkness.

The Royal College of Ophthalmologists reported that symptoms
typically show up approximately 12 hours after the viewing event,
including blurred vision, central blind spot in one or both eyes,
increased sensitivity to light, distorted vision and changes in
perception of color, according to the complaint.

Short-term issues may include solar keratitis, similar to sunburn
on the cornea, which can cause eye pain or light sensitivity
within 24 hours.

Amazon did not respond to a request comment.

Payne and Harris are represented by James Ward Jr., with McGowan,
Hood & Felder, in Mt. Pleasant, S.C. In addition to class
certification, they seek restitution, an injunction and damages
for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
breach of warranty, negligent failure to warn, deceptive trade and
consumer law violations.

The case is captioned, THOMAS COREY PAYNE, and KAYLA HARRIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
PLAINTIFFS, V. AMAZON.COM, INC., DEFENDANT. Case No. 2:17-cv-
02313-PMD (D. S.C.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
      MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 388-7202
      E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com

         - and -

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      The Pointe
      1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
      Louisville, KN 40206
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
              ashton@jonesward.com

         - and -

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292-1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

         - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 861-8800
      Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
      E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

         - and -

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 292-6676
      E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Must Face Retired Flight Attendants' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Chicago, will allow 16 retired flight
attendants to pursue class action claims that they are continually
booted from flights after American Airlines unjustifiably
downgraded their travel benefits.

Cher Thompson et al. say American promised that flight attendants
would have the same priority boarding status after retiring from
the airline.

According to company policy contained in American's Trip Book and
published regulations, "a retiree continues to have the same
classification of travel in retirement as the employee had
immediately prior to retirement," U.S. District Judge Sharon
Johnson Coleman wrote in her on August 16, Opinion and Order.

The retired flight attendants say American regularly approached
employees to accept early retirement and separation packages in
exchange for the same travel benefits they had while employed.
They say American also promised retirees that its 2013 merger with
US Airways would not affect their post-retirement travel benefits.

But as a result of a 2014 downgrade in their lifetime boarding
status after the merger, the class claims "they have been
routinely and regularly been bumped from flights and have been
unable to travel."  They say American's Trip Book is a valid and
enforceable contract that assures them lifetime flight benefits,
and that they relied on the company's promises when accepting
early retirement.

"The Trip Book contains clear enough language that employees and
retirees meeting certain eligibility requirements would believe an
offer has been made for them to receive specific travel benefits,"
Coleman wrote.

She found American may have breached the retirees' employment
contracts by altering benefits after guaranteeing them for life in
the Trip Book and in two letters sent in 2008 by the company's
vice president of employee relations to the Association of
Professional Flight Attendants.

The letters contain language assuring employees who volunteer to
retire early that their travel privileges would not change,
according to the second amended complaint.

Coleman also gave the former flight attendants the green light to
pursue allegations of negligent misrepresentation against
American, based on claims that certain provisions in the Trip Book
do not allow the company to modify their benefits or the meaning
of "for life."


ANTHEM INC: Feb. 2018 Final Hearing to Approve $115-Mil. Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the largest settlement ever of claims stemming from a data breach
received tentative approval from a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif., on August 25.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted preliminary approval of a
$115 million settlement between health insurance giant Anthem and
the 79 million people whose data was compromised after a criminal
hacker broke into the company's servers and stole millions of
health records.

"The court finds that the settlement agreement appears to be the
result of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted
with the assistance of former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips
over the course of nearly three months," Koh wrote in her ruling
granting preliminary approval.

The lynchpin of the settlement is a requirement that Anthem set up
a $115 million fund to help consumers affected by the data breach
to pay for at least two years of credit-monitoring services to
identify possible identity theft and fraud.

"By settling now, the class is able to take advantage of remedies
that, as a practical matter, would be unavailable or worth
substantially less by the time this case could be litigated to a
final judgment," said Eve Cervantez, the lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

Along with the settlement fund for those who want to enlist
credit-monitoring services, the agreement requires Anthem to spend
an undisclosed amount to beef up its cybersecurity. While the
amount is under seal, court documents indicate Anthem will spend
three times more on cybersecurity than what it spent before the
breach.

The breach, which the company announced in February 2015, resulted
in the theft of identifying information of about 79 million
people. That information included names, dates of birth, social
security numbers and health IDs, leading to widespread concerns
that criminals could sell the data on the black market and use it
for identity theft and other crimes.

Most credit-monitoring services cost anywhere from $9 to $20 per
month, but due to the ability to buy the service in bulk,
plaintiffs will be able to get cheaper rates, according to court
documents.

Those who want to retain current credit-monitoring services, or
pay for the one of their choosing will be allowed to pursue
alternative compensation that could amount to $50 per class
member.

Additionally, a separate $15 million fund will be established to
pay for out-of-pocket expenses of those affected by the breach of
their private data, the settlement says.

"The court further observes that the settlement agreement is the
product of more than two years of litigation, including two rounds
of motions to dismiss, extensive fact and expert discovery, and
briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
parties' motions to exclude expert testimony," Koh wrote.

After Anthem announced the breach in 2015, more than 100 lawsuits
were filed in various state and federal courts throughout the
country, all of which were consolidated in the Northern District
of California with Koh presiding over the litigation.

While the claims might have diverged slightly from case to case,
the premise was uniform: Anthem's cybersecurity efforts were
insufficient.

"Plaintiffs' case depends, above all, on proving their allegations
that the data breach was possible only because Anthem had
aggregated 80 million people's private information into a central
data warehouse that was not properly secured," the plaintiffs said
in their motion for preliminary settlement.

The criminal hack is widely thought to have originated in China,
but the Chinese government has loudly denied such allegations.

A hearing on the final settlement is slated to take place at the
federal courthouse in San Jose on Feb. 1, 2018.


BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Boswell Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua B. Boswell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of
America and National Association, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06120-GW-RAO, (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), seeks restitution
of unpaid overtime, unpaid commissions, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid rest periods, damages and penalties.

The plaintiff was employed from August 2015 until January 2017 as
a Mortgage Loan Officer of the defendant. He worked from an office
and routinely worked 60 hours a week or more and was paid mostly
on a commission basis without overtime premium pursuant to the
terms of the Bank of America Retail MLO Sales Incentive Plan. The
Plaintiff also alleges illegal forfeiture of wages earned in
California in relation to unpaid commissions earned at the time of
termination.  The Plaintiff also says paychecks are paid as a draw
or loan and not paid free and clear.

Bank of America is a Delaware corporation doing business as a
bank, mortgage lender and financial institution nationwide and
within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
     Leah L. Jones, Esq.
     THIERMAN BUCK LLP
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, CA 89511
     Telephone: (775) 284-1500
     Facsimile: (775) 703-5027


BB&T CORPORATION: Court Certifies ERISA Class in "Sims" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Catherine C. Eagles grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT SIMS, et al.
v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-732 (M.D.N.C.).

The class is defined as:

     All current and former participants and beneficiaries of the
     [Plan] from January 1, 2007 through the date of judgment,
     who were injured by the conduct alleged in the Second
     Amended Complaint, excluding the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are current or former participants in the BB&T
Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan.  They contend that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act to the plan in connection with fees and
investment options.  They assert that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan by causing the Plan to incur
excessive administrative and investment fees, providing imprudent
investment fund options, failing to appropriately monitor Plan
fiduciaries, and engaging in prohibited transactions.

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


BRASSELER USA: Orrington's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo denied without prejudice to renewal
if mediation is unsuccessful the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled James L. Orrington, II,
D.D.S., P.C. v. Brasseler U.S.A. Dental, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00956 (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ugca6bbn


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sued For Poor Care of Elderly
-----------------------------------------------
Barbara Feder Ostrov, writing for California Health Line, reports
that twenty residents of an assisted living complex in Palm
Springs, Calif., missed their medications in a single day because
no medical technician was on duty. A woman in a Paso Robles home
for seniors pushed her emergency call button after falling in her
room and waited 22 hours on the floor with broken bones until
staff members responded.

A class-action lawsuit filed last month in a federal district
court in Northern California details those incidents and other
similar ones, which allegedly occurred in facilities owned by
Brookdale Senior Living, the nation's largest assisted living
provider.

The complaint alleges that inadequate staffing, poor worker
training and rising fees are part of a "callous and profit-driven
approach" that has had "devastating" consequences for Californians
living in Brookdale assisted living homes. Residents, it claims,
"are left without assistance for hours after falling, they are
given the wrong medications, they are denied clean clothing,
showers, and nutritious food, and they are left in their own waste
for long periods of time."

Relatives of the seniors involved in the lawsuit declined to
comment. The California Assisted Living Association, an industry
group, also declined to comment.

Brookdale spokeswoman Heather Hunter said in an email that the
lawsuit is "without merit" and the company will defend itself
"vigorously."

Tennessee-based Brookdale, which operates 1,121 facilities serving
about 100,000 patients in 47 states, has encountered similar
complaints elsewhere in the country. A class-action lawsuit filed
earlier this year in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
alleges that the company does not adequately staff its assisted
living facilities and is not providing the care it promises
residents.

The plaintiff in that lawsuit, Gloria Runton, claimed the
Brookdale home where she lives had assured her she would get
personal care services based on an assessment of her individual
needs, but that as those needs grew over time, the level of her
care did not increase. At the same time, Brookdale nearly tripled
her fees, she alleges.

The California lawsuit, believed to be the first class-action
claim against an assisted living company under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), was filed on behalf of four people
currently residing in assisted living homes that Brookdale
operates in the state. If the judge certifies the case as a class-
action suit, the outcome could affect all residents of Brookdale
assisted living facilities in California.

The lawsuit cites not only the federal disabilities law but also
several California statutes, including ones that protect against
unfair business practices and financial abuse of elders.

Because the goal is to win the case, good lawyers often file a
number of claims, said Stephen Rosenbaum, a lecturer at the
University of California-Berkeley's law school and a directing
attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, which is not
involved in the lawsuit. "Whether the ADA is the strongest claim
is unclear from a strategic standpoint," he said.

Rosenbaum said case law has not established exactly how the
federal disability law applies to assisted living facilities. It
is "ironic" that the attorneys in this case are using the
disability law to sue Brookdale, given that the company by
definition serves people with some kind of disability, he said.

The California lawsuit alleges that some of Brookdale's facilities
don't meet federal and state accessibility standards. Some of
their bathrooms can't accommodate wheelchairs, and the company
doesn't have an evacuation or emergency plan for disabled
residents, the suit claims. Of the four plaintiffs named in the
complaint, three require wheelchairs.

If the case is certified as a class-action lawsuit under the ADA,
that would be "big news," said William Goren, a Decatur, Ga.-based
attorney and consultant who helps clients comply with the law.
That's because of the nature of the law itself, he said.

The ADA is designed to address the disabled as individuals whose
disabilities can be accommodated in different ways, Goren said.
But a class-action lawsuit requires the "class" of plaintiffs to
show that they've been injured in the same way.

"It's very, very unusual that you could go in and get a class-
action certified under the ADA," Goren said. "It can happen, but
not often."

In California, Brookdale Senior Living runs 89 homes and serves up
to 5,000 patients, offering various combinations of independent
living, assisted living and skilled nursing.

In 2014, the company acquired another large assisted living
provider, Emeritus, which expanded its presence in California. But
the $2.8 billion deal left publicly traded Brookdale with
significant staff turnover, declining occupancy and a shaky stock
price. A Chinese real estate conglomerate's recent bid to buy the
company reportedly has stalled, creating more uncertainty for
Brookdale and the people living in its senior homes.

Residents of Brookdale's assisted living facilities don't require
the kind of specialized medical care provided in skilled nursing
facilities, but they may need help bathing, using the toilet,
taking medications, eating or walking. Some residents need walkers
or wheelchairs, while others have mild cognitive impairments or
dementia. Seniors who require less care and can cook their own
meals often choose independent living homes, which Brookdale also
operates.

Like many assisted living companies, Brookdale typically charges
monthly room and board fees, plus separate charges for additional
care, such as help with medications. Its average monthly rate for
assisted living, including rent, food and some personal care
services, is about $4,000, according to the company's website.

Both the California and Florida lawsuits claim that to keep its
occupancy levels up, Brookdale accepted assisted living residents
who might have required higher levels of care, then failed to
provide enough staff to meet their needs.

The consequences of leaving residents unsupervised can be severe.
In one case, a wheelchair-bound resident of the Brookdale assisted
living facility in Elk Grove, Calif., rolled herself out an open
door and fell off a curb, breaking her neck, according to an
investigation by the California Department of Social Services,
which regulates assisted living facilities. The April 2 incident
merited a civil penalty, still to be determined, according to the
agency's investigator. That episode was not mentioned in the
lawsuit.

Tony Chicotel, a staff attorney at California Advocates for
Nursing Home Reform, which is not involved in the suit, said
inadequate staffing is a problem at many assisted living
facilities.

Assisted living salespeople tell seniors they can meet all their
current and future needs, Chicotel said. "But . . .  the facility
will only staff based on revenue they're getting . . . at least at
the big facilities." The bottom line, he said, is that residents
"don't get the care they need." [GN]


BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Clark's Bid for Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit captioned ELIZABETH CLARK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BUMBO INTERNATIONAL TRUST,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02725 (N.D. Ill.):

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and
   -- granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a
      surreply.

A status hearing was set for September 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

The putative class action is brought against Bumbo for statutory
consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff, Elizabeth Clark,
an Illinois citizen, alleges that Bumbo deceptively marketed and
advertised its Bumbo floor seat for babies stating, among other
things, that the floor seat stabilizes the child into slight hip
flexion, placing the pelvis in a slight anterior pelvic tilt which
facilitates lumbar extension.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "[a]ll
consumers in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia
who visited www.bumbo.com and subsequently purchased the Bumbo
Floor Seat within the applicable statute of limitations of the
respective Class States, for personal use until the date Defendant
removed the quote from www.bumbo.com "

Judge Alonso opines that the Plaintiff's treatment of the
predominance requirement is superficial, and the Court agrees with
the Defendant that the Plaintiff fails to meet her burden under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pTlOzi0g


BURNS NATIONAL: Cunningham Sues over Repossession of Vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------
JELANI CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURNS NATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1 through
30, Case No. BC671846, (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 14, 2017), seeks
damages and penalties for violations of California's Collateral
Recovery Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The plaintiff purchased a 2015 KIA Optima pursuant to a retail
installment sale contract with the contract of dealership assigned
to Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC.  As an incident to the
contract, Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC hired Burns National as
an independent contractor to locate and repossess the vehicle and
in turn Burns National hired Motion Repossessors, Inc., as its
agent to conduct the physical taking of the vehicle.

According to the complaint, although Motion Repossessors, Inc. is
a licensed California repossession agency, it had no dealings with
Flagship Credit Acceptance.  Motion Repossessors took possession
of the Plaintiff's vehicle on behalf of Burns National.  The
plaintiff paid $1,590 to Flagship to reinstate his contract and
get the vehicle back.  A portion of the paid amount by the
Plaintiff was paid by Flagship to Burns National for repossession
fees while Burns National paid a portion of it to Motion
Repossessors.  Burns National retained a profit remaining from the
repossession fee and it was not permitted to do as an unlicensed
repossession agency in California, the complaint says. The
defendant is an unlicensed vehicle repossessor and who wrongfully
deprived the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons of
their possession of their vehicles by repossessing them without
any present right to do so. Defendant's business acts and
practices constitute fraudulent business practices that are likely
to deceive the public and affected consumers.  Defendant's use of
such deception may preclude consumers from exercising legal rights
to which they are entitled.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon A. Block, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK
     433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600
     Telephone: (310) 887-1440
     Facsimile: (310) 496-1420
     Email: brandon@bblocklaw.com

          - and -

     Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq.
     TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM
     10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (310) 443-4139
     Facsimile: (310) 943-2255


CANADA: Plaintiffs in 5 National Class Suits Team Up vs AF
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in five separate class actions have agreed to work
together to take Canada to court seeking policy changes and
redress for systemic sexual assault, harassment, and
discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces. The class actions
were filed in Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City, Halifax, and Victoria.
Now that all five plaintiffs have agreed to combine their
resources to work together, current and former members of the
Canadian Armed Forces truly have "coast to coast" representation.

Controversy over the Canadian Armed Forces' procedures and
programs in relation to sexual harassment and sexual assault has
intensified in recent years. Statistics Canada reported in
November 2016 that 4.8% of women in the Canadian Armed Forces had
reported being sexually assaulted in the past 12 months. Among
those serving in the Primary Reserve, 8.2% of female members
reported to having been victims of sexual assault in the past 12
months. Finally, more than one-quarter (27.3%) of women reported
having been victims of sexual assault at least once since joining
the Canadian Armed Forces.

In order to address these issues, class actions were filed across
Canada seeking change on behalf of those who endured sexual
assault, harassment, and gender-based discrimination in the
Canadian Armed Forces. Now, the plaintiffs in these class actions
have entered into an agreement to prosecute the cases together.

The plaintiffs in class actions are represented by Koskie Minsky
LLP in Toronto, Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. in
Ottawa, Quessy Henry St-Hilaire, avocats in Quebec City, Wagners -
- A Serious Injury Law Firm, in Halifax, and Acheson Sweeney Foley
Sahota LLP in Victoria.

The class action filed in Victoria, British Columbia, was the most
recent lawsuit to join the consortium.

"The Statistics Canada numbers are staggering," said Nicola
Peffers, the plaintiff in that class action. "Among working
Canadians, 0.9% reported being victims of sexual assault in any
situation. Why are the numbers almost five to ten times higher in
the military? How many victims must there be in order for Canada
to take action?"

The motions for certification, which will decide if the cases can
proceed as class actions will be heard in the Federal Court the
week of July 9, 2018.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms. Its
class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992
and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area. Koskie
Minsky LLP was counsel to the survivors of former residents of
Huronia Regional Centre and 14 other residential facilities for
people with disabilities against the Province of Ontario, wherein
the Province agreed to pay survivors over $103.6 million and to
provide an apology to former residents for the harm they
sustained. Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada,
the first Indian residential schools class action certified in
Canada, which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement.

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l., is an Ottawa-
based law firm specializing in labour/employment, human rights,
and public law, with involvement in class action litigation.
RavenLaw has extensive experience in addressing systemic gender-
based discrimination. The firm was counsel in the historic $3.2
billion pay equity win for federal public service employees, the
$150 million pay equity award against Canada Post at the Supreme
Court of Canada, and numerous other pay equity cases, including
most recently the $45 million pay equity settlement at Statistical
Survey Operations. RavenLaw has been appointed as amicus curiae by
the Supreme Court of Canada and has argued leading cases in the
area of human rights and constitutional law.

Wagners, based in Halifax, is a leading class actions firm in
Atlantic Canada and has been involved in class action litigation
on a local and national basis since 2004. Wagners acts as class
counsel representing plaintiffs in a diverse array of provincial
and national class actions involving pharmaceuticals, defective
medical devices, pathology errors, product liability, privacy
breaches, institutional abuse and environmental contamination. In
the realm of institutional abuse class actions, Wagners
successfully represented former residents of the Nova Scotia Home
for Colored Children concerning decades of abuse in a class action
that settled for $34 million. Wagners also currently represents
former students who suffered sexual, physical, and emotional abuse
while attending province-run Schools for the Deaf.

Quessy Henry St.-Hilaire, avocats, based in Quebec City, serves
diverse clientele in many practice areas, including insurance,
administrative law and corporate law. The cooperation and the
complementarity skills of the independent lawyers at Quessy Henry
St.-Hilaire, avocats allow clients to benefit from their
collective experience.

Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota LLP is a leading Victoria-based
personal injury and class action law firm. For more than 35 years,
Acheson Law has represented individuals who have been harmed by
motor vehicle collisions, slip and falls, medical negligence,
defective products, and rights violations. Lawyers from the firm
contributed to drafting the BC Class Procedures Act, and filed the
first two class action lawsuits in the province. The firm has
continually achieved top results for plaintiffs in individual and
class actions, including a $50,000,000 class action settlement for
persons injured by silicone gel breast implants, and a $13,000,000
individual settlement in 2012, which at that time was 1.5 times
the previous high for the province of British Columbia. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services.  The case is titled as Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital
Management Services LP, LVNV Funding LLC and Jone Does 1 to 25,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06204-SDW-LDW, (D.N.J., August
16, 2017).  The case is assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


CENTRAL FUMIGATION DEPARTMENT: Faces "Morales" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alfonso Ventura Morales, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Central
Fumigation Department, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and
Roberto Rivera, the Defendants, Case No. 60487145, (Fla. Cir.,
August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and or minimum
wages including liquidates damages, declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants Central Fumigation Department and its corporate officer
Roberto Rivera allegedly committed violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for unpaid wages.  The plaintiff's complaint states
that he was employed with the defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately 2012 through on or about February 2, 2016. The
defendants failed to compensate the plaintiff the required
overtime and or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times
the plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess
of forty hours within a single work week.

Plaintiff states that during his employment, he performed
approximate 50 hours of overtime for which the defendants failed
to pay.  An approximately $24,187.50 in unpaid unliquidated
overtime wages plus an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages is owed to the plaintiff. Further, the defendant never
posted any notice to inform the employees of their federal rights
to overtime and or minimum wages as required by the FLSA and
Federal law.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Rember, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


CITGO PETROLEUM: Settles TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------
An $8 million settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit claiming that CITGO Petroleum Corporation ("CITGO") sent
text messages to wireless telephone numbers without consent of the
recipients in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227.  CITGO denies the allegations in the
lawsuit and the Court has not decided who is right.

The Settlement includes all persons in the United States who
received one or more text messages sent by or on behalf of CITGO
in August, October and November 2016.

CITGO has agreed to pay $8 million to create a fund that will be
used to pay individuals who submit valid Claims, attorneys' fees,
a Service Award to the Class Representative, and costs and
expenses of the litigation. CITGO has also agreed to pay up to
$300,000 of Settlement Administration and Notice Administration
costs. The cash payments from the Settlement Fund will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class members who
submit a valid Claim. Only one Claim is allowed per Settlement
Class Member.

Class Members can get a payment by filing a Claim Form online at
www.citgoTCPAsettlement.com or downloading a Claim Form from the
Settlement website, completing it, and submitting it via email to
claimsubmission@citgoTCPAsettlement.com or by U.S. mail to the
Claims Administrator at CITGO TCPA Settlement Administrator, PO
Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967. You may also call the Claims
Administrator at 888-457-6608 to request a Claim Form. The
deadline to file a Claim online or via email is 11:59 p.m. CST on
December 14, 2017. If you send in a Claim Form by regular mail, it
must be postmarked on or before December 14, 2017.

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, must exclude themselves by October 30, 2017. Class
Members who do not exclude themselves, will release any claims
they may have, as more fully described in the Settlement
Agreement, available at the Settlement website. Class Members may
object to the Settlement by October 30, 2017, by timely and
strictly complying with the objection procedures detailed in the
Preliminary Approval Order. The Long Form Notice available at
www.citgoTCPAsettlement.com explains how to exclude or object. The
Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on November 29, 2017 to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and for a
Service Award of $5,000 to the Class Representative. Class Members
may appear at the hearing, either by themselves or through an
attorney, but don't have to. [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fernandez Sues over Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yves Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Galaxy
Portfolios LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv.06276-SDW-SCM, (D.N.J., August 19, 2017), contends that the
defendants' policy and practice to send written communication to
collect debt is false, deceptive, misleading, threatening, unfair
or unconscionable, and falsely represents the character or amount
of debt.  The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and expenses for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The class action stems from the financial obligation entered by
the Plaintiff with Washington Mutual which was purchased by Galaxy
and later referred to Convergent when the obligation was past due.
A letter was sent to the plaintiff in connection with the
collection of the WaMu obligation.  However, the letter did not
itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal,
interest, fees and other charges. Further, Convergent has not held
and did not obtain a license under authority of the New Jersey
Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Consumer Finance
Licensing Act authorizing it to make consumer loans, or to buy,
discount or endorse notes or receive interest. Galaxy is
prohibited from attempting to collect on the WaMu obligation since
it is without the appropriate license.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Waldrup Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Waldrup, Williams, Reaster and Murphy ask the Court to
certify for class treatment the action styled BARBARA WALDRUP,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08833-CAS-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), which is consolidated with ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, BECKIE
REASTER, REBECCA MURPHY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04166-CAS-AGR.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

Copies of the Notices of Motion in both cases are available at no
charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fITzClu8
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Um0N7PM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Evan Zucker, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  ezucker@baronbudd.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Koch Says Debt Collection Unlawful
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara A. Koch, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credence Resource Management LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01981-JSM-AEP, (M.D. Fla., August 21,
2017), seeks damages and to enjoin the defendant over alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff alleges the defendant utilized an automatic telephone
dialing system to place telephone calls to plaintiff's cellular
telephone number without consent, and engaged in conduct the
natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse the
plaintiff in connection with the collection of consumer debts.
Defendant did so by repeatedly dialing the plaintiff's cellular
telephone number for the purpose of attempting to collect a debt
that the plaintiff did not owe.  As a result of the violations of
the defendant, the plaintiff and other similarly situated
consumers are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.

Credence Resource Management is a debt collection company based in
Dallas, Texas.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     James L. Davidson, Esq.
     Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Telephone: (561) 826-5477
     Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
     Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
     Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
     Austin, TX 78701
     Telephone: (512) 322-3912
     Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Unlawfully Collects Debts, Dominguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Dominguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., Allgate
Financial LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06277-KSH-CLW, (D.N.J., August 19, 2017), seeks damages for the
defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The plaintiff entered into a financial obligation to GE Capital
which obligation was in default and purchased by Allgate
Financial.  Allgate Financial then referred the GE Capital
obligation to Credit Corp.  As a consequence, a letter of
collection was caused to be delivered to the plaintiff in
connection with the GE Capital debt.  However, the collection
letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by
principal, interest, fees and other charges.  Credit Corp also has
not held and did not obtain a license issued by the New Jersey
Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Department of
Banking and Insurance.

The complaint contends that the defendants' policy and practice to
send written communication is false, deceptive, misleading,
threatening, unfair or unconscionable and falsely represents the
character or amount of debt. The Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated consumers state they suffered damages and other harm as a
direct result of the defendants' actions, conduct, omissions and
violations of the FDCPA.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


CURLY'S FOODS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit With Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
KTiv reports that a settlement has been reached between a Sioux
City company, and its workers, who said the company didn't pay
them for the time it took to put on, and take off, their
protective clothing.

Court documents show Curly's Foods, and its parent company
Smithfield Foods, have agreed to pay $5,000 to each of the five
named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. The rest of the
$625,000 settlement is to be paid to another 460 class members,
who worked at the plant in the past, or work there now.

Curly's Foods Sioux City production facility produces cooked meats
for many national restaurants and grocery stores. [GN]


DELAWARE NORTH ISLANDIA: Faces "Sofia" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delaware North
Islandia Properties LLC.  The case is titled as Daniel M. Sofia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Delaware North Islandia Properties LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04898-ADS-AYS, (E.D.N.Y., August 21,
2017).  The case is assigned to Judge Arthur D. Spatt.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
     JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
     2501 Jody Court
     North Bellmore, NY 11710
     Telephone: (516) 783-9662
     Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
     Email: James@civilrightsNY.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Garnett Suit over Food Stamp Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Britain Eikin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
low-income residents sued the District of Columbia in a federal
class action in Washington, on August 28, claiming problems in its
food stamp program leave them hungry and without vital assistance
to feed their families.

Lead plaintiff Shonice Garnett, three others and safety-net
nonprofit Bread for the City say the District of Columbia's
Department of Human Services is slow to process applications, to
notify recipients when it's time to recertify their eligibility,
or to give them a hearing before revoking their benefits, all in
violation of federal law.

The Department of Human Services and its director Laura Zeilinger
oversee the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program aka SNAP, or food stamps.

Problems in administering the program were exacerbated when the
city rolled out a new computer program last year before conducting
a live pilot study, and despite warnings about the risks of doing
so, the complaint states.

In a March report this year, the Food and Nutrition Service at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the D.C. Human Services
about proceeding with the new system, saying it could result in
"reduced program access, worker backlogs, delayed application
processing, and untimely benefit issuance," according to the 30-
page lawsuit.

Chinh Q. Le, lead counsel with the Legal Aid Society in
Washington, said that's exactly what happened.

"We're finding that our clients are having to go to the agency
two, three, four, five times to straighten out issues," Le said in
an interview.

"They're getting the runaround because our clients are met with
long lines and confused workers who can't find their records,
saying that they either didn't apply or don't have a record of
their application."

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice in New York and
attorneys from Washington-based Hogan Lovells joined the Legal Aid
Society as co-counsel.

Under the new system, the time needed for Human Services to
process applications more than quadrupled, from 20 to 90 minutes.
The agency was late in processing nearly 70 percent of
applications between October and December last year. And more than
90 percent of the expedited applications for those in dire need
were approved late, according to the complaint.

According to federal law, eligible families and individuals should
get food stamps within 30 days of submitting their applications.
If benefits are reduced or eliminated, the city must notify
residents beforehand so they may reapply or appeal.

When benefits are improperly cut off or processed late, Le said,
his clients must find another way to squeak by.

"One of the challenges of even getting folks to step up and serve
as plaintiffs is that they have so many more pressing needs and
challenges to try to get food on the table for themselves and
their families," he said.

Some of the Legal Aid Society's clients are homeless and
unemployed, including lead plaintiff Garnett, who lives in a
shelter and has no income. She was told on July 26 that her
application had been received, but has not yet been able to get an
Electronic Benefit Transfer card, or EBT.

Le said people such as Garnett rely on food pantries when problems
arise with processing applications, but problems with the
district's food stamp program are stressing food pantries, too.

Bread for the City, which runs a food pantry program, saw a jump
in demand for its food distributions after the Department of Human
Services implemented the new system.

"Across all wards in the District, 38 percent more households
received emergency food packages from Bread during the period of
October 2016 through May 2017, as compared to the same period the
prior year," the lawsuit states.

Other D.C. residents, such as plaintiff Linda Murph, have part-
time jobs or supplemental income but must find ways to fill in the
gaps.

"I think oftentimes it's cutting into savings; it's borrowing from
family and friends. It's just being resourceful," Le said. "Our
clients are extremely resourceful, and they've made it as far as
they have because they know how to make ends meet despite the
challenges they face."

Murph reapplied for benefits in April, but Human Services has not
yet processed her application and she has not received food stamps
since May, according to the complaint.

The Food and Nutrition Service found that Human Services failed to
send denial notices in 67 percent of cases, the complaint states.

In a single week the system failed to generate nearly 1,400
notices: 12 percent of notices for that week. At the beginning of
July, a backlog of 1,750 notices needed to be sent out, the
complaint states. Three hundred of those notices were to inform
people such as plaintiff Tracey Ross of the need to recertify
their eligibility.

These problems are continuing, and Ross never received her notice
of expiration, which deprived her of the ability to recertify and
continue receiving benefits.

Le said Legal Aid Services and other advocacy groups have told
Human Services of the problems their clients face, and decided to
file the lawsuit after those efforts failed to produce change.
The legal group has testified before the D.C. City Council and
written a policy paper with the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute about
the challenges faced by the people they serve when dealing with
Human Services.

The group's relationship with the district has deteriorated,
according to Le, who said the district "hasn't been as forthcoming
and solicitous" of their concerns as it once was.

"My hope for this lawsuit is that the district will not spend a
whole lot of time challenging it, but will instead try to work
with us to come to a solution that will help all the residents of
D.C.," Le said.

The Department of Human Services could not be reached for comment
after business hours on August 28.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case is captioned, SHONICE G. GARNETT, 810 5th Street NW, 4th
Floor, Washington, DC 20001, RICHARD MESSICK, JR., 1665 Lamont
Street NW, Apt 4, Washington, DC 20010, LINDA MURPH, 1006 47th
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019, TRACEY ROSS, 4309 3rd Street SE,
Apt 302, Washington, DC 20032, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and BREAD FOR THE CITY, 1525 7th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20001, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA ZEILINGER, in her
official capacity as Director of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, c/o DC Office of the Attorney
General 441 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Defendant, Case
1:17-cv-01757(D.D.C., August 28, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Chinh Q. Le, Esq.
     Jennifer Mezey, Esq.
     Chelsea Sharon, Esq.
     LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
     1331 H Street NW, Suite 350
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: 202-628-1161
     Fax: 202-727-2132
     E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org
             jmezey@legalaiddc.org
             csharon@legalaiddc.org

          - and -

     Marc Cohan, Esq.
     Mary R. Mannix, Esq.
     Travis W. England, Esq.
     Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
     NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
     275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: 212-633-6967
     Fax: 212-633-6371
     E-mail: cohan@nclej.org

          - and -

     Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
     Lance Y. Murashige, Esq.
     Emily Goldman, Esq.
     HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
     555 13th Street NW
     Washington, DC 20004
     Tel: 202-637-5600
     Fax: 202-637-5910
     E-mail: peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Garnett Seeks Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Individually Named Plaintiffs Shonice G. Garnett, Richard Messick,
Jr., Linda Murph, and Tracey Ross of the lawsuit captioned SHONICE
G. GARNETT, et al. v. LAURA ZEILINGER, Case No. 1:17-cv-01757
(D.D.C.), move for certification of two classes:

   1. All District of Columbia residents, since June 1, 2016:
      (1) who have applied, are applying, or will apply for SNAP
      benefits through an initial or recertification application;
      and (2) who have had or will have the processing of such
      application delayed beyond the timeframes mandated by law.

   2. All District of Columbia SNAP recipients, since June 1,
      2016: (1) who have been or will be required to submit a
      recertification application to maintain SNAP benefits;
      (2) as to whom Defendant has failed or will fail to issue
      notice of the need to recertify; and (3) who have been or
      will be terminated from participation in SNAP due to
      Defendant's failure to issue such notice.

Laura Zeilinger is the Director of the Department of Human
Services for the District of Columbia.

The Named Plaintiffs also ask that they be appointed Class
representatives as follows: Shonice G. Garnett, Richard Messick,
Jr., and Linda Murph for Class One; and Tracey Ross for Class Two.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ESpEvfN4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chinh Q. Le, Esq.
          Jennifer Mezey, Esq.
          Chelsea Sharon, Esq.
          LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          1331 H Street NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1161
          Facsimile: (202) 727-2132
          E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org
                  jmezey@legalaiddc.org
                  csharon@legalaiddc.org

               - and -

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          Mary R. Mannix, Esq.
          Travis W. England, Esq.
          Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
          E-mail: cohan@nclej.org
                  mannix@nclej.org
                  deabler@nclej.org.

               - and -

          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          Lance Y. Murashige, Esq.
          Emily Goldman, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com
                  lance.murashige@hoganlovells.com
                  emily.goldman@hoganlovells.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Siddiqi's Bid to Certify Entered and Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 28, 2017, in the case
styled Shabib Siddiqi v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06126 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification entered and
      continued generally; and

   -- Notice of motion date of August 29, 2017, is stricken and
      no appearances are necessary on that date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=atBBLx1k


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tachera Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tachera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02200-JAD-PAL, (D. Nev., August 17,
2017), seeks damages for the defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
Nevada consumers brings the class suit for the defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.  According to the
complaint, Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act arose from the plaintiff's Spring debt obligation
which the defendant collects and attempts to collect with the use
of false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of the debt.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert M. Tzall, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M. TZALL
     7735 Commercial Way, Suite 100
     Henderson, NV 89011
     Telephone: (702) 666-0233
     Email: robert@tzalllegal.com

          - and -

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (732) 695-3282
     Facsimile: (732) 298-6253
     Email: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
     Website: www.MarcusZelman.com


ENVOY AIR: Schroeder' Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald has taken under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned K. Schroeder v. Envoy Air, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04911-
MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.).

According to the civil minutes, the Court has heard oral argument
from counsel and taken the matter under submission.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS AND RUBLE
          655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. McGuinness, Esq.
          Andrew Lichtenstein, Esq.
          O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: mmcguinness@omm.com
                  alichtenstein@omm.com


EQUIFAX: 2 Oregon Residents File Class Action Over Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for Oregon Live, reports that  two
Oregon residents have filed a class-action suit against the
consumer credit reporting agency Equifax on the same day it
announced that hackers had gained access to its company data and
potentially compromised sensitive information from more than 140
million people.

Mary McHill, of Portland, and Brook Reinhard, of Eugene, filed the
suit late  September 8, contending the Atlanta-based company was
negligent in failing to adequately protect their credit and
personal information, including their social security numbers,
birth dates, home addresses, driver's license information and
credit card numbers.

The complaint contends the company should have spent the money
necessary to protect against cyberattacks but failed to use
adequate safeguards to protect their consumers' personal
information. The suit seeks compensation to ensure every consumer
harmed by the data breach will not suffer losses for the cost of
repairing and monitoring their credit.

Attorneys for McHill and Reinhard estimate that about half of
Oregon's population -- or 2.9 million people -- were impacted by
Equifax data breach, based on Equifax' consumer database.

The plaintiffs want the company to account for how their personal
information was accessed, and a court order requiring Equifax to
preserve all documents and information pertinent to this case.


The lawsuit was filed late September 8  in U.S. District Court in
Portland by attorney Michael Fuller, the same day Equifax alerted
its customers to the significant breach.

The company announced that "criminals'' exploited a U.S. website
to access files between mid-May and July of this year, obtaining
consumers' names, social security numbers, dates of birth,
addresses, and in some cases, drivers' license numbers.

Equifax discovered the hack July 29, but waited until  September 8
to warn consumers. The company declined to comment on that delay
or anything else beyond its published statement, according to The
Associated Press. It's not unusual for U.S. authorities to ask a
company hit in a major hack to delay public notice so that
investigators can pursue the perpetrators.

"This is clearly a disappointing event for our company, and one
that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we do," said
Richard Smith, Equifax chief executive officer, in a statement on
September 8. "I apologize to consumers and our business customers
for the concern and frustration this causes."

The company provided a website for consumers to check if their
information was compromised, but Fuller cautioned users that their
access of the site could prevent them from taking the company to
court as the terms and conditions for the site's use suggest
consumers must agree to arbitration. [GN]


EQUIFAX: AG Schneiderman Issues Statement on Arbitration Clause
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following conversations with the Attorney General's office,
Equifax has updated the language on its website to make explicitly
clear that no consumer will be required to waive his/her legal
right to a class action lawsuit as a condition for enrolling in
the company's free credit monitoring and identify theft protection
products.

The language on Equifax's website has been updated to the
following:

To confirm, enrolling in the free credit file monitoring and
identity theft protection products that Equifax is offering as
part of this cybersecurity incident does not prohibit consumers
from taking legal action.  Equifax has already removed that
language from the Terms of Use on the site.

The Terms of Use on http://www.equifax.comdo not apply to the
TrustedID Premier product being offered to consumers as a result
of the cybersecurity incident.  Again, to be as clear as possible,
Equifax will not apply any arbitration clause or class action
waiver against consumers for claims related to the free products
offered in response to the cybersecurity incident or for claims
related to the cybersecurity incident itself.

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said, "The Equifax breach
potentially exposed sensitive personal information for over eight
million New Yorkers.  The victims of this breach shouldn't also
have to worry that they've waived their legal rights simply
because they were trying to protect themselves.  That's why my
office reached out to Equifax last week about the terms of use.
We'll continue to keep a close eye on the situation, as we get to
the bottom of how and why this massive hack occurred."

Attorney General Schneiderman announced that his office launched a
formal investigation into the breach, and issued a number of
consumer alerts to protect those impacted.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hadjimarkos" Suit in W. Dist. of Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Sarah Brown Hadjimarkos, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00695 (W.D. Wis., September 11,
2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Marco, Esq.
   Smith Marco, PC
   55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 361-1690
   Fax: (888) 418-1277
   Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bahnmaier" Suit in N.D. of Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc.  The
case is styled as Mikayla Dawn Bahnmaier, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00512-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla.,
September 11, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua D Wells, Esq.
   Federman& Sherwood
   10205 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE
   OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: jdw@federmanlaw.com

      - and -

   William Bernard Federman, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   10205 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE
   OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cole" Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Philip Cole, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-11712 (D. Mass., September 11, 2017).
Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
   Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C.
   99 High Street, Suite 304
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 338-9400
   Fax: (617) 507-3456
   Email: nfo@mass-legal.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Veytsman" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstSource
Advantage, LLC.  The case is styled as Arthur Veytsman, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FirstSource Advantage, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06215-
JSR, (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge
Jed S. Rakoff.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salim Katach, Esq.
     MOULINOS AND ASSOCIATES
     150 East 58th Street
     New York, NY 10155
     Telephone: (347) 415-2711
     Email: skatach@svhllp.com


FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Overtime Pay Miscalculated, Preston et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Preston, Eric, Davis, Joseph Patterson, John Rando, Jason
Tatarewitz and Ronnie D. Barrett, Jr., for themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-02184-TLW, (D. S.C., August 16,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.  The complaint also alleges breach of contract in violation
of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs raised their concerns
about the incorrect calculation of their overtime pay and/or non-
payment for overtime hours worked by the defendant.  The suit says
the plaintiffs were intimidated and coerced to continue working
under the unlawful conditions, and the miscalculations of their
overtime pay continued.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees of the defendant alleges that they are entitled to back
wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times the regular rate for
all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant
to the provision of the FLSA.  The regular hourly rate or overtime
rate was wrongfully excluded by the defendant in calculating their
compensable income.  Further, the defendant required the
plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work "off the
clock" and did not pay all service rendered for the benefit of the
defendant.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
     GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
     3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
     Columbia, SC  29204
     Telephone: (803) 790-8838
     Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
     Email: agaffney@glelawfirm.com

          - and -

     David B. Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
     William E. Applegate, IV, Esq.
     Christopher J. Bryant, Esq.
     YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE LLC
     291 East Bay Street
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Telephone: (843) 972-0150
     Facsimile: (843) 277-6691
     Email: david@yarboroughapplegate.com
     Email: william@yarboroughapplegate.com
     Email: chris@yarboroughapplegate.com


FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Emissions Defect Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Detroit, ruled on August 15, that Ford must face
a class-action claim that it was aware of defects in its
evaporative emissions-control systems that caused vehicles to
stall while in motion, but dismissed other claims against the auto
giant.

Ford moved to dismiss the federal class action filed against by
lead plaintiff Jon Rivera, who alleges the company knowingly sold
him a defective 2013 Ford Focus SE.

On August 15, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith dismissed
Rivera's claims of breach of express warranty, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and
fraud.

However, the judge allowed his claim for violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA, to proceed.

Rivera purchased the vehicle, brand new, from a Ford dealer in
Florida in 2013 and says he began to experience problems
approximately three and a half years later.

"Rivera began experiencing erratic idling in his vehicle. This
issue worsened; in one incident, the vehicle began to stall while
traveling 50 miles per hour. Rivera also noticed that the
vehicle's fuel gauge was erratic, with fuel levels changing from a
quarter tank full to three-quarters full in an instant," the
ruling states.

He claims he took the car to a Ford technician who told him he
needed to replace the car's fuel vapor valve, fuel tank and fuel
pump, with a repair quote of more than $1,900.

The dealership allegedly told Rivera that it was aware of the
problem with the Ford Focus' evaporative emissions-control system,
or EVAP, but that any repairs would not be covered under the
factory warranty.

The EVAP system is designed specifically to limit fuel emissions
produced in the fuel tank from being released into the atmosphere.
Vapors emitted from a vehicle's fuel tank are sent to a canister
containing charcoal that absorbs the fuel for storage purposes.
When the car is running, those fuel vapors are funneled to the
engine to be purged and therefore prevented from being released
into the atmosphere.

The car's purge valve is at the center of the dispute. The valve
regulates how much fuel vapor enters the engine by opening or
closing, controlled by an electronically operated solenoid. The
solenoid, or cylindrical wire coil, opens the purge valve when the
vehicle is running and completely warmed up but shuts when the
engine is off, meaning no fuel vapors should penetrate the engine.

"When the purge valve becomes stuck in the open position, like
with Rivera's and the rest of the putative class members'
vehicles, suction is created when the vehicle's engine is
running," according to Judge Goldsmith's opinion. "As a result, in
addition to fuel vapors, raw fuel is sucked through the EVAP
canister, through the purge valve, and directly into the engine.
This raw fuel causes the engines in the class vehicles to abruptly
hesitate and stall while driving."

Rivera filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
others in a proposed class of owners of 2012 to 2015 Ford Focus
vehicles allegedly sold with the defective systems.

He says that, like him, other members have reported loss of engine
power when traveling over 45 miles per hour. He argues Ford
technicians have said the defective valve has also caused fuel
tanks to collapse due to raw fuel leaving the tank rapidly.

Judge Goldsmith agreed with Rivera's claim that Ford's alleged
omission about the defective purge valve misled customers, finding
he has sufficiently pleaded a claim under the FDUTPA.

"In his complaint, Rivera alleges that Ford knew of the defect
through a combination of records of consumer complaints,
dealership repair records, [National Highway Safety and Traffic
Safety Administration] records, warranty and postwarranty claims,
and [Technical Service Bulletins]. Courts have held that a
manufacturer's knowledge of a latent defect may be inferred when
such complaints and records exist," Goldsmith wrote in the 19-page
ruling.

But the judge also found that Rivera's warranty claim fails
because the terms of Ford's express warranty were not
"substantively unconscionable."

"Rivera's claim of procedural unconscionability rests on whether
Ford had presale knowledge of the defective purge valve,"
Goldsmith said. "Even assuming presale knowledge was sufficiently
pleaded, such knowledge, standing alone, is insufficient to
establish procedural unconscionability."

Judge Goldsmith also dismissed Rivera's unjust enrichment claim
because it was based on the express warranty.

In addition, "The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
did not apply to override the terms of the warranty to require
Ford to make repairs to Rivera's vehicle in October 2016, three
years and five months after he purchased his vehicle," he wrote.

Goldsmith dismissed Rivera's fraud claims as well.

"Rivera does not make any allegations that Ford disclosed certain
facts regarding the EVAP system at any time before, during, or
after the sale. As a result, Ford only had a duty to disclose the
defect with the EVAP system if it was a fiduciary or in another
relationship of trust or confidence with Rivera," the judge wrote.
"Because there was no duty to disclose, Rivera has not pleaded a
claim of fraud under Florida law."

Leaving Rivera's FDUTPA claim against the auto giant intact,
Goldsmith noted that Rivera sufficiently pleaded Ford's knowledge
of the defective EVAP system at the time of sale.

Ford did not immediately respond on August 16, to an email request
for comment on the ruling.


FRONTLINE ASSET: Collection Practices Unfair, "Ferreira" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jader Ferreira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frontline Asset Strategies LLC, LVNV
Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06278-JLL-JAD, (D.N.J., August 20, 2017), seeks damages and
declaratory relief arising from defendants' alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff entered into a financial obligation to Credit One which
was purchased by LVNV and the obligation was in default.  LVNV
referred the Credit One obligation to Frontline for purposes of
collections and a letter was sent to plaintiff in connection with
the collection of the Credit One obligation.  The alleged letter
did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal,
interest, fees and other charges. The alleged letter did not
itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal,
interest, fees and other charges. Further, Frontline has not held
and did not obtain a license under authority of the New Jersey
Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Department of
Banking and Insurance.  Without the required license, LVNV was
prohibited from attempting to collect on the Credit One
obligation.  The complaint contends that the defendants' policy
and practice to send written communication is false, deceptive,
misleading, threatening, unfair or unconscionable and falsely
represents the character or amount of debt. The Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated consumers suffered damages and other harm
as a direct result of the defendants actions, conduct, omissions
and violations of the FDCPA.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


FUTURE INCOME: Faces "Underwood" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Income
Payments, LLC. The case is styled as John Underwood, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Future
Income Payments, LLC, Pensions, Annuities and Settlements, LLC,
Cash Flow Investment Partners, LLC and Scott A. Kohn, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01570 (C.D. Cal., September 11, 2017).

Future Income Payments, LLC leads the country in creative pension
advance options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey R Krinsk, Esq.
   Finkelstein &Krinsk LLP
   501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
   San Diego, CA 92101-3593
   Tel: (619) 238-1333
   Fax: (619) 238-5425
   Email: jrk@classactionlaw.com


GALIZ RESEARCH: Violates Labor Laws, "Gomez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Reinaldo Pinero Gomez, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Galiz
Research, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and LUIS
PEDRAZA, the Defendants, Case No. 60485565, (Fla. Cir., August 16,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and or minimum wages
including liquidated damages.

Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt research coordinator with
defendant from approximately August 16, 2016 through on or about
May 12, 2017.  He seeks to recover unpaid wages accumulated from
the date of hire. The complaint states that the defendants failed
to compensate the plaintiff the required overtime and or minimum
wages at a rate of one and a half times the regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a single work
week.  From on or about July or August 16, 2016 through on or
about May 12, 2017, the defendant owed to the plaintiff
approximately $4,560 in unpaid unliquidated overtime wages plus an
additional amount for the liquidated damages, totaling to $9,120.

The Complaint says the Plaintiff and defendants were engaged in an
implied agreement whereby the plaintiff would be employed by the
defendants and that plaintiff would be properly paid as provided
and not in violation of the laws of the United States and the
State of Florida.  However, the defendants failed to compensate
the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the
defendant the required overtime and or minimum wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Rember, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


GRANT COUNTY, IN: Timbs Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TYSON TIMBS, on his own
behalf, and on behalf of a Class of those similarly situated v.
THE GRANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JAMES LUTTRULL, in his official
capacity and individual capacity, THE GRANT COUNTY SHERRIFF,
REGGIE NEVELS, in his official capacity and individual capacity,
and THE MARION POLICE CHIEF, ANGELA HALEY in her official capacity
and individual capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-00372-TLS-SLC (N.D.
Ind.), asks the Court to certify the proposed class defined as:

     All persons who own automobiles that are being held pursuant
     to Indiana Code Section 34-24-1-1(a)(1), by the Grant County
     Prosecutor's Office, the Grant County Sherriff, the Marion
     Police Department, or any agent of those entities.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FeTc7Aoe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Cardella, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA, LLC
          333 N. Alabama St. # 357
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 695-7700
          Facsimile: (317) 454-1334
          E-mail: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com


H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & M Hennes &
Mauritz L.P.  The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-06100-PAE, (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2017).  The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  The
case is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
     630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
     Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE: Rangel and Romano Sue over ERISA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS A. RANGEL, and ANTHONY ROMANO, individually and on behalf
of a class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE FUND, BRUCE WERNING, DAVID FOY, DAVID
ARGUBRIGHT, STEVEN TONDI, GREG MULHERIN and DANIEL F. AUSSEM, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-50244, (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2017),
seeks to redress fiduciary violations of the defendants in
violation of a Trust Agreement and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

Plaintiffs are participants in the Heartland Healthcare Fund and
both are employees of Raynor Garage Door.  Heartland Healthcare
Fund receives contributions from employers and employees by way of
Collective Bargaining Agreements negotiated by union with
individual employers and Employer Associations. Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated members of the Employer Associations
assign their rights to the Employer Associations to represent
their interests in collective bargaining with the Union.  The
Union is divided into three regions which are the Central, Western
and Southern.  Members of the Union in the Western Region such as
the plaintiffs can work for any employer that has a CBA with the
Union and once the member establishes initial eligibility with the
Fund is entitled to participate in the Fund and receive benefits
provided that the contributing employer is covered by a CBA that
allows for contributions to the Fund.

Initially, the minimum contribution rate or required contribution
rate is $1,150 to achieve eligibility. However, in January of
2017, the Trustees created shop required contribution and non-shop
required contribution categories. Raynor Garage Door where the
plaintiffs work is categorized as shop required contribution. The
defendants have set four required contribution amounts for Raynor
Garage Door employees in 2017 based on the annual review and have
threatened to set a higher required contribution amount within
five months on or before January 1, 2018.  But, the Trust
Agreement provides that it cannot be amended in any which would
conflict with any CBA that set contributions to the Fund.

Common questions for the class suit includes whether or not the
defendants violate the terms of the Trust Agreement by charging
Raynor Garage Door employees a higher required contribution,
whether or not the Trustee breach their fiduciary duties by
charging employees of Raynor Garage Door a higher required
contribution in contrary to the Trust Agreement and whether or not
the Fund misappropriate the additional contribution amounts paid
by Raynor Garage Door employees.

Heartland Healthcare Fund is a multi-employer welfare fund that
receives contributions pursuant to collective bargaining
agreements negotiated by the Chicago Regional Council of
Carpenters with various individual employers and employer
associations.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raymond J. Sanguinetti, Esq.
     RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC
     300 East Roosevelt Road, Suite 300
     Wheaton, IL 60187
     Telephone: (630) 668-8500


HOUSTON, TX: Law Against Homeless Blocked Temporarily
-----------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Houston ordinance that bars homeless people from sleeping
in tents on public property may violate their rights against cruel
and unusual punishment, a federal judge in Houston, ruled on
August 22, blocking the law with a temporary restraining order.

Though people found in violation of the public-camping ban can be
arrested and fined up to $500, Houston police have issued only 20
citations since the law took effect in May.

HPD has advised its officers not to arrest or ticket anyone unless
they've been offered a bed at a homeless shelter and declined or
not responded to that offer.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class action
the day after the ordinance went on the books, claiming the law
unconstitutionally targets the homeless.

The law prohibits homeless people from setting up tents or
temporary shelters in public places, from using camp stoves or
grills, and from keeping more personal property than could fit in
a container 3 feet high, 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep, though most
medical equipment is exempt.

HPD officers recently cited several people living in a camp under
a highway overpass near downtown, called the Wheeler encampment,
warning them that they could be ticketed and arrested if they
don't stop camping there, which moved the ACLU to file an
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 17.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt sided with the ACLU on August 22
and temporarily blocked the ordinance.

"Criminalizing the status of an individual has long been
prohibited by the Constitution. Simply because the behavior of a
person is considered undesirable, yet harmless, does not license
the government to criminalize and/or punish such behavior," he
wrote.

Marc Eichenbaum is Houston's point man for its homeless outreach
programs. He said in an affidavit that through collaboration with
more than 100 organizations, Houston has housed more than 11,000
homeless people in less than six years.

"One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Eugene Stroman signed a
lease to his apartment a little over a week ago. The city's goal
is to try to help as many of the homeless people of Houston to get
off the dirt and under a roof -- to find housing," Eichenbaum said
in the Aug. 18 affidavit.

Stroman is one of three lead plaintiffs. He was living with his
wife in a Houston homeless camp in May and making a few bucks
repairing bikes with spare parts he kept next to his tent,
according to the class action.

Eichenbaum said the city has spent thousands of dollars cleaning
up the Wheeler encampment and another camp under the same freeway
near the Houston Astros' Minute Maid Park, and has collected 16
tons of "waste" at the sites.

"As there is no running water or toilet facilities in this area,
the homeless use buckets and sometime defecate in these areas,"
his filing states.

Eichenbaum emphasized the ban is focused on homeless people living
in tents because trash accumulates and attracts rats in their
encampments.

"The ordinance does not prohibit people from sleeping on the
streets. It does not prohibit people from having blankets or
sleeping bags to shelter themselves from the elements," his
affidavit states.

Eichenbaum said the city has even offered to store people's
things, without charge, while they stay in shelters, which only
let people bring in a minimal amount of personal property due to a
lack of space.

The Star of Hope runs a 320-bed men's shelter and a 274-bed
shelter for single women, mothers and children in Houston.  Its
public relations director Scott Arthur said its shelters have been
full for the last two years with people sometimes sleeping on the
floor.

Founded by a Baptist minister in 1907, the Star of Hope welcome
homeless people who have never been to their shelters at all
hours, Arthur said, but it enforces a strict schedule for
returnees.

"If they've been in our shelter they know that we do have a
schedule where they have to be in the shelters by 1 p.m. in the
afternoon, they have to get a bed ticket around 8 a.m., they know
the process," he said an interview.

The Salvation Army runs three homeless shelters in Houston: A
men's shelter that can house 136 men, a women's shelter that
accepts 20 women each day starting at 3 p.m. on a first-come
first-serve basis, and a family shelter that puts families in
rooms, none of which are available right now.

The Salvation Army doesn't let people sleep on the floor in its
Houston shelters, its employees said.

The Star of Hope and Salvation Army confirmed the ACLU's claims
that their five Houston emergency shelters are usually full,
leaving some with no choice but to sleep on the streets.

Judge Hoyt said in his order that an injunction is needed to stop
the city from ticketing people just because they are homeless.

"The evidence is conclusive that they are involuntarily in public,
harmlessly attempting to shelter themselves -- an act they cannot
realistically forgo, and that is integral to their status as
unsheltered homeless individuals. Enforcement of the city's ban
against the plaintiffs may, therefore, cause them irreparable harm
by violating their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment due to their status of 'homelessness,'" he
wrote in the five-page order.

Stroman called the injunction "a good thing" in a statement
released on August 22, by the ACLU.

"We're not hurting anybody. We're just out here trying to survive
without being harassed by the police. You shouldn't be able to
arrest someone for being somewhere when they have no place else to
go," he said.

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the city is disappointed with
the temporary injunction, but hopeful Hoyt will recognize that the
ordinance is in the city's best interest.

"The intent of the ordinance is to take our most vulnerable
Houstonians from the streets and place them in permanent
supportive housing. I think we can all agree that no one deserves
to live in an environment that has been deemed a public health
hazard. It is our hope that the court will ultimately conclude
that the city of Houston has the right to manage public space by
regulating what can be erected there," he said in a statement.


ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Rutherford" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SAMUEK RUTHERFORD v. JAMES
DIMAS, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04194-JES (C.D. Ill.), moves for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.

James T. Dimas is the secretary of the Department of Human
Services in the state of Illinois.

Mr. Rutherford contends that he is also seeking certification of
recently filed identical complaints regarding the totality of
facts, circumstances and constitutional violations associated with
the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (from
prosecution to conditions of imprisonment).  The cases have been
filed in the District Court by civil detainees held by the
Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and
Detention Facility, all of which assert the same claims and
defendants.  He asserts that there are approximately 150-200
additional Rushville TDF residents intending to file a complaint
depending on scanner availability.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9AfudAN5


ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Sundling" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH SUNDLING v. JAMES
DIMAS, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04224-JES (C.D. Ill.), moves for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.

James T. Dimas is the secretary of the Department of Human
Services in the state of Illinois.

Mr. Sundling contends that he is also seeking certification of
recently filed identical complaints regarding the totality of
facts, circumstances and constitutional violations associated with
the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (from
prosecution to conditions of imprisonment).  The cases have been
filed in the District Court by civil detainees held by the
Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and
Detention Facility, all of which assert the same claims and
defendants.  He asserts that there are approximately 150-200
additional Rushville TDF residents intending to file a complaint
depending on scanner availability.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n3wYa5nV


INDIANA: Judge Says Civil Forfeiture of Vehicles Illegal
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
though Attorney General Jeff Sessions is increasing use of civil
forfeiture to seize money and property from people not convicted
of a crime, a federal judge in Indianapolis, ruled that Indiana's
law on seizure and forfeiture of vehicles is unconstitutional
because it violates due process.

"We plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures," Sessions
said on July 17. "No criminal should be allowed to keep the
proceeds of their crime."

Civil forfeitures, however, allow the government to take money and
property from people who have not been convicted of a crime, or
even charged with one.

In the Indiana case, Indianapolis police arrested Leroy Washington
in September 2016 and charged him with selling marijuana. They
towed his car and held it for forfeiture.

In November that year, Washington demanded the return of his car
and filed a federal class action against the police, the mayor and
the county prosecutor. He challenged the constitutionality of the
Indiana law that allows police to seize and hold a vehicle for
three to six months without a hearing or judicial oversight.

Indianapolis officials argued that "the Constitution does not
require any procedure prior to the actual forfeiture proceeding."

But on Aug. 18, Chief U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
granted Washington summary judgment, finding that the Indiana law
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments,
and enjoined the state from enforcing it.

Washington has regained possession of his car, but Magnus-Stinson
found him a proper representative of the class because he "has
continued to diligently pursue this case."  She certified the
class and ruled that the case is not moot due to Washington's
reclamation of the vehicle.

"Defendants have not indicated any intention to cease enforcement
of the statute, and defendants do not dispute that 169 vehicles
have been seized for forfeiture between Nov. 2, 2016 and Feb. 13,
2017," Magnus-Stinson wrote.

She noted that the statute does not allow the vehicle owner to
claim the property via replevin.

"It is evident to this court that a three- to six-month
deprivation is a lengthy one, and could cause significant hardship
to the individual whose vehicle is seized," the judge wrote.

She added that the lack of an interim remedy, such as retrieval of
the vehicle after posting bond, "particularly burdens individuals
who lack the financial resources to secure another vehicle during
the pendency of proceedings, or who are unable to access reliable
public transportation."

Magnus-Stinson stated that "robust procedural safeguards" are
important due to the government's "direct pecuniary interest" in
the result of forfeiture proceedings.

"The property may be sold in a public sale, with the proceeds
divided, pursuant to the statute, between the seizing law
enforcement agency and the common school fund," she ruled.

In granting a permanent injunction, Magnus-Stinson said, "this
court will not attempt a constitutional rewrite of the statute."


INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Faces "Young" Suit over Homeless' Rights
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Maurice Young, on his own behalf and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of
Indianapolis, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02818-TWP-MJD, (S.D.
Ind., August 17, 2017), stems from the recent emergency
declaration of the City of Indianapolis prohibiting the homeless
persons such as the plaintiff to stand on the public sidewalks
that go under the bridges.  Homeless persons could not sleep, sit,
stand or even stop under the four overpasses. However, the non-
homeless persons are allowed to congregate under the bridges
without restriction.  The complaint says the declared emergency
violates due process clause and equal protection clauses of the
United States Constitution.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
     Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
     Jan P. Mensz, Esq.
     ACLU of INDIANA
     11031 E. Washington St.
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Telephone: (317) 635-4059
     Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
     Email: kfalk@aclu-in.org
     Email: grose@aclu-in.org
     Email: jmensz@aclu-in.org


                          *     *     *

Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a homeless man represented by the American Civil Liberties
Union sued Indianapolis on August 17, over the city's recent
declaration of an emergency and prohibition on lying on the public
sidewalk or congregating under certain underpasses.

On Aug. 4, the city of Indianapolis allegedly distributed a notice
around the city and under four underpasses where homeless people
tend to congregate declaring an emergency.

The notice also stated that all belongings had to be cleared from
the underpasses within four days, according to a lawsuit filed on
August 17, in Indianapolis federal court by lead plaintiff Maurice
Young.

Approximately 67 homeless people regularly slept under these
underpasses, the complaint states, until city personnel physically
removed them and their possessions on Aug. 8.

Since then, Indianapolis police officers have allegedly informed
homeless persons standing or sitting under the subject overpasses
that they are not allowed to congregate there due to the declared
emergency.

Young, a homeless man, says he was told by police that he could
not sit under the railroad bridges, but claims that other non-
homeless persons have congregated under the same overpasses
without police interference.

His class-action lawsuit alleges that the homeless ban violates
the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution. He is represented by attorneys with the ACLU of
Indiana.

"Maurice Young, who is frequently in the Indianapolis downtown
area, would like to be able to stand or sit on these sidewalks,
without in any way obstructing pedestrian or other traffic, to
rest and obtain shelter from the elements," the complaint states.

Young asserts that the city's use of the term "emergency" is so
vague that it cannot support the infringement of homeless persons'
right to sit or stand on public city sidewalks.

"He is now prohibited from doing so inasmuch as the City of
Indianapolis has prohibited homeless persons from even stopping in
these areas because of its declaration of an emergency," the
complaint continues.

Young is represented by Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose and Jan Mensz
with the ACLU of Indiana.

A spokesperson for the city of Indianapolis did not immediately
respond on August 17, to an email request for comment sent after
business hours.

The ACLU's Falk said in a statement that, "The Supreme Court has
repeatedly invalidated attempts to prohibit persons from gathering
for innocent purposes."

"The right to do so does not depend on a person's housing status.
The Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the
law," he said.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces "Alatortev" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class suit has been filed against Jetblue Airways Corp.  The
case is titled as Igor A. Alatortev, individually and on behalf of
a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jetblue
Airways Corp., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-04859-WHO, (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2017).  The case is
assigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Raymond Ongaro, Esq
     ONGARO PC
     50 California Street, Suite 3325
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 433-3900
     Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
     Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com


KREISLER MANUFACTURING: Bid to Dismiss "Kahn" Granted
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ALAN KAHN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. STERN,
EDWARD A. STERN, JOSEPH P. DALY, JOHN W. POLING and JEFFREY P.
BACHER, Defendants, C.A. No. 12498-VCG (Del. Ch.), arises from the
sale of a small aerospace manufacturing company, Kreisler
Manufacturing Corporation, and purported insider side-deals in
connection with the sale, along with alleged disclosure
deficiencies to stockholders regarding the sales process.

Plaintiff, Alan Kahn, a stockholder of the Company, initiated the
action via a Verified Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff did
not seek to block the Merger or request any other emergency or
expedited relief.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complain.  The Plaintiff then filed a Verified Amended Class
Action Complaint. The Defendants again moved to dismiss.

The Complaint pleads one count against all the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty. The Complaint states three grounds for
its sole count. First, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly engineering and/or
approving a sales process designed to benefit the particular
selfish interests of Company insiders rather than engage in an
open process reasonably designed to maximize stockholder value.
Next, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by knowingly competing for merger consideration
or permitting other insiders to compete for merger consideration
by securing or approving lucrative deals for Micheal Stern and
Edward Stern, all of which resulted in a lower Merger price.
Finally, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by knowingly withholding and/or [misrepresenting]
material information from stockholders.

Plaintiff argues that Daly is not independent with regard to the
Merger, such that he was unable to bring his business judgment to
bear on behalf of the Company, that argument is unavailing as
well. In order to successfully plead a lack of independence, a
Plaintiff must plead facts that, if true, overcome the presumption
of a director's faithfulness to her fiduciary duties.

The Court of Chancery of Delaware finds the Complaint lacking and
fails to raise a reasonable doubt that Daly was unable to
objectively make a business decision concerning the Merger. While
the Complaint states that "Daly was not considered independent
[presumably by his fellow directors] for purposes of the
Merger,"114that is simply a conclusion asserted in the Complaint
devoid of any factual support.

The Plaintiff asserts in briefing that in approving the Merger the
Board took action that lacked rational corporate purpose and
should be deemed to be the product of bad faith.  The Complaint
falls short of pleading facts with respect to Edward's benefits,
however, the Court said.  Necessary details to reach the
Plaintiff's desired inference, that no good-faith ground existed
to approve the Merger with these benefits included, are wholly
lacking. Such a pleading would include, for example, details about
the nature and materiality of the benefits provided to Edward
Stern in his amended Employment Agreement.

The Complaint simply states he obtained better benefits upon his
desired termination. Without more, I cannot infer that the
benefits were unearned, material in light of the merger
consideration, or otherwise were so far beyond the bounds of
reasonable judgment that it seems essentially inexplicable on any
ground other than bad faith.

The Court finds that the facts pled in regard to the Side Deals
fail to rise to such a level that it may reasonably infer bad
faith on the part of the majority of the Director Defendants in
approving the Merger.

The Plaintiff argues that, despite the elaborate explanation of
the Side Deals described above, the Information Statement omits
the why, that is, the business purpose for the Side Deals, and
omits the play-by-play of the negotiation of the Side Deals. Such
information, no doubt, would be of interest to stockholders.

Even assuming its materiality, however, to my mind the
disclosures, made or omitted, fall short of implying bad faith.
The directors recommended a merger that included bonuses to
executives and an employment agreement, post-close, for one of
them. Both the existence and the operation of these Side Deals
were disclosed in detail.

To the extent the Plaintiff's theory is that the Board was trying
to cover up the Side Deals to discourage appraisal demands, in
light of the ten percent appraisal out, the detailed disclosures
belie that intent. There is simply nothing, in light of the
description of the Side Deals in the Information Statement, that
suggests a cover-up or is otherwise redolent of bad faith on the
part of the directors.

The Defendants' Motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court of Chancery's August 28, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yaccrrovfrom Leagle.com.

Larry R. Wood, Jr. -- LWood@BlankRome.com -- David A. Dorey --
Dorey@BlankRome.com -- Adam V. Orlacchio --
Orlacchio@BlankRome.com -- of BLANK ROME LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants.

Jessica Zeldin -- zeldin@rmgglaw.com -- of ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT &
GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: James S. Notis --
mgardy@gardylaw.com -- Jennifer Sarnelli -- jsarnelli@gmail.com --
of GARDY & NOTIS, LLP, New York, New York; Harold B. Obstfeld, of
HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C., New York, New York, Attorneys for
Plaintiff, 100 Park Ave.20th Fl.New York, NY 10017-5510


LAMB WESTON: "Albright" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The venue of the case styled as Nancy Albright, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri, the
Plaintiff, v. Lamb Weston, Inc., the Defendant, was removed from
the St. Louis City court, Case No. 1722-CC10848, on August 21,
2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:17-cv-02281-NCC (E.D. Mo.).  The case is
assigned to District Judge Henry Edward Autrey for all further
proceedings.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
     8816 Manchester Road
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Tel: (314) 258-0212
     Email: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

          - and -

     Stuart Lee Cochran, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Tel: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: scochran@scochranlaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Robert J. Bassett, Esq.
     WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC
     100 N. Broadway, Suite 2100
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 345-5000
     Facsimile: (314) 345-5055
     Email: rbassett@wvslaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Claims Handlers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled TRINIDAD LOPEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:14-cv-05576-BRO-JC (C.D. Cal.), and MARISELA BEAS, GREGORY
RUTOWSKI, and PAMELA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05748 BRO
(JCx) (C.D. Cal.), move to certify a class and a subclass:

   -- The "Class" consists of all persons who are, have been, or
      will be employed during the "Class Period" by Defendants in
      the State of California, as an exempt non-management claims
      handler, including SIU investigators. The "Class Period" is
      April 24, 2010, which is four years prior to the filing of
      this action.  The Class excludes: (1) Fast Path Property
      Loss Specialists who were classified as nonexempt; (2)
      employees who were part of the putative class in the Braun
      litigation (No. CIV 13-00607) but only for those periods
      that each such employee worked for the Safeco claims
      department, and (3) members of the class that settled in
      Liberty Mutual Overtime Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated
      Proceeding ("JCCP") Case No. 4234 ("the Harris litigation")
      who did not continue working for Defendants in exempt
      positions within the Class Definition during the Class
      Period. The Class Definition specifically includes those
      members of the class who settled in the Harris litigation
      (Liberty Mutual Overtime Cases, JCCP No. 4234) and remained
      employed by Liberty Mutual in exempt positions within the
      putative Class definition and during the putative Class
      Period and after the effective date of the Harris release.

   -- The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass consists of: All Class
      Members who are former employees of Defendants and, having
      not received all wages due to them upon resignation or
      termination within the period prescribed under California
      law, are eligible for waiting time penalties.

The proposed class action arises from the Defendants' alleged
uniform policy of misclassifying the proposed class consisting of
California-based claims handlers and SIU investigators as
administratively exempt under California's Labor Code, which
denied the proposed class overtime compensation and meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to bar the Defendants from
submitting testimony contradicting testimony of the seventeen
30(b)(6) deponents the Defendants designated on supervision.  The
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 22, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IV7t5A6S

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allan A. Shenoi, Esq.
          Daniel J. Koes, Esq.
          Nneka C. Egbujiobi, Esq.
          SHENOI KOES LLP
          175 South Lake Avenue, Suite 202
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 792-2300
          Facsimile: (626) 792-2311
          E-mail: ashenoi@shenoikoes.com
                  dkoes@shenoikoes.com
                  negbujiobi@shenoikoes.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          Colleen M. Mullen, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: bschonbrun@sshhlaw.com
                  mseplow@sshhlaw.com
                  amcglaze@sshhlaw.com
                  cmullen@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott B. Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 319-5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319-5355
          E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

               - and -

          V. James DeSimone, Esq.
          V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
          13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 693-5561
          E-mail: vjdesimone@gmail.com


LLEWELLYN PHILLIP: Car Wash Workers Underpaid, "Joseph" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JOSEPH, individually and for all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. LLEWELLYN PHILLIP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04800-DLI-RER, (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation,
compensation for meal breaks and liquidated damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed as a porter and superintendent by the
defendant's car wash business from 2002 to July 2017.  Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons were regularly required to perform
work in excess of 40 hours per week and plaintiff states he never
received an overtime compensation of one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay during his term of employment.  He also never
received one 30-minute lunch period per work day and minimum wages
as required by law.  Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant
failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage
and overtime pay rights as required and provided by law.
Plaintiff says there are more than 50 similarly situated former
and currently hourly employees who are or were employees of the
defendant who are or have been underpaid.  The defendant
unlawfully withheld all overtime compensation from the plaintiff
and all other similarly situated employees from approximately 2002
through 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Naresh M Gehi, Esq.
     GEHI & ASSOCIATES
     118-21 Queens Boulevard, Suite 409
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Telephone: (718) 263-5999


LMCHH PCP: Kusnick and Delaney Appeal in WARN Act Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Kusnick and Rose Hunter Delaney filed on August 17 an
appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in their class action
lawsuit against LMCHH PCP LLC et al.  The appeal was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New
Orleans.  The appellate case is titled as, Barbara Kusnick and
Rose Hunter Delaney, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Appellants, v. LMCHH PCP LLC, Louisiana
Medical Center and Heart Hospital LLC, MedCare Investment Funds,
CCG of Louisiana, LLC and Cardiovascular Care Group, Inc., the
Appellees, Case No. 2:17-cv-07939-KDE-JVM, (E.D. La., August 22,
2017).  The appellate case is assigned to Chief Judge Kurt D.
Engelhardt.

The Complaint seeks remedies for LMCHH PCP, LLC, Louisiana Medical
Center and Heart Hospital, LLC, CCG of Louisiana, LLC, and Medcare
Investment Funds' alleged failure to provide at least 60 days'
advance written notice of the terminations as required by the WARN
Act and adds claims against the Non-Debtor Defendants, among other
claims. On February 24, 2017, the King Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed an almost
identical class action adversary proceeding against the
Defendants, minus Medcare Investment Funds, for violation of the
WARN Act and the recovery of damages in the amount of 60 days'
back pay and ERISA benefits, among other claims.

In July 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the Kusnick Plaintiffs' Motion and appointed
Outten & Golden, LLP as Interim Lead Counsel.[BN]

Appellants are represented by:

Benjamin Warren Kadden, Esq.
Christopher Todd Caplinger, Esq.
Meredith S. Grabill, Esq.
Stewart Foster Peck, Esq.
LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
60l Poydras St. Suite 2775
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 568-1990
Email: bkadden@lawla.com
Email: ccaplinger@lawla.com
Email: mgrabill@lawla.com
Email: speck@lawla.com

Appellees are represented by:

Elizabeth Jones Futrell, Esq.
Mark A. Mintz, Esq.
JONES WALKER
201 St. Charles Ave., 49th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 582-8260
Email: efutrell@joneswalker.com
Email: mmintz@joneswalker.com

     - and -

Michael Allen Crawford, Esq.
Thomas R. Peak, Esq.
Elizabeth Jones Futrell, Esq.
TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS LP
450 Laurel Street, 8th Floor (70801)
P. O. Box 2471
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Telephone: (225) 387-3221
Email: mike.crawford@taylorporter.com

     - and -

Jan Marie Hayden, Esq.
Benjamin Warren Kadden, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 566-8645
Facsimile: (504) 299-3399
Email: jhayden@bakerdonelson.com


LYCHEE HOUSE: "Dai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
LIPING DAI, RUGUO DONG and GUO YI WANG, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LYCHEE HOUSE
INC., doing business as Lychee House, GUO PING CHEN, HONG SHENG
CHENG, also known as Hong Sheng Chen, XIAN YONG ZENG, Leo "Doe"
and John Does 1 to 5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06197-AT,
(S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The
plaintiffs contend that the defendants:

     -- refuse to pay them for the statutory minimum wage in the
        lawful amount for hours worked;

     -- refuse to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate
        for all their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
        workweek;

     -- fail to pay the spread-of-hours pay for every day that an
        employee works in excess of ten hours;

     -- fail to provide meal periods for every day of work and
        provide no adequate and accurate written records
        reflecting the actual hours worked and wages earned;

     -- did not provide notice to each employee on their first
        day of their employment or at the time of hire, of the
        terms and conditions of employment related to rate of
        pay, regular pay cycle and rate of overtime and there was
        no detailed pay stubs provided every pay day; and

     -- willfully file a fraudulent information return.

Plaintiffs demand the right to examine in person or by attorney
the minutes of the proceedings of the shareholders and records of
shareholders of the defendant to recover wages owed to them.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Johny Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Telephone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


M3 USA CORP: Comprehensive Health Amends Bid to Certify TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE
SYSTEMS OF THE PALM BEACHES, INC., and DR. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons v. M3 USA CORPORATION, Case No. 9:16-
cv-80967-BB (S.D. Fla.), file with the Court their amended motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs propose certification of this class:

     The named plaintiffs and each person (1) sent one or more
     telephone facsimile messages from "M3 Global Research"
     inviting participation in an "online survey" for payment or
     compensation by logging into a "survey link" of
     "http://www.m3globalresearch.com/myinvite"or
     "http://www.mdlinx.com/myinvite,"and (2) whose fax number
     was added to the WestFax removal list for M3 after June 1,
     2012.

M3 USA Corporation has sent millions of alleged advertisements by
facsimile to thousands of medical providers across the country,
the Plaintiffs state.  The Plaintiffs allege claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and for conversion.  The
Plaintiffs assert they seek class certification only to resolve
the TCPA claim.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cmpnXF4o

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5501
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  danieljaycohen209@gmail.com
                  jon@classlawyers.com
                  jim@classlawyers.com


MARYLAND: Dismissal CP Violation Claims Affirmed
------------------------------------------------
"A criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is
not competent to stand trial.  For that reason, a defendant may
not be continued in pretrial detention unless the government is
taking steps to provide treatment to restore the defendant to
competence or to have the defendant civilly committed.  Maryland
law provides for a trial court to determine whether a defendant is
competent, is dangerous to self or others, and, if incompetent,
has the potential to be restored to competence.  If these criteria
are met, the trial court may commit the defendant to a mental
health facility designated by Appellee Maryland Department of
Health1 ("MDH") for appropriate treatment to restore the defendant
to competence. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"),
Section 3-104 et seq.," the Court of Appeals of Maryland wrote in
an opinion dated August 28, 2017, in the case captioned Fredia
Powell, Et Al., v. Maryland Department of Health, Et Al., No. 77,
September Term 2016 (Md. App.).

The case concerns implementation of the law within constitutional
parameters.

MDH and its head, Appellee Secretary of Health, have adopted a
policy on admission to State psychiatric hospitals to manage the
demand for the limited beds available at those facilities.  That
policy has resulted in the creation of a waiting list for
admission to State psychiatric hospitals -- a list that has
included criminal defendants who have been found incompetent to
stand trial and committed for treatment, including the four
Appellants in this case.  The Circuit Court for Baltimore City --
at least in the four instances spotlighted in the case -- has
adopted a practice of requiring admission of a defendant to a
hospital within one day of the issuance of the commitment order.

In this case, the Circuit Court found each of the Appellants --
defendants in separate criminal cases -- to be incompetent to
stand trial and dangerous.  The court committed each of them to a
State psychiatric facility pursuant to the statute and ordered
their admission within one day of the commitment order.  When MDH
failed to admit them by that deadline, they collectively brought
this action challenging the MDH policy on statutory and
constitutional grounds.

The Court of Appeals holds that the statute itself does not set a
deadline for admission to a psychiatric hospital. Nor does it
authorize a circuit court to do so. Accordingly, a delay in
admitting a criminal defendant by a deadline set forth in a
commitment order does not violate the statute, although it may
violate the commitment order. Nevertheless, depending on the
circumstances of the particular case, that delay may violate the
due process guarantee of the Maryland Declaration of Rights unless
the delay is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular
case.

The Court of Appeals holds that failure by MDH to comply with a
deadline for admission to a psychiatric hospital set forth in a
commitment order under CP Section 3-106(b) may violate the order,
but is not a violation of the statute itself. Accordingly, Count
One of the Appellants' complaint does not state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and was properly dismissed by the Circuit
Court.

To the extent that Count Two of the complaint challenges the MDH
policy as violating on its face the guarantee of substantive due
process in Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, it
also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To
the extent that Count Two alleges that the MDH policy violates due
process as that policy was applied to the Appellants, it does
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Whether that claim
has merit depends on the particular circumstances of each case.

Justice Getty, dissenting, pointed out that, here Appellants had
already obtained the relief they sought prior to the trial court's
grant of MDH's motion to dismiss and, consequently, their claims
are moot. Justice Getty would decline to apply the exception for
review of moot claims that are "capable of repetition, yet evading
review." In his view, a remand to the trial court to conduct a
further inquiry into Appellants' surviving due process claim would
not resolve Appellants' rights in the event that they are once
again committed to MDH for inpatient treatment. Nor would such an
inquiry provide relief to other defendants found incompetent who
have faced delays in admission to Perkins, or provide direction to
other trial courts faced with similar situations.

Moreover, the Majority's holding suggests that a trial court has
the authority to issue a deadline for the admission of a defendant
to an MDH facility to prevent a violation of the defendant's
substantive due process rights. Justice Getty would hold that a
trial court lacks the authority to impose such a deadline without,
at a minimum, conducting an inquiry and making findings of fact
that such a deadline is necessary to prevent a violation of a
defendant's substantive due process rights. Furthermore, Justice
Getty would hold that trial courts should generally defer to MDH
policy and refrain from imposing such deadlines unless there are
extraordinary circumstances that necessitate a rapid or immediate
admission to inpatient care.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 28, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y82lwp8ffrom Leagle.com.


MAURY COBB: Faces "Palacios" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maury Cobb Attorney
At Law, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
The case is titled Jorge Palacios, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Maury Cobb Attorney
At Law, LLC and John Does 1-25 the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
06118-PGS-LHG, (D.N.J., August 14, 2017).  The case is assigned to
Judge Peter G. Sheridan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


MCDONALDS CORP: Class Suits Filed over Illinois Soda Tax
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, consumers
took their outrage over Cook County's new sweetened-beverage tax
to court just a week after it took effect, accusing McDonald's, 7-
Eleven and Walgreens of applying the tax to unsweetened drinks and
overtaxing sodas.

Cook County's new tax on sugary beverages went into effect Aug. 2
and has already spawned a rash of lawsuits against retailers who
have allegedly slapped the tax on unsweetened drinks as well.  The
county's sweetened-beverage tax ordinance imposes a tax of a
penny-per-ounce on sugary drinks like soda, sweetened coffee and
tea, and energy drinks. It does not apply to 100 percent juice
drinks, unsweetened sparkling water or tea, or bottled water.

Yvan Wojtecki filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's
Corp. on August 8, in Cook County Circuit Court, claiming the
fast-food restaurant applied the soda tax to the pre-tax price of
his drink, so he was overcharged 2 cents. He seeks punitive
damages equal to at least one percent of the annual revenue of
Cook County McDonald's restaurants where the violations occurred.

In a separate class action filed late on August 4, Vince De Leon
says he purchased a case of Dasani Tropical Pineapple Sparkling
Water from Walgreens and was charged under the ordinance, even
though the product is clearly labeled as unsweetened. He demands a
refund, and at least $50,000 in damages.

And Kelly Tarrant sued 7-Eleven on August 9, also in Cook County,
after she bought a Big Gulp iced coffee without adding any sugar,
but was charged a sweetened-beverage tax of 28 cents.

When Tarrant complained to the manager about the added tax, she
was allegedly told that "the tax is programmed in the 7-Elevan
store information system and that the system automatically charges
the sweetened beverage tax to all beverages purchased in Gulp
cups, regardless of whether the beverage is subject to the
sweetened beverage tax."  She wants a refund of the improperly
levied tax for herself, and all others who were also wrongfully
charged.

The tax is expected to bring in $17 million a month for the cash-
strapped county, which is home to Chicago, the nation's third most
populous city.

While public health was cited as the purpose of the new ordinance
governing the tax, county officials admit the money it will
generate is crucial to their operating budget this year.

Retailers sued to block the tax ahead of its scheduled effective
date of July 1, forcing the county to lay off over 400 employees
due to lacking funds while a temporary restraining order was in
effect. County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said a total of
1,100 jobs could be lost if the tax could not be collected.

Illinois Retail Merchants Association Vice President Tanya Triche
Dawood told DNAInfo Chicago that her organization is working with
businesses to work out the kinks and correctly apply the tax.

"I know that they're doing the best job that they can, but, as you
can imagine, with all the thousands of products that can qualify
there will probably be some mistakes made," Dawood said.

Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

The two other accused retailers did not immediately respond on
August 9, to a request for comment.


MIDAS PROPERTY: Underpays Construction Workers, "Reyes" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Mesa Reyes and Yordy Silverio on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midas
Property Management Corp. and David Vericha, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06252, (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum wages, overtime and damages.

Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other
similarly situated current and former employees of the defendants
that they are entitled to (a) compensation from the defendants for
statutory minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
(b) unpaid overtime work, and (c) liquidated damages.  The
plaintiffs were employed as construction workers of the defendants
and during their term of employment worked for more than 40 hours
per week.  The plaintiffs contend that the defendants did not
provide a time clock, sign-in sheet or any other method for
employees to track their work time.  The failure of the defendants
to pay them their overtime hours was willful and lacked a good
faith basis, the lawsuit says.  Further, there were no written
notices and complete weekly records providing the information
required by law.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Samuel, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, New York 10001
     Telephone: (212) 563-9884
     Email: michael@samuelandstein.com


NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nations Recovery Center, Inc; LVNV
Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06279-JLL-JAD, (D.N.J., August 21, 2017), seeks damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and expenses against the defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of himself and all
Passaic County, New Jersey consumers and their successors in
interest who were sent debt collection letters or notices from the
defendants which are in violation of the FDCPA. The plaintiff
entered into a financial obligation to Citibank which debt was in
default and purchased by LVNV.  LVNV referred the Citibank
obligation to Nations Recovery for collections.  Defendants caused
to be delivered to plaintiff a letter in connection with the
collection of the Citibank obligation.  The letter or notice to
the plaintiff did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt
by principal, interest, fees and other charges.  Nations Recovery
has not held and did not obtain a license under authority of the
New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act and of the New Jersey
Consumer Finance Licensing Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


NEBRASKA: Corrections Department Sued over Overcrowding in Jails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Wheeler, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action filed in Nebraska federal court early on August 16,
wants the Nebraska Department of Corrections and state parole
board to address several prison issues including overcrowding,
inadequate health care and a lack of accommodation for disabled
prisoners.

"Nebraska's prison system has an overcrowding crisis," said
Danielle Conrad, executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, in a
statement. "The overcrowding exacerbates already severe problems
that threaten the lives and health of its prisoners. The lack of
appropriate mental and physical health care hurts prisoners while
inside, and upon release hampers their re-entry into society. In
order to protect the constitutional rights and well-being of
incarcerated Nebraskans we need reform to the Nebraska state
prison system at all levels."

Citing violations of the Eighth Amendment and federal Americans
with Disabilities laws, the complaint states that "Nebraska state
prisons are in a state of chaos that endangers the health, safety,
and lives of prisoners and staff alike on a daily basis. For over
20 years, Nebraska state prisons have been overcrowded, under-
resourced, and understaffed. The result is a dangerous system in
perpetual crisis."

Currently at 159 percent of capacity, Nebraska prisons have been
above the emergency capacity level for over a decade, according to
the ACLU statement. As a consequence, prisoners lack access to
adequate health care, are held in extreme isolation, exposed to
violence and refused accommodations for disabilities.

Incidents that spurred the class action include a prisoner who was
left to die alone in his cell when his calls for help during a
heart attack received no response, and an instance from earlier
this year when a prisoner was killed by his inmate after the two
were placed together in an isolation cell designed to hold a
single occupant. Suicide rates in Nebraska corrections facilities
are also 30 percent higher than the national average for state
prisons.

Plaintiff Hannah Sabata, a 24-year-old woman being held at the
Correctional Center for Women in York, says she has suffered
through repeated lapses in prescription medications she requires
to treat schizophrenia and HIV.

Another, a minor whose initials are R.P., says he is held in his
cell for 23 hours a day despite his psychiatric disabilities and
has been placed in shackles so frequently that his wrists and
ankles are scarred.

Michael Gunther is 62 years old and says he lost his sight because
corrections failed to provide adequate treatment of his diabetes.
Gunther, who has trouble walking because of his complications, is
currently at risk of amputation. He says he sometimes goes without
eating because he can't navigate his way to a dining area in
another building without help and staff have "tripped him and put
objects in his path," according to the complaint.

"The crisis in Nebraska prisons threatens the health, safety, and
lives of both prisoners and staff," said David Fathi, director of
the ACLU National Prison Project, in a statement.

Conrad, also with the ACLU, added, "Nebraska should immediately
declare an emergency. Public safety is threatened every day."

The deteriorating condition of Nebraska's corrections system has
become a big story locally in recent years, as its problems have
spilled into the community. Two riots rocked state penitentiaries
in the last two years, the 90-page complaint notes, with multiple
staff injuries and four prisoner deaths occurring during these
eruptions.

A scandal over widespread errors in sentencing calculations and
the high-profile case of Nikko Jenkins has further eroded public
faith in corrections. Jenkins murdered four people within days of
his release from prison, with negligent parole supervision and
improper sentence calculations playing a role as well, according
to the complaint. Authorities set Jenkins free despite a lengthy
history of violence both while incarcerated and while free in
society, and had spent much of the two years before his release in
solitary confinement while his mental state deteriorated.

"Despite these events, repeated warnings from prison staff,
multiple reports by outside consultants, and recommendations from
the Nebraska Legislature, defendants have failed to take effective
action to address these long-standing and well-known
deficiencies," the complaint asserts, demanding an order
compelling the state to address its issues.

This past April, ACLU Nebraska publicized a letter to Gov. Pete
Ricketts, a Republican, demanding he take "immediate action to
remedy to the violations of law" and threatening litigation if no
steps were taken. Making good on its threats, the ACLU notes that
"there has been no meaningful action taken to address the
overcrowded and unsafe conditions in Nebraska state prisons" since
its April letter.

In a statement issued on August 16, Ricketts pushed back against
the notion that his administration and corrections officials have
been inactive.

"Over the past few years, all three branches of state government
have made justice reinvestment and corrections reform a top
priority.  Together, we have invested millions of taxpayer dollars
to protect public safety and expand state prisons.  This
litigation from the ACLU threatens public safety by seeking the
early release of dangerous criminals and could endanger our
corrections officers by further limiting the tools they have to
manage the inmate population," he said.

Corrections director Scott R. Frakes declined to comment on the
lawsuit. But in April, he responded to the ACLU's demand by
publicizing a letter of his own saying the department was making
progress under his watch.

"Thanks to a collaborative and comprehensive approach including
all three branches of government we are on the road to reducing
our prison population," Frakes said at the time.

Eleven current prisoners filed the lawsuit, and class
certification is requested on behalf of all current and future
prisoners in Nebraska.

David Fathi of the National Prison Project of the ACLU in
Washington, Michael W. Bien of Rosen Bien, Christopher M. Young of
DLA Piper, Amy A. Miller of ACLU of Nebraska, Robert E. McEwen of
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law and Debra Patkin of the National
Association of the Deaf all signed the complaint.

Along with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and
its director Scott R. Frakes, defendants include director of
health services for corrections Harbans Deol and Nebraska Board of
Parole and its acting administrator Julie Micek.


NESTLE: Poland Spring Water "a Colossal Fraud," Patane Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Nestle's marketing and sales of Poland Spring water has been
"a colossal fraud perpetrated against American consumers," 11
people claim in a federal class action in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Filing their suit on August 15, in Connecticut, where Nestle is
based, the lead plaintiffs are from the Nutmeg State as well as
New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire and Maine. They say they would not have paid a premium
for the water had they known it did not actually come from eight
purported natural springs in Maine.

Rather than being "100% Natural Spring Water," the "products all
contain ordinary groundwater that defendant collects from wells it
drilled in saturated plains or valleys where the water table is
within a few feet of the earth's surface," lead plaintiff Mark J.
Patane says in the complaint.

"The vast bulk of that groundwater is collected from Maine's most
populous counties in southwestern Maine, only a short distance
from the New Hampshire border," the complaint continues.

As required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, all bottled
spring water must be collected either at the source of a naturally
occurring spring or from a well that draws from a natural spring.

"In hydrogeological parlance, all such well water must be
'hydraulically connected' to a genuine spring," the complaint
states. But the class says that's not the case for defendant
Nestle Waters North America's eight sites in Maine.

Reacting to the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Nestle Waters North
America held true to the company's slogan.

"The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and an obvious
attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal gain," the
spokeswoman said in a statement. "Poland Spring is 100% spring
water. It meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations
defining spring water, all state regulations governing spring
classification for standards of identity, as well as all federal
and state regulations governing spring water collection, good
manufacturing practices, product quality and labeling. We remain
highly confident in our legal position."

Patane claims that if the eight sites used to bottle water did
contain a spring, and the Connecticut-based company bottles 1
billion gallons a year, the spring would have to flow at an
average rate of 245 gallons per minute: more forcefully than a
2-inch-diameter fire hose at 40 pounds per square inch.

"Such a spring would be plainly visible -- more like a geyser than
a spring -- and undoubtedly well known," plaintiffs' attorney
Craig Raabe says in the 325-page complaint. "Yet there is no
photographic proof that even one such spring -- much less eight --
exists on or near defendant's sites in Maine."

The plaintiffs say the famous Poland Spring in Poland Spring,
Maine, ran dry nearly 50 years ago -- decades before Nestle Waters
bought the Poland Spring brand name. The "spring" Nestle claims
exists in Poland Spring is at the bottom of a lake.

"It has never been proven to exist, and the evidence that
defendant itself filed with Maine regulators shows it does not
exist," the complaint states. "Because the Poland Spring is not a
source of its products, defendant's use of the 'Poland Spring'
brand name is unlawful."

The class claims Nestle has gone so far as to fake the existence
of springs on its sites "by causing well water to flow
artificially through pipes or plastic tubes into wetlands that
contain no genuine springs."

"Artificial man-made 'springs' do not satisfy FDA standards," the
complaint states. "Genuine springs must have a 'natural orifice'
through which water 'flows naturally' to the surface, without
human assistance. By faking the existence of springs, defendant is
defrauding its consumers," according to the complaint.

Even worse, the class claims, are the conditions surrounding
groundwater-collection sites.

"Unknown to the general public, one or more wells at each of
defendant's six largest volume groundwater collection sites in
Maine -- which in recent years have collectively supplied up to 99
percent of the water in Poland Spring Water products -- are near a
present or former human waste dump, refuse pit, landfill, ash
pile, salt mound, farm where pesticides were previously used, fish
hatchery or toxic petroleum dump site," the complaint states.

"While Poland Spring Water products are not frequently
contaminated because defendant disinfects -- and in some cases has
purified -- the groundwater it collects, Poland Spring Water
labels are misleading under FDA rules because, in addition to
falsely advertising  that the bottles contain '100% Natural Spring
Water' purportedly sourced from natural springs, the labels depict
pristine scenes of water flowing down a verdant hillside or a
forest pond to  convey an image of natural purity when, in fact,
the vast bulk of the water is drawn from wells in low-lying
populated areas near potential sources of contamination. The
labels are also deceptive to the extent defendant purifies the
water. If consumers knew where defendant's wells were actually
located, rather than being misled by defendant's falsely
reassuring labels depicting pristine scenes, and knew the extent
to which defendant treated or purified the water, they would not
buy, or would not pay premium prices for, Poland Spring Water
products."

None of this appears to have damaged sales.

Poland Spring Water revenue nationwide was about $400 million in
2007 and has ranged from $300 million to $900 million annually for
each of the past nine years.

The plaintiffs call it marketing fraud, which enables Nestle to
sell its water more cheaply than competitors in the spring-water
market, but charge more than those in the purified-water market.
They seek class certification, an injunction and at least $5
million in damages for false advertising, breach of contract,
deceptive labeling and consumer-law violations.

Attorney Raabe is with Izard, Kindall and Raabe of West Hartford.
Co-counsel from New Jersey, New York and California also signed
the complaint.

In California, the federal government faces a suit for information
on Nestle's permit to pump millions of gallons of water from
Strawberry Creek in San Bernardino National Forest. Nestle pays
just $524 a year for the permit, which it uses to sell Arrowhead
and Pure Life bottled water.


NY EDUCATION DEPT: Doesn't Pay OT to Custodians, Fernandes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALCINDO FERNANDES, AGUSTIN PALU, JUAN PUIG, and JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06136, (S.D.N.Y., August
14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs for defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York
State Department of Labor regulations.

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons are or were
formerly employed by the defendants as cleaners, firepersons,
handypersons, stationary engineers classified particularly as
Custodians. On or about August 12, 2016, the NYC School Support
Services took over the direct management of the school custodians'
payroll and from that point forward the plaintiffs began receiving
the correct overtime premium rate of 1.5 times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours per week regardless
of whether these hours were performed during weekdays or weekends.
But prior to August 12, 2016, the plaintiffs were not paid with
their overtime pay.  The complaint says that prior to or at least
until August 12, 2017, there are at least 200 employees that the
defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime at a rate of 1.5
times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian L. Greben, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
     316 Great Neck Road
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Telephone: (516) 304-5357


OTTER PRODUCTS: iPhone Waterproof Case Doesn't Work, Aikman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madelaine Aikman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC,
LifeProof, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2017-00937902-CU-BT-CXC, (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., August 16,
2017), seeks injunction and monetary relief including damages for
defendants' product misrepresentations.

According to the Complaint, the plaintiff purchased a waterproof
phone case described as LifeProof NUUD for her iPhone 6s Plus. The
plaintiff purchase the phone case despite several types of phone
cases at various prices due to the representations of the product
on the package as waterproof.  The plaintiff had used and believed
that the LifeProof NUUD phone case would adequately protect her
phone from damage and paid a price greater than the prices of
other similar phone cases. The plaintiff herself water test the
phone case and brought the phone with her vacation.  She used her
phone to take pictures in the Lazy River and noticed water
accumulation in the phone case.  Her new phone was damaged and she
noticed sporadic flashing of the LCD screen.  The plaintiff
contacted the defendant and stated that they would replace the
NUUD phone case but would not reimburse for the water damage
caused to the phone.

The plaintiff for herself and on behalf of others similarly
situated consumers of Otter's LifeProof NUUD phone case, allege
that the defendants made negligent misrepresentations that the
product is waterproof when in fact it would not protect the phones
from water damage.  As a result of the intentional
misrepresentation, the plaintiff and others similarly situated
consumers were damaged. Furthermore, the defendants have breached
their express warranties when in fact the phone cases fails to
conform to the promises and affirmations of fact made by
defendants.  Defendants are aware of the defect and chose not to
cure it.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
     Alexander Farkas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES APC
     444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802-4524
     Telephone: (562) 432-2551
     Facsimile: (562) 435-4856
     Email: jveloff@westrupassociates.com
     Email: afarkas@westrupassociates.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Fails to Pay Indie Musicians, "Cupolo" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Cupolo, John Emanuele and Bryan Eich, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated copyright holders, the
Plaintiffs, v. Pandora Media Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06304-WHP, (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2017), seeks damages for
alleged copyright infringement.

The plaintiffs intend to represent a putative class comprised of
independent artists seeking to remedy from the defendant's
systematic infringement of their copyright musical recordings or
their copyrighted musical works and from defendant's deliberate
scheme to withhold royalties owed to plaintiffs and the putative
class.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court were not aware that their recordings
were included in the defendant's premium subscription interactive
music streaming service. The mere act of reproducing the
plaintiffs' and the putative class' musical compositions and
making them available in defendant's library without first serving
an NOI constitutes an infringement of plaintiffs' and the putative
class' rights under the law.  Further, the defendant makes the
musical composition available or distributes the composition
before a publishing license is obtained which is a copyright
infringement itself under the law which may not be cured after the
fact of attempting to obtain a compulsory license.  The plaintiffs
also contend that they and the putative class did not received a
monthly or annual royalty pay for the defendant's premium
subscription interactive music streaming service.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
     GARBARINI FITZGERALD PC
     250 Park Avenue 7th Floor
     New York, New York 10177
     Telephone: (212) 300-5358
     Facsimile: (347) 218-9478


PELLA CORP: "Opalka" Suit over Defective Windows Moved to D. S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Venue of the case titled, Stanislav Opalka, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pella
Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the Northern
District of Illinois, Case No. 2:17-cv-05184 (N.D. Ill.), to the
District of South Carolina, Case No. 2:17-cv-02207 (D. S.C.), on
August 22, 2017.

The Illinois case was filed July 13, 2017.  The Illinois case has
been terminated following the Transfer.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant failed to disclose to
purchasers that its Windows products are defective in material and
workmanship as a result of the design and manufacturing practices
of the defendant.  As a result of the defect, there is a high
probability that those Windows will fail and likely already have
developed wood rot.  The complaint explains that the wood rot will
progress to the sills, frames and adjoining structure unless
repaired and replaced before the rot progresses to those
components. The result of the defective design does not become
visible upon ordinary inspection until after years after
installation.

The complaint also relates that, in spite of the defendant's
knowledge of the defect, it uses a limited warranty to profit from
the premium price charged for defective windows. The defendant has
been aware but did not disclose to the market on the substantial
risk with their Windows product and would deny claims stating that
the Windows had no defects.  According to the lawsuit, the
plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have been damaged
as a result of defendant's negligence, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose and breach of express warranty.  The
Defendant's concealment of the defect is in violation of Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment are also allege in the
complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


PETMED EXPRESS: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of PetMed Express,
Inc. (Nasdaq:PETS) ("PetMed" or the "Company") securities during
the period between May 8, 2017 and August 23, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until October 24, 2017 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in PetMed securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
marketing dangerous and addictive animal drugs to humans, was
vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and could be
halted from advertising by Google.

According to the complaint, following an August 23, 2017 research
report alleging that the Company was aggressively marketing
dangerous painkillers to human opiate and drug users, which could
capture the attention of regulators, the value of PetMed shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in PetMed securities purchased on or after May 8, 2017 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

         Charles J. Piven
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Tel: 410-415-6616
         E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


PFIZER: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lipitor & Effexor Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Third Circuit breathed new life on August 21, into
antitrust lawsuits against four pharmaceuticals giants concerning
the delayed entry to the market of generic versions of Lipitor and
Effexor XR.

Rite Aid, Walgreens and various labor unions are at the helm of
the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey.  As direct purchasers
and end payors of various pharmaceuticals, the plaintiffs accused
Pfizer, Ranbaxy and others of entering into reverse-payment
settlement agreements that delayed the enforcement of Lipitor and
Effexor XR patents.

Reverse-settlement payments require the company holding the patent
to pay the alleged infringer in return for the infringer's
agreement not to produce the patented item. In the cases at hand,
Ranbaxy and Teva allegedly accepted such payments to delay
introduction of a generic version of Lipitor or Effexor XR.

Though a federal judge in Philadephia, dismissed the claims at an
early stage, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit in
Philadelphia reversed on August 23.  The ruling turns on the
plausibility of the allegations, which the federal appeals court
found compelling.

A spokeswoman for Pfizer said they were "disappointed" in the
result.

"We believe that plaintiffs' claims were appropriately dismissed
by the District Court and that the procurement and enforcement of
our patents -- including settlements we and our subsidiary Wyeth
agreed to -- were proper, lawful and in line with the Supreme
Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis," Pfizer representative
Allyanna Anglim said in an email.

She said the company would continue "evaluate our legal options."

As part of the Pfizer reverse settlement, the company agreed to
release the Accupril charges against Ranbaxy, which could have
been worth millions if it succeeded in exchange for Ranbaxy's
agreement to delay the introduction of generic Lipitor.

"The alleged reverse payment here was 'large' enough to permit a
plausible inference that Pfizer possessed the power to bring about
an unjustified anticompetitive harm through its patents and had
serious doubts about the ability of those patents to lawfully
prevent competition," U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for
the court.

With regard to Effexor XR and the settlement between Wyeth and
Teva Pharmaceuticals, Teva agreed to pay royalties to Wyeth and
postpone the introduction of the antidepressant. Postponing the
generic version was worth more than $500 million, according to the
ruling.

The appeals court found that plaintiffs in the Effexor XR case
"could proceed to prove their claim through 'the traditional rule-
of-reason approach.'"


POCATELLO, ID: State Supreme Court Ruling Could Cost Millions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelbie Harris, writing for Idaho State Journal, reports that  in
what looms as a possible devastating financial blow, the city of
Pocatello could be on the hook for nearly $30 million following a
state Supreme Court ruling this week, according to an attorney
involved in the case.

The state's highest court on September 7 reversed an earlier
decision by district Judge Stephen S. Dunn and in doing so cleared
the way for a class-action lawsuit that if successful would
require the city to refund nearly $30 million in revenue acquired
from illegally collected water and sewer fees, said Nathan Olsen,
an Idaho Falls attorney who's representing the individuals suing
the city.

"The city is aware of the decision and staff are reviewing it as
well as any implications for the city," responded Logan McDougall,
spokesman for the city of Pocatello. "At this time, the city does
not have a comment on the pending litigation."

Opposed to increasing city property taxes because of the many
exemptions given by the state, then-Pocatello Mayor Roger Chase
penned a letter to the Idaho Attorney General's Office in 2006
requesting information about imposing a new rate of return fee for
citizens paying water and sewer fees.

Despite the attorney general's opinion that the new rate of return
fee would not be an appropriate method of obtaining additional
revenue, the city implemented the PILOT, or Payment In Lieu Of
Taxes, program.

The illegally collected fees went into a general reserve fund for
the city as opposed to the water and sewer department fund and
were collected in contradiction to Idaho law, the Idaho Supreme
Court as well as Dunn ruled.

The Building Contractors Association filed suit against Pocatello
in December 2011 challenging the legality of the PILOT program and
in 2013 Judge Dunn ruled that the city could no longer collect the
inappropriate fee that in essence was a disguised tax.

Dunn's decision reduced most Pocatellans' monthly water and sewer
bills by approximately 10 percent. However, Dunn ruled that the
city should not be required to retroactively refund the illegally
collected water and sewer fees to fee-paying Pocatello residents.

In 2014, the Hill Vu Mobile Home Park and Pocatello resident Ed
Quinn filed a lawsuit seeking a refund of the PILOT payments they
had made to the city during the time it was collecting those PILOT
fees.

"An interesting part of this decision is that once the judge found
out that what the city of Pocatello was doing was wrong, (city
officials) convinced the district court that as long as they
weren't doing it anymore the city shouldn't have to pay the money
back," said Olsen, who's representing Quinn and the mobile home
park. "I've been involved in a number of (state) Supreme Court
cases and this is a strongly worded opinion by Justice (Daniel)
Eismann."

Justice Eismann faulted the city of Pocatello for charging the
excess fees and cited a long list of cases on how government fees
must be related to the cost of services provided and "cannot be
assessed purely as a revenue-generating scheme."

According to Eismann, Judge Dunn was wrong for ruling that the
recovery of the illegally collected PILOT fees was barred by Idaho
law.

"These are issues that really have their origin before the
American Revolution," Olsen said. "This whole concept that
governments cannot collect more than what they're entitled to and
they have to use what they collect on its intended purposes."

Olsen continued, "These are some fundamental constitutional
principles. I mean, the Boston Tea Party was over this same
issue."

Olsen said the class-action lawsuit he plans to file will attempt
to collect the money Pocatello residents were illegally charged by
the city and return it to them.

"We know how much they took illegally under the program and it's
closer to $30 million," Olsen said. "How much we have a claim for
is yet to be determined but it's a pretty sizeable figure."

Justice Eismann put the figure at about $4 million.

Chase said it would be difficult for the city to come up with the
money, but he doesn't believe that the city acquired anything near
the $30 million figure Olsen mentioned.

"The idea there for the fee was that new construction coming into
town would have to pay a hookup fee for connecting to water and
sewer," Chase said. "We wanted to find another revenue base to
stray away from property taxes."

Chase continued, "With that amount of money (nearly $30 million)
they must be figuring in interest or something because we never
made that much money from the fee."

The Idaho Supreme Court has sent the case back to Dunn with a
recommendation that he rules in favor of Quinn and the mobile home
park regarding their lawsuit. If the city is ordered to pay back
the illegal fees it collected in Olsen's estimated amount of
nearly $30 million, it's unclear how the city would be able to
afford to do so.

Once a class-action lawsuit is filed, citizens who paid the PILOT
fee would receive notification of the lawsuit and the potential to
obtain their respective refunds.

Considering the city's annual budget is just more than $118
million for fiscal year 2018, a nearly $30 million hit could have
serious implications.

The city plans to make a large financial contribution to the
public-private partnership to construct the Northgate Interchange
that will connect Siphon Road and Olympus Drive to Interstate 15
north of Pocatello and Chubbuck. The question looms whether a
class-action lawsuit costing the city of Pocatello many millions
of dollars could impact the city's commitment to the interchange
project.

With the case now back in Dunn's hands -- and the state Supreme
Court recommending he rule the city pay back those Pocatellans who
paid the illegal fees -- Olsen is confident about the outcome.

"We have the greenlight now to come back with the remand to
determine how much was improperly taken and then require the city
to repay the fees," Olsen said. "I have worked on this issue for
more than 10 years and it has been one heck of a struggle but
definitely worth it." [GN]


PPI INC: Underpays Poker Dealers, "Rosenberg" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Rosenberg, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PPI, Inc. doing business as
Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-
015827, (Fla. Cir., August 18, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation and other relief under the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff brings the class action to recover compensation and
damages owed to her and all other similarly situated employees of
the defendant.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
worked as poker dealers at defendant's casino and were tipped
employees.  The complaint says the defendant failed to comply with
the tip-credit requirements pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage
Act.  As a result, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff and
other similarly situated with at least minimum wage. The defendant
willfully refused to properly compensate the plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees for the minimum wage in violation of
the Florida Minimum Wage Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad E. Levy, Esq.
     David Cozad, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
     1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway
     South Pointe I, Suite 588
     Sunrise, FL 33323
     Telephone: (954) 763-5722
     Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
     Email: chad@levylevylaw.com
     Email: assistant@levylevylaw.com


QUARTER AT A TIME: Faces "Watson" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quarter at a Time,
LLC.  The case is titled as Veronia Watson, on her behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quarter
at A Time LLC and Does 1 to 100, the Defendant, Case No. 34-2017-
00217570-CU-OE-GDS, (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty, August 16,
2017).[BN]


QUINTIS: Hit With CA Over Losses of More than $120 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Woodwill and Ben Wilmont, writing for the Australian,
reports that embattled sandalwood grower Quintis has been hit with
a shareholder class action by Sydney-based firm Bannister Law
which claims that investors in the company, whose shares have been
suspended for nearly four months, have suffered losses of more
than $120 million.

Quintis has been locked in talks with note holders owed $US250m
($315m) on a recapitalisation plan but its efforts could be
complicated by the spectre of the legal action that is being
funded by JustKapital.

The company was hit by credit downgrades this month after failing
to make interest payments but has agreed a conditional forbearance
agreement with a majority of noteholders, led by US fund manager
BlackRock, until March.

The class action claims that shareholders were hit by losses due
to inadequate disclosure obligations ahead of the company's 77.5c
share price plunge in May.

The company was already facing skittish investors after a
controversial report in March by Californian hedge fund Glaucus
Research, which claimed the company was a worthless Ponzi scheme.

Bannister Law solicitor Milan Cakic said more than 100
shareholders had already registered for the class action, which
centres on Quintis' alleged failure to disclose that Nestle
subsidiary Galderma terminated a long-term supply contract with it
in mid-December but it did not disclose the move until early May.

Mr Cakic noted that the 158 million shares traded between December
16 last year and May 10 may be argued to have suffered losses of
77.5 cents apiece. On that basis the quantum of losses could
exceed $122m.

The class action alleges that the announcement of Galderma's
contract termination triggered the share price fall.

Quintis shares were suspended from trading on May 15, and the
company has since relied on waivers from noteholders to survive.

In June, Quintis said the termination of the contract with
Galderma was not considered to be price sensitive information
because "the supply agreement with Galderma did not contain fixed
or minimum quantities of supply and therefore Galderma had no
obligation to acquire Quintis' oil".

It said that oil sales to Galderma contributed 1.5 per cent to
total sales revenue in fiscal 2014 and 2.5 per cent of total sales
revenue in fiscal 2015. This meant that "volumes and monetary
value" of the sale of East Indian sandalwood oil to Galderma were
"not in themselves material" and not receiving subsequent orders
was not "in itself" price sensitive information, it added.

But lead plaintiff on the class action, Andrew Wyma, said he
bought shares in Quintis based on the company's reports. "At its
peak, my shares were worth more than $20,000. Now they're down to
just over $7,000 and are still frozen in the trading halt. It's
not looking promising," he said.

"I assessed Quintis as a value stock based on external sources as
well as the company's reports -- which I thought I could trust.

A spokesman for Quintus told The Australian the company was yet to
be notified by Bannister Law that the class action had been
lodged. [GN]


QUORN FOODS: Agrees to Change Labels to Reveal Main Ingredient
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Beach, writing for Food Safety News, reports that described
by critics as being made from "vat-grown fungus," Quorn Foods Inc.
products are getting new labels prominently declaring they contain
mold.

The new label language is part of a class action settlement
agreement between the company and a woman who filed a civil
lawsuit on behalf of herself and anyone else in the United States
who bought the products from Jan. 26, 2012, through Dec. 14, 2016.

A final hearing on the class action lawsuit before U.S. District
Court Judge Dolly M. Gee on Sept. 1 sealed the language for the
warning labels and cash reimbursements for consumers who bought
the Quorn products.

In her orders, the judge made it clear that the settlement does
not pre-empt or prohibit civil cases, pending or to be filed, by
people who suffered physical repercussions from eating the Quorn
"Chick'n" or "Turk'y" or other meat-free products containing
"mycoprotein."

One such case was filed in 2015 by the parents of an 11-year-old
California boy who died June 19, 2013, the morning after he ate a
Quorn "Turk'y Burger" his mother prepared for supper. The boy was
allergic to mold, but his parents had no idea that Quorn's
trademarked term "mycoprotein" was the corporation's label
shorthand for its website statement: "we take a natural nutritious
fungus from the soil and ferment it to produce a dough called
Mycoprotein(TM)."

Now, all Quorn products containing mycoprotein -- which makes up
more than 50 percent of the ingredients in some of the products --
will have to carry the following statement, including the
parenthetical material:

"Mycoprotein is a mold (member of the fungi family). There have
been rare cases of allergic reactions to products that contain
mycoprotein."

The judge's order requiring the label language is partly the
result of work by the nonprofit watchdog organization the Center
for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI.) The center was not a
party to the class action lawsuit in federal court, but it did
file documents in the case indicating it would fight any
settlement that did not include requirements for warning labels.

"CSPI withdrew its objections after Quorn agreed to additional
material labeling changes; the court then approved the
settlement," the organization's leadership said in a news release
on September 6.

"Consumers deserve to know that Quorn comes from mold, which
sometimes causes serious gastrointestinal and breathing problems,"
CSPI litigation director Maia Kats said in the release. "The
labeling improvements we've negotiated with Quorn will help
consumers understand what 'mycoprotein' is and that it sometimes
does trigger adverse reactions."

The settlement

In terms of class actions in the federal court system, Birbrower
v. Quorn Foods Inc. was resolved quickly.

California resident Kimberly Birbrower filed the case in state
court in January 2016. Within a month it was moved to federal
court. In January this year Birbrower, representing the consumer
class, and Quorn reached a settlement agreement. CSPI filed its
intent to oppose that agreement in March.

The parties agreed on a revised settlement, including the
mandatory warning label, this summer and CSPI terminated its
objection Aug. 23.

In addition to changing its labels, Quorn has to pay up to $1.35
million in legal fees incurred by Birbrower. The corporation must
also set up "an initial non-refundable settlement fund" of $2.5
million to begin reimbursing consumers for the estimated $120
million they spent on Quorn products.

Following is the settlement language approved by the judge:

"First, the Settlement provides Quorn will now uniformly disclose
on its packages that its products contain mold in the Allergy
Warning, and the Allergy Warning will be prominently placed at or
near the top of the back or side-labels of all Quorn Products.

"Second, Quorn will no longer represent or imply its products are
made of 'mushrooms, truffles or morels.'

"Third, Quorn will provide a full refund to all Class Members who
purchased Quorn Products in the U.S. during the Class Period if
they have an itemized receipt proving they purchased the
product(s). There are no limitations on the aggregate refund
amount to the Class, nor are there limitations on the total refund
amount for any individual Class Member. So long as they provide
itemized receipts showing how much they paid for Quorn Products
during the Class Period, the Class Member will receive a full
refund for that amount. Based on confirmatory discovery, Plaintiff
estimates the Class paid approximately $120,000,000 for Quorn
Products during the Class Period.

"Fourth, for those Class Members who do not have itemized
receipts, they may receive an alternative remedy of "$5 Per Month"
for each month during the Class Period in which they claim to have
purchased Quorn Product(s), up to a cap of $40 per year for each
year of the five-year Class Period, for a maximum possible refund
of $200. To be eligible for this remedy, such Class Members will
simply be required to verify under oath they purchased Quorn
Products during the months they claim and submit a credit or debit
card statement, or a non-itemized receipt, showing they made
purchases at a store that sold Quorn Products during those months
(the "Alternative Proof of Purchase Documents"). For example, if
they have a credit card statement showing they made purchases at a
Whole Foods or WalMart during the Class Period (two stores that
sold Quorn Products), then such Class Members will receive $5 for
each month they claim to have purchased Quorn Products at such
stores, up to a cap of $40 per year for each year of the five-year
Class Period, for a maximum possible refund of $200. Based on the
confirmatory discovery, the average retail price of a Quorn
product is between $4.00 and $4.75 and Quorn's most loyal
customers purchase approximately eight (8) products per year for a
total of approximately $41. Thus, this alternative "$5 Per Month"
remedy will likely provide close to full refunds for most Class
Members even with the annual $40 caps.

"Fifth, while the release includes all claims relating to the
allegations in this lawsuit, it does not include any claims for
personal injuries for those customers who may have suffered
adverse reactions from mold allergies after consuming Quorn
Products.

"Sixth, the Settlement provides that Quorn will separately pay for
all attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards and claims
administrations costs approved by the Court, and such payments
will not in any way reduce the monetary benefits available to the
Class."

The background

The CSPI raised concerns about Quorn's unique main ingredient in
the early 2000s and asked the Food and Drug Administration to
remove the products from the marketplace.

Since its initial request to FDA, the CSPI has received
approximately 2,500 reports from consumers of adverse reactions to
Quorn products. In addition to the California boy, a death in
Sweden is attributed to Quorn.

"Some consumers have reported adverse reactions after eating
Quorn, including vomiting, diarrhea, and, in rarer cases, life-
threatening anaphylactic reactions," according to CSPI.

The organization had been monitoring the non-meat products since
they were introduced in the United Kingdom in 1993. Now owned by
Philippines-based Monde Nissin Corp., Quorn was launched by Marlow
Foods Ltd.

Labels on the non-meat products in the U.S. and other countries
previously provided a bit of linguistics, presented in
parentheses, and botany:

"Quorn [insert specific product name here] are made with
mycoprotein ("myco" is Greek for "fungi") and are completely
meatless and soy- free. There are believed to be over 600,000
varieties of fungi in the world, many of which are among the most
sought after foods like varieties of mushroom, truffles, and
morels."

In the U.S. legal actions against Quorn, consumers said they were
misled by the company's label claims. They said in their
complaints that they thought "mycoprotein" was made from
"mushrooms, truffles and morels." [GN]


RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL: "Vigueras" Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled, Manuel Vigueras, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Red Robin International, Inc., doing business as Red Robin Burger
Spirts Emporiums, the Defendant, was removed on August 17, 2017,
from the Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2017
00931770-CU-OE-CXC, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM.  The case
is now assigned to Judge James V. Selna.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R Hawkins, Esq.
     Christina M Lucio, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS LAW OFFICES APLC
     9880 Research Drive Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 387-7200
     Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
     Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
     Email: christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Sean Francis Daley, Esq.
     Lonnie Domonic Giamela, Esq.
     FISHER AND PHILLIPS LLP
     444 South Flower Street Suite 1500
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone (213) 330-4500
     Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
     Email: sdaley@fisherphillips.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Unlawfully Collects Debt, "Burgos" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMMY BURGOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; LVNV
FUNDING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-06121-PGS-TJB, (D.N.J., August 14, 2017), seeks damages and
declaratory relief arising from defendants' alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to Chase Bank USA, N.A.
primarily for personal, family or household purposes.  The debt
was purchased by or sold to LVNV and LVNV referred the Chase
obligation to Resurgent for the purpose of collections. The
obligation was in default at the time it was purchased by LVNV and
at the time it was referred to Resurgent. Resurgent sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter.  The letter did not itemize or
breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and
other charges. In addition, the letter did not inform the
plaintiff that the amount of the debt included an amount for
interest, amount for costs and fees.  The complaint says Resurgent
and LVNV did not have the appropriate license under the New Jersey
Finance Licensing Act.  Therefore, it was prohibited from
attempting to collect on the debt.  The complaint contends that
plaintiff and others similarly situated persons have a right to
receive the proper letter notices as mandated by the Fair Debt
Collection Practices.  The defendants' attempt to collect the debt
without first obtaining the necessary license under the New Jersey
law also violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Telephone: (973) 227-5900
     Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
     Email: jkj@legaljones.com


RIVAS METALS DESIGN: Faces "Arroyo" Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Enrique Arroyo, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Rivas Metals
Design Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Osmin Rivas, the
Defendants, Case No. 60502444, (Fla. Cir., August 16, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, and obtain declaratory relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants Rivas Metals Design and its corporate officer Osmin
Rivas allegedly committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act for unpaid wages.  The plaintiff was employed with the
defendants as a non-exempt helper from approximately July 11, 2017
through on or about July 25, 2017.  Throughout his employment, the
defendant failed to compensate him the required overtime and or
minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times the plaintiff's
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
within a single work week. The defendant owed to the plaintiff
approximately $162.50 unpaid unliqudated overtime wages plus an
additional equal amount of liquidated damages.  The suit says the
defendant knew and showed reckless disregard of the provisions of
the FLSA concerning the unpaid wages since the commencement of
plaintiff's employment. Also, the defendants never posted any
notice to inform the employees of their federal rights to overtime
and or minimum wages as required by the FLSA and Federal Law.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Rember, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


RUBY TEQUILA: Hot With Class Action Over Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Ben Egel, writing for Lubboc Avalanche Journal, reports that
former Ruby Tequila's employees file class action lawsuit for back
wages

Sixty-three former Ruby Tequila's Mexican Kitchen employees filed
a joint class-action lawsuit on September 7 morning to recover
back wages from their ex-employers.

The lawsuit lists Richard Kevin Foote, his company Fired Up
Holdings Co., Magdalena Baier -- Foote's business partner -- R
Tequila Acquisition, Chalak Mitras Group and Gurdev and Rajeev
Singh Gill as co-defendants.

Chalak Mitras, a Dallas-based investment group, sold the four Ruby
Tequila's locations to Fired Up Holdings in May, two months before
the Tex-Mex eatery abruptly closed.

When Ruby Tequila's was shuttered in July, the lawsuit alleges,
several employees lost their homes and remain barred from
collecting unemployment benefits.

Though 63 plaintiffs at the Lubbock and Amarillo Ruby Tequila's
had been identified as of September 7 , Young &Newsom partner
Jeremi Young -- working on the case beside Blackburn &Brown
partner Jeff Blackburn -- said more than 400 employees at the
various restaurants owned by Fired Up Holdings had been affected
by the company's implosion. Fired Up Holdings owned Twisted Spigot
restaurants in El Paso and Lubbock and had planned to open one on
Interstate 40 in Amarillo.

Blackburn said the Ruby Tequila's closures, along with Foote's
previous restaurant failures, including the closure of Bennigan's
in Amarillo two months after its purchase, were not accidents.

"Foote is not just some hapless guy who can't seem to get a
restaurant going," Blackburn said.

The plaintiffs are arguing Foote, Chalak Mitras and the other
defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act by not giving advance notice of mass layoffs and
not following the required steps to help former employees find new
work. Blackburn and Young have yet to identify the damages they
seek but will ask for at least 60 days of wages and benefits for
all employees.

For Jeffrey Tate, one of the seven named plaintiffs in the suit
and a former dishwasher at a Lubbock Ruby Tequila's, that means
more than $3,000. It's why he protested

"We can't let (Foote) get away with this. He's done it before and
he's still able to go into business and open restaurants," Tate
said. "He came here and messed with the wrong people."

Chalak Mitras and Fired Up Holdings representatives could not be
reached for comment.

Young said he has represented more than 10,000 employees over the
past 15 years of practice. In that time, he said, no other case
matched up to this.

"I have never, ever in my career seen something as blatant as
what's happened at these Ruby Tequila's locations. I've never had
an employer walk in, shut down their entire operation, not pay
employees for weeks and sometimes months of pay . . . on this
scale that we know has been viable for many years," Young said.
"This is a widespread catastrophe that is striking the lives of
many people." [GN]


SAN JACINTO, TX: Potts Law Firm Sues on Behalf of Flood Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Potts Law Firm, a Houston-based law firm, filed a class action on
September 6, 2017, in the Harris County District Court seeking to
represent all individuals and businesses recently affected by the
San Jacinto River Authority's handling of "controlled release" of
water from Lake Conroe on August 27, 2017. As a result of the
release, it is estimated that thousands of homeowners and business
owners' properties were flooded who had previously escaped
flooding from Hurricane Harvey itself.

The lawsuit styled Thomas E. and Beth F. Ross, et.al. v. San
Jacinto River Authority, et al., consists of two subclasses for
(1) All Texas residential property owners who experienced flood
waters at their property on or after Monday, August 28, 2017, in
the area downstream of Lake Conroe affected by the rising waters
of the San Jacinto River as a result of San Jacinto River
Authority's decision to release water from Lake Conroe; and (2)
All Texas commercial property owners who experienced flood waters
at their property on or after Monday, August 28, 2017, in the area
downstream of Lake Conroe affected by the rising waters of the San
Jacinto River as a result of San Jacinto River Authority's
decision to release water from Lake Conroe.

Plaintiffs owned property that was not flooding after Hurricane
Harvey sat over Harris and Montgomery Counties on Saturday, August
26, 2017 and Sunday, August 27, 2017, but only began flooding on
Tuesday, August 29, 2017 when the San Jacinto River Authority
released water from Lake Conroe. After the release, Plaintiffs'
property took on several feet of flood water. The suit seeks
damages for the government's intentional taking of properties by
flooding and seeks recovery for the repair costs to such
properties, diminution in value of the properties, lost income or
business income to the properties' owners, and any consequential
loss of the flooding. Inverse condemnation occurs when the
government takes private property but fails to pay the
compensation required by Section 17, Article 1 of the Texas
Constitution. Similar lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina and a class action was certified by the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.

"In the devastating aftermath of the flooding, Potts Law Firm
stands ready to support our clients, our employees, and our
community at this most challenging time", said Derek H. Potts,
National Managing Partner in Houston. "This case is particularly
important to us since it directly impacted so many friends,
neighbors, and family members."

Widely recognized for their expertise in complex litigation and
trials, Potts Law Firm has obtained record-setting verdicts and
settlements on behalf of clients in state and federal courts
across the country. The attorneys with Potts Law Firm are
dedicated to fighting for the rights of victims of flood and wind
catastrophes.

About Potts Law Firm

Potts Law Firm diligently pursues a variety of complex litigation
and mass tort matters, from complex pharmaceutical cases to
challenging eminent domain claims. The firm's team of highly
competent attorneys have experience in many different areas
complex litigation. Believing that every detail of a case matters,
firm attorneys work tirelessly to pursue just compensation,
regardless of the obstacles faced. For more information, visit
www.potts-law.com [GN]


SHAMROCK FOODS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in Central District California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shamrock Foods
Company.  The case is styled as Mario Ruiz, Raul Guerrero and
Robert Torres, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shamrock Foods Company, an Arizona
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM, (C.D.
Cal., August 14, 2017).  The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V.
Wilson.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
     Aashish Y Desai, Esq.
     DESAI LAW FIRM PC
     3200 Bristol Street Suite 650
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (949) 614-5830
     Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
     Email: adrianne@desai-law.com
     Email: aashish@desai-law.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Suit over NJ Superfund Site Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Gibbsboro, New
Jersey, residents brought a federal complaint in Camden, N.J.,
against the Sherwin-Williams Co. to have it clean up a Superfund
site that is sickening people with cancer and various diseases.

The case is, BRAD LAFFERTY, CHRISTEN LAFFERTY, BRAD LAFFERTY AND
CHRISTEN LAFFERTY, in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of
their minor daughter, EL, a minor, CORRINE PROCAJLO, SANDRA KEA
TING LAUREN PROCAJLO, MICHAEL DIGIOVANNI, SPENCER POPE, LISA
DIGIOVANNI, GINA TARTAGLIA, ANTHONY TARTAGLIA, SCOTT LITTLEFIELD,
KRISTEN LITTLEFIELD SCOTT AND KRISTEN LITTLEFIELD in their
capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a
minor, DAWN D'ORAZIO, AND GINA HYNDMAN, in their individual
capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS V.
THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY, INC, AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:17-cv-06321-JHR-AMD (D. N.J.,
August 22, 2017).

Attorney for plaintiffs:

     Craig R. Mitnick, Esq.
     MITNICK LAW OFFICE, LLC
     35 Kings Highway East
     Haddonfield, NJ 08033


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Faces Suits over Mayweather-McGregor Fight
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joss Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in state and federal court, Showtime faces bicoastal class actions
from fight fans who say say their $99 broadcast of the Mayweather-
McGregor fight was shakier than the unlucky Irishman on August 26.

Pitting the undefeated boxer Floyd Mayweather against the
charismatic ultimate fighter Conor McGregor, the weekend showdown
was estimated in advance to make more than $1 billion, breaking
previous records for pay-per-view fights.

Mayweather held on to his title, but one federal class action in
Portland, Oregon, against Showtime Networks says the viewing
experience was ruined by "grainy video, error screens, buffer
events, and stalls."

Zack Bartel, the lead plaintiff in that case, estimates the Oregon
class alone to consist of thousands of jilted viewers, "based on
the historic nature of the fight and the record-breaking demand to
watch it."

In addition to the Bartel case, Showtime faces a class action in
Los Angeles County Superior Court from Dean and Keefe Ferrandini.
A New Yorker named Victor Mallh filed a federal class action as
well, in the state's Southern District. A fourth class action was
filed in Las Vegas Federal Court.

The Ferrandinis note that the process of logging on to stream the
broadcast took hours, and the title match "was well underway" by
the time the application finally started to work.

"Instead of enjoying the match they had paid for, Plaintiffs spent
the majority of the evening frustrated and on the phone trying to
get through to customer service," the complaint states.

Mallh's complaint in New York notes that hundreds of viewers were
inundating  Showtime's support account on Twitter with refund
inquiries when the network "issued a sanitized and misleading
announcement."

"Due to high demand, we have reports of scattered outages from
various cable and satellite provides and the online offering,"
Showtime Sports said in a statement. "We will delay the start of
the main event slightly to allow for systems to get on track. We
do not expect a lengthy delay."

Representatives for Showtime have not responded to a request for
comment. The network is a subsidiary of CBS Corporation.

Represented by Orin Kurtz of Grady & Notis, Mallh seeks treble
damages for breach of contract, fraud and other claims. The case
has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.

Hrag Kouyoumijan of Seven Hill Law represents the class in Los
Angeles, and Michael Fuller of Olsen Daines represents the
Portland class.

All three class actions report that, as of their filing,
none of the plaintiffs had received refunds from Showtime.

Media reports indicate that Showtime is directing upset customers
to their internet/cable providers first, but will handle
complaints from anyone who bought the fight through
Showtimeppv.com and the ShowtimePPV app.

According to content-security vendor Irdeto, Saturday's fight
reportedly yielded 239 illegal live-streamed rebroadcasts online,
reaching more than 2.9 million viewers worldwide.

With 532 movie theaters around the country showing the fight as
well, it even made into this weekend's box office Top 10.


SNA CONCRETE: Faces "Fabre" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.N.A. Concrete
Pumping Corp.  The case is styled as Alan Fabre, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
S.N.A. Concrete Pumping Corp., P & L Pumping Inc. and Paul Leal,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05303 (E.D. N.Y., September 11,
2017).

S.N.A. Concrete Pumping Corp. is in the Concrete Pumping
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SNY LEE: Barajas et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Barajas, Eugenio Espino Barros, Osmar Cardona, Jose Maria
Guillen and Oscar Meneses, the Plaintiffs, v. SNY Lee Inc. doing
business as NYS Lee Inc., doing business as Skinny's Cantina, SJL
2 Inc. doing business as Kavala, Shih Yu Lee and Shih Nien Lee,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04873-SJ-PK, (E.D.N.Y., August
18, 2017), seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief to
redress Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law and other supporting regulations.

Defendants were employers of plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees.  The complaint says the defendants:

     -- did not post a work schedule reflecting the plaintiffs
        and other similarly situated employees' scheduled hours
        of work, and

     -- failed to keep full and accurate records of plaintiffs
        hours and wages in order to avoid liability for their
        wage violations as required by the FLSA.

The defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully failed to
pay plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the minimum
hourly rate, overtime pay and spread of hours pay under the FLSA
and NYLL for all hours worked.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hope Pordy, Esq.
     SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
     1700 Broadway, 21st Floor
     New York, New York 10019
     Telephone: (212) 765-2100
     Facsimile: (212) 765-8954
     Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


SOTHEBYS HOLDINGS: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sothebys Holdings.
The case is titled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sothebys Holdings, Sothebys International Realty Affiliates LLC,
Sothebys International Realty, Inc. and Sothebys Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06264-KPF, (S.D.N.Y., August 23,
2017).  The case is assigned to Judge Katherine Polk Failla.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
     630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
     Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


SPOKEO INC: Must Defend Against Class Suit, 9th Cir. Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mccann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit ruled on August 15, that online data aggregator
Spokeo must face a class action lawsuit from a man who says the
website displayed inaccurate information about him: falsely
calling him wealthy and well-educated.

Virginia resident Thomas Robins sued Spokeo in 2010, claiming the
site falsely described him as wealthy and well-educated, which he
feared would affect his job search because companies might reject
him as overqualified.

Robins' profile on Spokeo had his age wrong, and falsely said he
was married with children and had a graduate degree, according to
his lawsuit.  He sued the company in Los Angeles Federal Court,
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright dismissed for lack of standing,
and also dismissed an amended complaint, finding Robins did not
show he had suffered any actual harm.

A Ninth Circuit panel revived the case in 2014.

"The statutory cause of action does not require a showing of
actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations," Ninth
Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote then.

"When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require
proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the
statutory right without suffering actual damages."

The U.S. Supreme Court last year reversed the Ninth Circuit, with
Justice Samuel Alito writing for the 6-2 majority that a "bare
procedural violation" of a credit reporting statute is not enough
to show injury.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent that Robins was
harmed by the inaccuracies on the Spokeo page, which created the
impression that he was overqualified for work.

"Robins would not qualify, the Court observes, if he alleged a
'bare' procedural violation . . . one that results in no harm, for
example, 'an incorrect zip code,'" Ginsburg wrote. "Far from an
incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his
education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate
representations that could affect his fortune in the job market."

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit ruled on
August 15 that Robins had standing to sue Spokeo under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Because the Spokeo page had already been published, Robins alleged
injuries that were "concrete" enough to establish standing,
according to the unanimous three-member panel.

Writing for the court, O'Scannlain noted that the Supreme Court
"gave little guidance as to what varieties of misinformation
should fall into the harmless category, beyond the example of an
erroneous zip code."

"It does not take much imagination to understand how inaccurate
reports on such a broad range of material facts about Robins's
life could be deemed a real harm," O'Scannlain wrote, reversing
and remanding.

Robins' attorney Jay Edelson called it a "terrific decision" on
Twitter, and told The Consumerist that "litigants need not show
'additional injury' beyond what Congress has articulated."

Spokeo was disappointed, saying in a statement that it agreed
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's prior observation that "the
class . . . is not going to be certified." Spokeo vowed to
continue the fight at the district court.

Cases like Robins' are "the kinds of no-injury class actions that
many companies face and that can stifle innovation," Spokeo said
in the statement.

Ninth Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Carlos T. Bea joined
O'Scannlain on the panel.


STATE FARM: Mitchell Moves for Certification of Liability Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LORINE MITCHELL v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299-JBM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), moves for an order certifying an issues class.

The Rule 23(b)(3) liability class is defined as:

     All persons and legal entities, insured under a State Farm
     Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") property insurance
     policy coverage form other than property form FE-3650 Actual
     Cash Value Endorsement or similar property form which
     expressly permits the depreciation of labor, and who
     received an "actual cash value" ("ACV") payment from State
     Farm for direct physical loss to a dwelling or other
     structure located in the State of Mississippi, and in which
     the cost of labor was withheld in whole or in part (or as
     described by State Farm as "depreciated") as reflected
     within an Xactimate estimate used by State Farm to calculate
     the corresponding ACV payment.  The proposed class includes
     any policyholder who received no ACV payment from State Farm
     solely because the withholding of labor depreciation caused
     the value of the claim to drop below the applicable
     deductible.  The proposed class excludes any person or
     entities whose applicable suit limitation clause for ACV
     claims within their respective State Farm's policy had
     expired at the time of the filing of the Complaint in the
     instant action, but includes any person or entity so
     affected through the date of final disposition of this
     matter.

Ms. Mitchell also asks that she be appointed class representative,
and that her counsel be appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X0mHtcmS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          David C. Linder, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
                  dlinder@larsonking.com

               - and -

          G. Patrick Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY AND MURPHY, LLC
          3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: (618) 248-3236
          E-mail: patrick@murphymurphyllc.com

               - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


SUGAR FACTORY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Factory, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Sugar Factory, LLC doing business as: Sugar Factory and Sugar
Factory the Row, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05311 (E.D.
N.Y., September 11, 2017).

Sugar Factory, LLC is engaged in retail store and on-line retail
store featuring candy, confections, ice cream, baked goods, and
delicatessen goods; retail store and on-line retail store services
featuring candy, confections, ice cream, baked goods, and
delicatessen goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARCOS CORVALAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. TACO CHIC, LLC d/b/a
Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, and ALBERTO CINTA,
an individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-22538-JLK (S.D. Fla.), moves the
Court for an order certifying collective action and authorizing
notice to all class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

The "216(b) Class Members" are:

     All persons who worked for Defendants as servers within the
     three years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of
     Defendants' policy of requiring servers to share tips with
     employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips
     and to work without being paid an hourly wage, earned less
     than the applicable minimum and/or overtime wage for one or
     more weeks.

Specifically, Mr. Corvalan alleges that he and other 216(b) Class
Members were (1) forced to participate in a non-transparent tip
pool or tip-share, in which tips were believed to have been shared
with non-tipped employees such as management and/or owners; and
were (2) paid below the minimum and overtime wage for tipped
employees.  The Plaintiff and 216(b) Class Members were employees
of Taco Chic, doing business as Tacology, a Florida limited
liability company, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jcz5WyJr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rene Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
          Geoffrey Travis, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7337
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7837
          E-mail: rllorens@shutts.com
                  gtravis@shutts.com


TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Servers Class Under Rule 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARCOS CORVALAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. TACO CHIC, LLC d/b/a
Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, and ALBERTO CINTA,
an individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-22538-JLK (S.D. Fla.), moves the
Court for an order certifying a Rule 23 Class Action pursuant to
the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment, and authorizing notice to all
class members.

Mr. Corvalan seeks class-action certification of this class:

     All persons who worked for Defendants as servers within the
     five years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of
     Defendants' policy of requiring servers to share tips with
     employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips
     and to work without being paid an hourly wage, earned less
     than the Florida minimum wage for one or more weeks.

Specifically, Mr. Corvalan alleges that he and Rule 23 Class
Members were forced to participate in a mandatory and illegal tip-
sharing scheme in which tipped employees shared their tips with
non-tipped employees and were paid below the minimum and overtime
wage for tipped employees.  The Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class
Members were employees of Taco Chic doing business as Tacology, a
Florida limited liability company, located in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PII4QVwP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Army Exposed to Radiation, "Burbach" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Burbach, Nolan R Allen, Andrew Anderson et al.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiffs, v. Tokyo Electric Power Company Inc. also known as
TEPCO, General Electric and Does 5 through 200, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01671-DMS-KSC, (S.D. Cal., August 18, 2017),
seeks damages due to the release of radioisotopes from the
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of members of the armed forces, their
dependents and support personnel.  They allege that the defendants
were negligent when all of them were exposed during the mission
known as "Operation Tomodachi".  The plaintiffs state that they
suffered injuries, losses, damages and caused harms due to
defendants' conduct including the negligently designed and
maintained GE Boiling Water Reactors situated at Fukushima Daiichi
which contain numerous design and manufacturing defects. The harms
include illnesses such as leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals,
brain cancer, brain tumors, testicular cancer, dysfunctional
uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments, birth
defects, death and a host of other complaints unusual in such
young adults and victims.  The plaintiffs seek judgment requiring
the defendants to establish a fund in an amount not less than $5
billion as to each defendant available, to advance and pay all
costs and expenses for each of the plaintiffs.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul C. Garner, Esq.
     Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
     A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
     475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212
     Sausalito, CA 94965
     Telephone: (415) 331-3070
     Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
     Email: pcg@garnerlaw.com
     Email: cbonner799@aol.com
     Email: cabral@bonnerlaw.com

          - and -

     John R. Edwards, Esq.
     Catharine E. Edwards, Esq.
     EDWARDS KIRBY
     3201 Glenwood Ave. Suite 100
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Telephone: (919) 780-5400
     Facsimile: (919) 800-3099


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lacks Standing to Collect Debts, Jackson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Jackson, Connie Feldhahn, Dorothy Kyllonen, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Transworld Systems Inc. and Shermeta Law Group PLLC and Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis C. LPA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12725-
GAD-APP, (E.D. Mich., August 20, 2017), seeks damages and
injunctive relief based upon defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Regulation of Collection
Practices Act and the Michigan Occupation Code.

The Plaintiffs contend that the defendants filed debt collection
lawsuits throughout the state of Michigan without the proper
ownership of debts or chain of title of ownership of debts to have
standing to sue Michigan consumers.

TSI is a collector of private student loan debts for vast network
of Education Trusts titled as National Collegiate Master Student
Loan Trust (NCSLT) that employs collection law firms through the
State of Michigan to file collection lawsuits.  According to the
complaint, TSI is collecting a defaulted student loans through
collection lawsuits filed by defendants Shermeta and Weltman at
its own direction even though there is no proof or chain of title
from the original lender of the student loans.  There has no
standing or any minimum proof necessary to take the case to
completion or trial at the time the lawsuits are filed by the
defendants.  TSI along with the collection law firms all know they
cannot make out a prima facie case demonstrating the existence or
ownership of any of the education debts at the very beginning of
the lawsuit against Michigan consumers.[BN]

Transworld Systems Inc. is a debt collector that services and
collects large portfolios of defaulted student loans through its
own employees and Michigan law firms.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian P. Parker, Esq.
     BRIAN P. PARKER PC
     4301 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 180-208
     West Bloomfield, MI 48323
     Tel: (248) 342-9583
     Fax: (248) 659-1733
     Email: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


UBER TECH: Mejia Sues in Florida over Ban on Guns
-------------------------------------------------
Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
on a rainy afternoon in June, Mary Ann Krivda pulled her four-door
sedan into a St. Petersburg, Florida parking lot. Krivda, who
began driving for the ride-sharing service Uber four months ago,
saw her passenger, an elderly woman with a walker, standing under
a tree.

Krivda, 53, stepped out of the car to help the woman into the
backseat and attempted to put the walker in the trunk. But the
walker would not fit.

"I said, 'Ma'am, this walker is not going to fit,'" Krivda
recalls. "I offered to drive her under the awning of the building
to wait for another ride, but I couldn't drive down the road with
my trunk open and the walker falling out."

The woman refused, berated Krivda and wouldn't get out of the car,
she claims.

"I said, 'Ma'am, you do understand you are holding me against my
will?'" Krivda says. "So, I called the police to get her out."

The woman ended up leaving on her own before police arrived,
Krivda says, but the experience unsettled her.

"I was basically carjacked by a woman with a walker," she says.
"Just because it's an older lady with a walker doesn't mean it
can't be an older lady with a walker and a gun or knife."

If you spend enough time with an Uber driver, you're bound to hear
tales of irate or unruly passengers. That uneasiness has led one
South Florida driver to challenge Uber's policy prohibiting
weapons.

Jose Mejia filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., against Uber, alleging its no-firearms policy
violates Florida law.  The complaint, filed on August 11, in Fort
Lauderdale federal court, cites the Preservation and Protection of
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act, passed by
the Florida Legislature in 2008.

The law allows legal gun owners to keep firearms in their vehicles
on their employer's property and bans any employment
discrimination based on gun ownership.  According to the
complaint, Mejia holds a permit to carry a concealed weapon and he
wants the option to carry his firearm while shuttling people
around the state.

"You may or may not agree with the Second Amendment, but it is not
up to Uber to unilaterally decide drivers' constitutional rights
or their rights under this law," said Mejia's attorney, Elizabeth
Beck of Miami-based Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers.

A spokeswoman for Uber declined to comment on the lawsuit and
referred Courthouse News to the firearms prohibition policy listed
on its website.

"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable
ride," the policy states. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and
drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while
using our app. Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to
Uber."

Uber banned drivers and passengers from carrying firearms in 2015
after a Chicago driver shot a suspected gunman who fired into a
group of people in Logan Square.

In the past, Uber has attempted to skirt some employment laws by
claiming drivers are independent contractors and not actual
employees. However, Mejia's attorney points to language in the
2008 Florida statute that specifically covers independent
contractors and volunteers.

"You don't even have to be paid to be covered by this law," Beck
said.

Uber has fired Florida drivers who violated the weapons ban -- or,
as the company puts it, restricted the driver's use of the app.

In 2015, a retired New York Police Department officer driving in
Clearwater, Fla. shot a passenger in the foot after the man
allegedly attempted to choke him. Uber fired him days later.

Across the bay in Tampa, Uber driver Robert Addington says drunks
are more of a problem than robbers.

"I've never had any rides where I've felt threatened," he said. "I
had a woman spit on my car once. Every now and again, you have a
bad apple, but nothing that has been physically violent."

The 48-year-old recalled one passenger in Tampa's trendy SoHo
district who puked in his car.

"Luckily, I happened to have a five-gallon bucket in the car," he
said. "I always told myself I would never drive at night, because
I didn't want to deal with the drunks. But one night I took an
Uber myself at 2 a.m. and noticed the surge pricing."

The extra money persuaded Addington to drive weekends from 11 p.m.
to 4 a.m. for a few months.

"You can choose who you pick up," he explaieds. "Sometimes you
can't choose where you are dropping off, but I'm not worried about
it. I don't carry a weapon or cash. My car is insured. If they
were to rob me, there's not much to get."

Krivda, the Uber driver from St. Petersburg, does not work late
nights, but sympathizes with some Uber drivers' fears.

"I can understand where people would be concerned," she said. "If
someone can get into your car with a concealed weapon, there's no
reason you should not be able to carry a concealed weapon, too."

"It's your car and anything can happen," she added.

Mejia's lawsuit seeks to represent a class of Florida Uber drivers
with a concealed-carry license. He wants a judge to declare that
the ride-sharing company's policy against firearms violates the
2008 Florida law.

The case is captioned, JOSE MEJIA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case 0:17-
cv-61617-BB(S.D. Fla., August 11, 2017).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
          Corporate Park at Kendall
          12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 234-2060
          Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
                  elizabeth@beckandlee.com
                  beverly@beckandlee.com

               - and -

          Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq.
          ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ, P.A.
          4 SE 1st St., 2nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 282-3698
          Facsimile: (786) 513-7748
          E-mail: hern8491@bellsouth.net


UBER TECH: Embedded Terms of Service Link Valid, 2nd Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that reviving Uber's bid to arbitrate price-fixing claims, the
Second Circuit found on August 16, that the company's embedding of
terms of service in a hyperlink did not render them unreasonably
inconspicuous.

"Turning to the interface at issue in this case, we conclude that
the design of the screen and language used render the notice
provided reasonable as a matter of California law," U.S. Circuit
Judge Denny Chin wrote for a three-judge panel.

The interface at issue is one that all cellphone users confront
when they open an account with Uber Technologies.

At a payment screen Chin called "uncluttered," there is a key
warning about Uber's terms of service and privacy policy.

"The entire screen is visible at once, and the user does not need
to scroll beyond what is immediately visible to find notice of the
Terms of Service," the opinion states. "Although the sentence is
in a small font, the dark print contrasts with the bright white
background, and the hyperlinks are in blue and underlined."

Chin added that the link by which Uber embedded its Terms of
Service should not be considered in a vacuum.

"Many apps . . . require potential users to sign up for an account
to access the app's services," the opinion states. "Accordingly,
when considering the perspective of a reasonable smartphone user,
we need not presume that the user has never before encountered an
app or entered into a contract using a smartphone.  Moreover, a
reasonably prudent smartphone user knows that text that is
highlighted in blue and underlined is hyperlinked to another
webpage where additional information will be found."

Lead plaintiff Spencer Meyer filed the underlying complaint in
2014 against Uber Technologies and the ride-sharing company's
then-CEO Travis Kalanick. He claims that Uber's surge pricing
amounts to price fixing, and a federal judge in New York initially
kept the class action on track when Uber moved to compel
arbitration.

Though the lower court said Meyer did not have reasonably
conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service, the Second Circuit was
unanimous in reversing that decision on August 17.

Meyer's attorney, Brian Feldman with the Rochester, N.Y., firm
Harter Secrest & Emery, emphasized that the battle on arbitration
is not over.

"This ruling does not grant defendants the right to throw this
case into arbitration," Feldman said in a statement. "The defense
waived that right.  We look forward to pressing ahead with the
litigation."

Uber's attorney meanwhile cheered the Second Circuit victory.

"The Second Circuit's powerful and commonsense opinion will serve
to protect online contracting and strengthen commerce nationwide,"
said Theodore Boutrous, of the Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher. "We are thrilled with the decision."

The lawsuit against San Francisco-based Uber is one of a number of
high-profile problems confronting the tech company.

Under fire for sexual harassment and bias accusations by female
staff, Kalanick resigned as CEO in June after a shareholder
revolt.

Judge Chin cited a 2015 study by the Pew Research Center in laying
out the traits of average smartphone users.

Nearly two-thirds of American adults owned a smartphone that year,
and that number is one that had almost doubled since 2011, Pew
found.

Chin noted that consumers use their smartphones for everything
from dating to banking, and that as much as 89 percent of surveyed
smartphone users reported using the internet on their phones.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Circ. Won't Revive $350M Insurance Feud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Eighth Circuit
on September 7 refused to revive UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s battle
with its excess insurers over coverage for its $350 million class
action settlement with the American Medical Association and
others, holding that the health system didn't provide enough
evidence to determine how much of the deal was for covered
damages.

U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of
Minnesota had ruled in fall 2014 that UnitedHealth failed to show
how the settlement sum was divided between two proposed class
actions: one involving antitrust claims by the American Medical
Association and another over Employee Retirement Income Security
Act claims filed by Rodney Malchow, who said his child was denied
vital cancer treatment by a UnitedHealth subsidiary.

As a result, the district judge said UnitedHealth's excess
carriers Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co., First Specialty
Insurance Corp. and Starr Excess Liability Insurance International
Ltd. didn't have to pick up the tab for any part of the
settlement. The judge had previously dismissed a fourth excess
insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Co., from the litigation
after concluding that UnitedHealth didn't provide that carrier
adequate notice.

UnitedHealth appealed, but a panel of the Eighth Circuit declined
to disturb the district court's holdings in  September 7's
published opinion. With respect to allocation, the panel agreed
with the lower court that the health system hadn't set forth
enough admissible evidence for a jury to be able to decipher what
portion of the underlying settlement was attributable to the
potentially covered AMA action, as opposed to the noncovered
Malchow suit.

"Allocation required either contemporaneous evidence of valuation
or expert testimony on relative value to provide a reasonable
foundation for a jury's decision," Circuit Judge Steven Colloton
wrote for the panel. "Without more evidence about the relative
value of the claims, a reasonable jury could only speculate as to
how the settlement should be allocated."

In the underlying suits, doctors and health plan subscribers
claimed they were underpaid or received inadequate health claims
reimbursements from December 1998 through December 2000. The
actions blamed the reimbursement shortfalls on UnitedHealth's use
of Ingenix, an in-house database of customary rates used to
calculate out-of-network reimbursements that the suits say had
routinely lowballed reimbursements. UnitedHealth resolved the
suits in a $350 million lump-sum settlement in 2009.

The health insurance giant first brought suit against primary
insurer Lexington Insurance Co. and excess insurer Columbia
Casualty Co. in 2005, seeking coverage for its litigation costs.
Four years later, UnitedHealth filed an amended complaint that
added claims against several "managed care liability" insurers,
including National Union, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., American
Alternative Insurance Corp., Executive Risk Specialty Insurance,
First Specialty Insurance, Starr Excess Liability Insurance,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and Steadfast Insurance Co.

After UnitedHealth broke the litigation into pieces and settled
with several insurers, four defendants remained: National Union,
Executive Risk, First Specialty and Starr Excess.

In April 2013, Judge Schiltz ruled in favor of National Union
based on UnitedHealth's failure to provide sufficient notice of
the underlying claims. Then, in September 2014, the three
remaining excess insurers prevailed after the district judge found
UnitedHealth hadn't presented enough evidence for a jury to make
an informed determination of how the settlement sum should be
allocated between the AMA and Malchow actions.

As a preliminary matter, the Eighth Circuit panel rejected
UnitedHealth's argument that it only had to show that the
settlement resulted in a covered loss of an "unspecified amount"
exceeding $95 million -- the point at which coverage under the
lowest-level excess policy at issue is triggered. Instead, for
UnitedHealth to beat summary judgment, it was required to present
a "nonspeculative" basis for the settlement to be allocated
between covered and noncovered claims, which it didn't do, the
panel said.

UnitedHealth said that a jury could properly allocate the
settlement amount based on pre-settlement rulings in the AMA and
Malchow cases, plus the contents of the health system's excess
policies and testimony by its expert, James Halverson.

While Judge Schiltz allowed Halverson, an antitrust expert, to
testify about the value of the claims in the AMA action, the judge
said Halverson wasn't qualified to weigh in on the value of
UnitedHealth's settlement of Malchow's ERISA claims. The Eighth
Circuit panel said the lower court's decision on that point was
sound.

"Without analyzing the Malchow suit, Halverson could not provide
an expert opinion about its value," Judge Colloton wrote. "And
without knowing the value of the Malchow suit, Halverson could not
testify as to the relative value of the AMA suit compared to the
Malchow suit."

The appellate panel also pointed out that UnitedHealth chose to
assert the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to
block any inquiry into its own representatives' contemporaneous
assessments of the settlement's valuation, and failed to put forth
another expert to testify regarding how much of the settlement
should be allocated to the Malchow action.

"On the record that was presented, the district court properly
concluded that UnitedHealth failed to present sufficient evidence
to submit the issue to a jury," Judge Colloton wrote.

In addition, the panel found that UnitedHealth had waived its
ability to challenge the district judge's rejection of its claim
for $35 million in defense costs in the AMA suit by failing to
raise an objection in the lower court.

Based on its conclusions, the panel said National Union's upper-
level excess policies aren't implicated and, therefore, it doesn't
have to address UnitedHealth's arguments on the notice issue.

An attorney for Executive Risk and First Specialty declined
comment, while representatives for UnitedHealth, Starr Excess and
National Union did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Circuit Judges James B. Loken, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M.
Colloton sat on the appellate panel.

UnitedHealth is represented by its own Matthew Mackinnon Shors; by
David B. Goodwin, Esq. -- dgoodwin@cov.com -- and Michael S.
Greenberg, Esq. -- mgreenberg@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling
LLP; and by Margaret S. Brownell, Esq. --
margo.brownell@maslon.com --  Erica Holzer, Esq. --
erica.holzer@maslon.com -- Michael C. McCarthy, Esq. --
mike.mccarthy@maslon.com -- and William Zane Pentelovitch, Esq. --
bill.pentelovitch@maslon.com --  of Maslon LLP.

Executive Risk and First Specialty are represented by Ronald
Paltin Schiller, Esq. -- rschiller@hangley.com -- Robert L. Ebby,
Esq. -- rebby@hangley.com -- and Bonnie M. Hoffman, Esq. --
bhoffman@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller. Starr Excess and National Union are represented by David
P. Pearson, Esq. -- dpearson@winthrop.com -- Thomas Henry Boyd,
Esq. -- tboyd@winthrop.com -- and Brent A. Lorentz, Esq. --
blorentz@winthrop.com -- of Winthrop & Weinstine PA.

The case is UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Executive Risk Specialty
Insurance et al., case number 15-1076, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. [GN]


UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Launches Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Copibec is publishing in the newspapers Le Monde, Le Devoir, The
Gazette and ActuaLittE, the notice to members which publication
was ordered by the Quebec Superior Court on August 21st, 2017. To
read the notice, you can visit www.copibec.ca/en/legal-notice.

In February 2017, Copibec obtained the right to launch a class
action against UniversitE Laval, located in Quebec City, on behalf
of authors, publishers and collective management organizations
from all over the world, with a claim of over $ 10 million. This
amount is claimed in lieu of damages for the reproduction, without
authorization, of thousands of works' extracts, sold in
coursepacks or made available to students, in more than 900
courses every year, and that for the fourth consecutive year.

This public notice has also been shared worldwide on the websites
of a dozen of associations of authors, publishers and collective
management organizations.

Copibec's president, Daniele Simpson, emphasizes that all Quebec
universities, except Laval, have negotiated with Copibec, last
June, the renewal of the blanket licenses that cover the
reproduction of protected material, for the period 2017-2021.
Authors and publishers are hoping that the new rector of
UniversitE Laval will join the position of the other Quebec
universities and will take the decision needed to end the
litigation between UniversitE Laval to Copibec, rather than
maintaining a policy that systematically violates copyright. The
decision rendered by Judge Phelan from the Federal Court in the
Access Copyright v. York University case in favor of rightsholders
and the renegotiation of Copibec's University Licence both offer
an enabling environment to UniversitE Laval to abandon its policy
on fair dealing.

The ball is now in the university's court and without a courageous
decision from its administration, the class action will follow its
course and the hearing could be scheduled  in 2018. The attorney
representing the group, Daniel Payette, recalls that authors and
publishers whose work has been reproduced without the proper
authorization do not have to take any action to participate. They
are automatically included in the class action. They can stay
informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings on this dedicated
website: www.copibec.ca/en/class-action-against-universite-laval
[GN]


VERIZON: 9th Cir. Revives Suit over Collection of Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Verizon customers who accused an online ad company of using
"zombie cookies" to collect personal data through their
smartphones will have a second chance to sue the company as a
class, the Ninth Circuit ruled.

A three-judge appeals panel granted the subscribers' petition to
overturn a federal judge's order staying their proposed class
action and compelling arbitration between the lead plaintiff and
Verizon over Turn Inc.'s alleged conduct, ruling that the lower
court had "committed clear error."

"We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed," the per curiam opinion said.

A class of Verizon customers from New York sued Turn in the
Northern District of California in 2015, claiming the company used
"zombie cookies" to monitor their online behavior through their
mobile devices.

Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web
information about users that can be used in targeted advertising.
A user can delete a cookie, but lead plaintiff Anthony Henson said
Turn's "zombie cookies" evaded detection and could not be deleted.
When a person deleted Turn's cookies, the company recreated them,
he claimed.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted Turn's motion
to stay the class action and compel arbitration, finding the
claims against Turn were "inextricably intertwined" with a Verizon
customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs had argued Turn's motion to compel arbitration
should be denied because Turn was not a party to the agreement.
But White found arbitration must be compelled when claims "arise
directly" from a provision of a contract that requires arbitration
to settle disputes.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with White, finding the plaintiffs'
claims aren't based on the customer agreement. Instead, their
complaint was "replete with allegations of wrongdoing against Turn
that have nothing to do with the customer agreement," the court
wrote, including that Turn collected data about Verizon users
without their knowledge and bypassed their phones' privacy
controls in order to transmit their information to Turn.

"None of these allegations rely on the customer agreement or
attempt to seek any benefit from its terms," the panel wrote in
its 16-page opinion.

Nimish Desai, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in
San Francisco who represents the plaintiffs, said that he
and his clients were pleased with the decision.

"We are looking forward to litigating these claims on behalf of
the plaintiffs and the proposed class," he said in an email.

To arrive at its conclusion, the panel relied on the third factor
in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, decided by the Ninth Circuit in
1977. The factor considers whether a trial court's order is wrong
as a matter of law.

The panel found that White had erred by granting Turn's motion to
compel arbitration under New York's equitable estoppel doctrine.
Instead, White should have applied the equitable estoppel doctrine
of California -- where Turn was sued -- to determine whether Turn,
as a nonsignatory to the customer agreement, can compel
arbitration.

Under California law, Henson would have to arbitrate if his claims
relied on the customer agreement, or if the claims were founded in
or intertwined with the agreement, according to the Ninth
Circuit's opinion.

"The district court committed clear error by applying New York's
equitable estoppel doctrine, rather than California's, and by
failing to apply California law correctly," the panel wrote.

The panel found that three of the five Bauman factors weighed in
favor of granting the petition.

Michael Rubin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in San Francisco
represents Turn. He could not be reached for comment.

Digital marketing tech company Amobee acquired Turn this past
April, according to an announcement on Amobee's website.
Representatives for Amobee and Verizon did not return requests for
comment.

Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Richard Tallman and U.S.
District Judge Roslyn Silver, sitting by designation from the
District of Arizona, made up the Ninth Circuit panel.


VERIZON: Customers Can Sue Ad Company Over "Zombie" Cookies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that the online
advertising company at the center of Verizon's "zombie" cookie
controversy cannot avoid a proposed class action lawsuit filed by
Verizon Wireless customers, a federal appeals court ruled this
week.

Turn, Inc. is an online advertising clearinghouse that allegedly
attached un-deletable tracking cookies to Verizon customer
identifiers to collect and send their Web browsing and usage data
to Turn's servers. Verizon customers Anthony Henson and William
Cintron filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Turn on
behalf of all Verizon customers in New York, but the company
argued that the customers should be forced into arbitration.

Previously, the US District Court in Northern California granted
Turn's motion to compel arbitration. But a panel of three judges
at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously
overturned that ruling on September 5.

"Turn attempts to invoke the arbitration agreement between Henson
and Verizon to compel arbitration, but Henson and Turn do not have
an arbitration agreement with each other," judges wrote this week.

Verizon's agreement with customers requires them to arbitrate
disputes, but "Turn is not a signatory to the Customer Agreement
and does not otherwise have an arbitration agreement with Henson,"
the ruling said. The judges vacated the district court order that
granted Turn's motion to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration,
and they ordered Turn to "bear all costs of appeal."

Tracking cookies respawned after deletion

ProPublica reported in January 2015 that Turn was "taking
advantage of a hidden undeletable number that Verizon uses to
monitor customers' habits on their smartphones and tablets. Turn
uses the Verizon number to respawn tracking cookies that users
have deleted."

Shortly after that, Verizon said it would offer customers a way to
opt out from having their devices tracked by the hidden
identifiers, and Turn said it would stop using tracking cookies
that can't be deleted. In March 2016, Verizon agreed to pay a
$1.35 million fine and give users more control over "supercookies"
in a settlement with the Federal Communications Commission.
Verizon's use of the zombie cookies violated a net neutrality rule
that requires Internet providers to disclose accurate information
about network management practices to consumers, the FCC said.

But the class action is all about Turn's actions rather than
Verizon's. This played a role in the judges' decision this week.
Besides the fact that the arbitration clause doesn't apply to
Turn, the lawsuit's claims against Turn were not even based on the
customer agreement with Verizon, judges wrote:

Henson's complaint is replete with allegations of wrongdoing
against Turn that have nothing to do with the Customer Agreement.
Among other allegations, Henson claims that Turn violated Verizon
users' "reasonable expectations of privacy by creating zombie
cookies that users could neither detect nor delete, and which
monitored user behavior well beyond web browsing"; that Turn acted
"to disable the standard privacy controls employed by individuals
(such as deleting or blocking cookies)"; that Turn "used Class
members' personal, private, and confidential data for commercial
gain without their knowledge or consent"; and that Turn
consistently altered users' mobile devices by "circumventing
privacy controls in said devices and causing said devices to
transmit information to Turn to which Turn was not entitled." None
of these allegations rely on the Customer Agreement or attempt to
seek any benefit from its terms.

Henson also did not allege that Verizon colluded with Turn. "On
the contrary, Henson alleges that 'Turn conducted its practices in
secret' and acted without Verizon's knowledge, consent, or
approval," the judges wrote. "Indeed, Henson claims that Verizon
publicly rebuked Turn's alleged practices upon discovering them."

A separate business agreement between Turn and Verizon stipulated
that the two companies were "independent of each other" and not
acting in any sort of partnership or joint venture. The
arbitration clause in Verizon's contract with customers thus
wouldn't apply to disputes between Verizon customers and Turn, the
appeals court ruled.

There was also a dispute over whether California or New York law
should apply to the arbitration question. Turn argued that a New
York law bound the parties to a choice-of-law provision in the
customer agreement. But a choice-of-law clause is "a contractual
right and generally may not be invoked by one who is not a party
to the contract in which it appears," judges wrote. That means
Verizon could benefit from the choice-of-law clause, but Turn
could not.

Turn operates its business in California. "Because Henson sued
Turn in the Northern District of California, we apply California's
choice-of-law principles," judges wrote.

Forced arbitration clauses aren't going away

The complaint against Turn was filed in April 2015 and asks the
court to require Turn to delete all user data, change its data
collection and opt-out practices, and return all "ill-gotten
gains" to class members. The plaintiffs say that Turn "engaged in
deceptive business practices" in violation of New York law and
"committed trespass to chattels by intentionally interfering with
the use and enjoyment of Verizon subscribers' mobile devices."

Mandatory arbitration clauses deprive customers of their rights
and help ISPs avoid serious punishment for actions that harm
consumers, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and US Sen. Al Franken
(D-Minn.) have argued. Franken has authored Senate legislation
that would ban mandatory arbitration clauses, but the clauses
remain legal. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Files Motion to Dismiss 4 Appeals in TDI Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara McCleary, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Volkswagen has submitted a motion to dismiss four of the 10
appeals against it relating to the 2.0-liter Consumer Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release.

Ten members of the class action settlement are pursuing appeals as
a result of the settlement's failure to reimburse class members
who had retained attorneys prior to the class certification.
Volkswagen has filed a motion to dismiss against four of those
appellants, however, arguing that they have all completed and
accepted their settlement offers already. Part of this process,
according to the motion, is signing a release.

Volkswagen argues in its motion, filed Aug. 8, that "by signing
the individual releases, these appellants released all claims that
were resolved by the class action agreement, or otherwise arose
from or in any way relate to the subject matter of the underlying
actions. Because these individual releases remain effective even
if the class action agreement is vacated, reversed, or in any way
modified on appeal, the releasing appellants can seek no further
remedy from Volkswagen or the other released parties, and would
not be able to participate even in the modified versions of the
settlement that they seek through their appeals."

In response, one such appellant, Daniel Ancona, argues he does, in
fact, have standing in the appeal. In his objection to the motion
to dismiss, filed Aug. 18, Ancona argues the release does not
negate his right to object to a class settlement. Rather, he
argues, the language of the release simply prevents him from
pursuing further separate claims against Volkswagen for the 2.0-
liter TDI Matter.

Furthermore, reads Ancona's objection, "the fact that Ancona
participated in the class settlement by executing an individual
release, as he was required to do to participate in the class
settlement, does not change the fact that he presently has an
injury that can be redressed on appeal, and that a live
controversy still exists."

The Volkswagen 2.0-liter TDI settlement is one of the largest
class action settlements ever. Within the first eight months after
the settlement was reached, Volkswagen has paid more than $6
billion to almost 500,000 Class members. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration for Overdraft Fees Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Goggin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
attorneys for Wells Fargo asked a three-judge, 11th Circuit panel
on August 24, to toss multiple class actions accusing the banking
giant of unfair overdraft practices and send the cases to
arbitration.

Sonya Winner -- swinner@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP, who
is representing the bank, told the panel that just because Wells
Fargo didn't enforce its arbitration rights in disputes with some
customers, doesn't mean it waived those rights altogether.

Class actions filed in 49 states accuse Wells Fargo of changing
the order of debit card transactions -- from the highest to lowest
dollar amount -- to unfairly increase the number of transactions
subject to overdraft penalties.

Lawyers for the Wells Fargo customers say the practice, which went
on for at least a decade, was "unconscionable" and
disproportionately affected the poor because they are most likely
to have low account balances.

The lawsuits claim that in addition to changing the order of
transactions, Wells Fargo also failed to get customer consent
before processing transactions, failed to give customers accurate
balance information -- increasing the chances of overdrafts, and
refused to let them opt out of overdraft protection programs.

The cases were consolidated before a federal judge in Florida, who
last year declined Wells Fargo's request to force the claims into
arbitration.

The bank appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit, which heard the
case on August 24.  The latest hearing actually represents the
third time the case has come before the appeals court.

In 2012, the 11th Circuit ruled Wells Fargo missed its chance to
compel the putative class of plaintiffs into arbitration after the
bank decided not to move for binding arbitration on an individual
plaintiff.

In 2015, the 11th Circuit vacated a judge's  ruling that the
bank's waiver of its right to arbitration with the named
plaintiffs precludes it from compelling arbitration with the
unnamed class members.

One August 24, Winner argued the central question being presented
is "whether or not arbitration can be waived."

But U.S. Circuit Judge Bard Tjoflat cut her off.

"This is a classic case of issue preclusion," the judge said. "It
has never been decided that the contracts are valid to compel
arbitration."

Attorneys for the class argued that Wells Fargo waived its right
to arbitration when it failed to raise the argument before the
lawsuits were classified as class actions.

Tjoflat seemed to agree, noting "five years of litigation goes
down the drain" if the bank is allowed to assert the arbitration
clause now.

Still, the bank stands firm in its belief that arbitration is
justified.

"Wells Fargo continues to believe that arbitration is a fair,
efficient and effective way for a customer to pursue a legal claim
and resolve a legal dispute," Jason Menke, a spokesman for the
bank told Courthouse News. "For many years, high-to-low posting
order was standard in the banking industry. In 2010, Wells Fargo
eliminated high-to-low posting order for debit card transactions
and moved to chronological posting order for these items (the bank
also moved to chronological posting order for checks and ACH
transactions in 2014)."

Although the bank ceased its reordering practices in 2010, its
business practices continue to be plagued with scandal. In 2016,
it was revealed that Wells Fargo employees created millions of
fake bank and credit card accounts in the names of real customers
in order to fraudulently boost sales numbers.

The bank's CEO, John Stumpf, resigned after the fraud was
uncovered.

The news came just a few months after the US Supreme Court
rejected the bank's appeal arguing that a California overdraft
class action verdict was unjustified and let a $203 million
verdict in favor of the class stand.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Reply to "Magee" Suit Due Sept. 18
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc.  The case is titled as Scott Magee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08063-SSV-KWR
(E.D. La., August 21, 2017).

Winn-Dixie Stores was served on the complaint August 28 and the
Defendant's reply is due September 18.

Judge Sarah S. Vance has reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  "It has been brought to the Court's
attention that the above captioned matter is related to Civil
Action No. 16-4364 Magee v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al.,
previously allotted to Section "R"(4) of this Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby reassigned to Magistrate
Judge," Judge Vance said August 23.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
     Emily Westermeier, Esq.
     William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
     COSTALES LAW OFFICE
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 534-5005
     Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
     Email: eaw@beaumontcostales.com
     Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com


* Cy Pres Only Settlement Can Work in Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Ramsey, writing for National Law Review, reports that The
internet continues to expand into every aspect of our lives. With
it, many companies have collected, tracked, and used an enormous
amount of data. All of this has given rise to class action
lawsuits challenging the privacy practices of these companies.
But, these lawsuits often challenge practices that do not cause
any actual damage, which can make it difficult to reach a
settlement, particularly of a Rule 23(b)(3) class. So, how can
parties wanting to settle proceed?

In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court's
approval of a class action settlement in a privacy litigation
where the class received no damages, and the settlement funds went
to cy pres recipients instead. In In re Google Referrer Header
Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017), the
plaintiffs challenged Google's practice of providing websites with
the search terms that individuals used in Google's search engine
to reach the website. The plaintiffs claimed this violated their
privacy.

The parties reached a settlement with an $8.5 million fund. Of
that, $3.2 million was set aside for attorneys' fees,
administration costs, and incentive payments, the remaining $5.3
million was allocated to six cy pres recipients, and class members
received nothing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
approval of the settlement, holding that a cy pres only settlement
was appropriate where the settlement fund was "non-distributable."
In the case, there were 129 million class members. If the $5.3
million settlement had been distributed, each class member would
have received "a paltry 4 cents." The court held that, because
each class member's recovery would have been de minimis, a cy pres
only settlement was appropriate.

The Ninth Circuit went on to hold that the cy pres recipients were
appropriate. The recipients included organizations to which Google
had previously donated, organizations that had previously received
settlement funds from Google, and organizations housed at
plaintiffs' counsel alma maters. The Ninth Circuit held that these
connections did not raise any conflicts. For example, the Ninth
Circuit stated: "Given the burgeoning importance of Internet
privacy, it is no surprise that Google has chosen to support the
programs and research of recognized academic institutes and
nonprofit organizations. Google has donated to hundreds of third-
party organizations whose work implicates technology and Internet
policy issues, including university research centers, think tanks,
advocacy groups, and trade organizations. These earlier donations
do not undermine the selection process employed to vet the cy pres
recipients in this litigation."

Going forward, we might see more cy pres only settlements in cases
alleging violations of privacy, particularly where the alleged
violations cause no actual (or very little actual) damage to the
class. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldberg Nabs Segal McCambridge Toxic Tort Team
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that Goldberg Segalla has
nabbed a seven-attorney team from Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney Ltd. to bolster its toxic tort and environmental practice
group in Philadelphia.

The team, which joins a toxic tort and environmental group at
Goldberg Segalla that already boasts nearly 50 attorneys across 18
offices in the United States, is led by three partners -- Joseph
Cagnoli Jr., Jeremy Dongilli and Christopher McGowan -- and also
includes four associates.

Mr. Cagnoli may be reached at:

     Joseph Cagnoli Jr., Esq.
     1700 Market Street, Suite 1418
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907
     Tel: 267.519.6865
     Fax: 267.519.6801
     Email: jcagnoli@goldbergsegalla.com

Mr. Dongilli may be reached at:

     Jeremy G. Dongilli, Esq.
     1700 Market Street, Suite 1418
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907
     Tel: 267.519.6868
     Fax: 267.519.6801
     Email: jdongilli@goldbergsegalla.com

Mr. McGowan may be reached at:

     Christopher McGowan, Esq.
     1700 Market Street, Suite 1418
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907
     Tel: 267.519.6869
     Fax: 267.519.6801
     Email: cmcgowan@goldbergsegalla.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NJ Justice Says No Impropriety as Master
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reported that former New
Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto fired back at
opposition to his appointment as special master in an asbestos
fraud class action in New Jersey federal court, saying in a
certification that there's no impropriety despite his former and
current firms' connection to the parties.

Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey previously appointed former justice Rivera-Soto as
the Special Master in place of Judge Garrett Brown in the case
captioned KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiff, v. BASF
CATALYSTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-1754,
(D.N.J.).

According to Judge Linares, discovery of some of the proceedings
related to the case is necessary to resolve the issues: (a) to
prove that the Defendants intentionally destroyed or withheld
material evidence that the Defendants had a duty to disclose, (b)
that the Plaintiffs were not able to access such evidence on their
own, (c) that the Plaintiffs were damaged by the destruction or
concealment of such evidence, and (d) that the Defendants
misrepresented that the talc products did not contain asbestos
and/or that the Defendants did not have in their possession any
record or test results that concluded that the talc product
contained asbestos.

Judge Linares directed the Special Master to examine with care the
Plaintiffs' objections to discovery requests, and to address each
discovery request and objection in due course if the meet and
confer process has not resolved a dispute. Furthermore, the Court
directed the Special Master to ascertain, and apply all relevant
law to the documents and objections concerning the attorney client
privilege and determine what discovery (by way of written and
testimonial), if any, Plaintiffs will produce pursuant to the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Former justice Rivera-Soto is a former Fox Rothschild LLP attorney
and current Ballard Spahr LLP partner.

Lawyers for Cahill Gordon and BASF has asked Judge Linares to
select a different special master based on alleged conflicts of
interest surrounding the appointment of former justice Rivera-
Soto.  BASF said Rivera-Soto's firm, Ballard Spahr is represented
in a suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, by Williams &
Connolly, which also represents Cahill Gordon in the Williams
case.  Moreover, BASF pointed out that before Rivera-Soto was
appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004, he was with Fox
Rothschild, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs in the
Williams case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Urged to Rethink Excess Coverage Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reported that Trinity Lloyd's
Insurance Co. asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider an August
ruling that asbestos claims fall under the pollution exemption in
a U.S. Fire Insurance Co. excess policy.

Trinity said the panel used an absurdly overbroad definition of
"pollutant" in its decision to overturn an order requiring excess
insurer U.S. Fire to pay it $2.5 million to a cover the cost of
asbestos claims against custom fabricator Longhorn Gasket and
Supply Co.

The Fifth Circuit case is LONGHORN GASKET AND SUPPLY COMPANY; ET
AL, Plaintiffs, TRINITY LLOYD'S INSURANCE COMPANY; TRINITY
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor Plaintiffs - Appellees
Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee, No. 15-41625 (5th Cir.).

The case concerns Longhorn Gasket's primary and excess policy
coverage, as provided by Trinity Lloyd's, and U.S. Fire between
May 21, 1983, and February 1, 1986.

The Fifth Circuit finds that the pollution exclusion in U.S.
Fire's excess policies is broad, and applies generally to
"irritants, contaminants, and pollutants."  The Fifth Circuit
concludes, under plain language of the policy exclusion, that
asbestos constitutes a pollutant and an irritant.  Accordingly,
the Fifth Circuit held that Longhorn's claims fall under the
pollution exclusion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Co. Fined for Asbestos Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lee, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that
Properties Central Inc. was penalized $18,800 by the state for
violating asbestos regulations at a vacant residential property
undergoing renovation.

The real estate company bought a house at 14 Hadwen Lane and was
renovating it before putting it up for sale, according to the
state Department of Environmental Protection.

In September 2016, DEP inspectors responded to a complaint and
observed that Properties Central improperly removed asbestos-
containing heating system insulation from pipes in the basement of
the property.

The state ordered Properties Central to retain a licensed asbestos
contractor to clean and decontaminate the property, and remove any
remaining asbestos-containing materials.

In addition, the state ordered the company to notify the DEP 10
working days before starting asbestos removal work so that the
agency is aware of the removal work and has the opportunity to
conduct inspections to ensure compliance with regulations.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following required work
practices is imperative to protect workers as well as the general
public," said Mary Jude Pigsley, director of the DEP's Worcester
office said. "Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well
as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Blames Asbestos for Cancer
---------------------------------------------------
Jamie Lopez, writing for Visiter.com, reported that a beloved
teacher who had just met the man of her dreams died of cancer she
believed she developed after being exposed to asbestos at school.

Michele Reed, who met husband Manu on her 60th birthday, was
described by her family as being "in the prime of her life and the
life and soul of any party'.

They are now searching for answers after the popular mum-of-two
died of Mesothelioma in February.

Speaking about her loss, daughter Bethany Gibbins said: "Mum was a
French teacher -- it was all she loved to do.

Growing up, she always used to take me on school trips with the
students to Paris or skiing in France. All of her students loved
her.

"She was made redundant and the first thing she did was move to
France. She met Manu on her 60th birthday and he really was the
man of her dreams. It was about six months before she was
diagnosed that he proposed.

"They got married and it was so bittersweet but we're so glad she
met him."

It was while living in a caravan on a holiday park in France that
Michele became ill and was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a type
of cancer that develops in the lining that covers the outer
surface of some of the body's organs.

It is usually linked to asbestos exposure.

Despite returning home for treatment, she was desperate to return
to her new life in France, even flying back the day she finished a
course of treatment.

Bethany added: "Everyone adored my mum -- it says that on her
gravestone. She was in her sixties but was in the prime of her
life, she was such a positive person.

"We didn't even know how ill she was because she was so positive.
I spoke to her the day before she died -- she had sent somebody to
go and get food shopping for her for the next two weeks.

"I didn't get to say goodbye to her and it breaks my heart."

It was when she was diagnosed that Michele, who was originally
from St Helens, had started to think about possible asbestos
exposure and recalled her time at Upholland High School from 1982
to 2000.

She remembered that classrooms had been dusty and work had been
done to the building while she was there.

Lawyers at Slater and Gordon, who Michele instructed before her
death, are now appealing for people who worked with her at
Upholland School or at other places where asbestos was present.

Although it is banned now, it was widely used in building until
the 1980s.

Louise Larkin, an industrial disease specialist at the law firm
said: "Michele lived for her work.

"She adored teaching French and it's a real tragic twist of fate
that her vocation could have led to her death.

"She remembers classrooms being dusty but she was never advised to
take any precautions against the toxic substance.

"She was ultimately robbed of a retirement she'd worked so hard
and passionately for."

Anyone who believes they can help should contact Louise on 0151
353 9933 or email Louise.Larkin@slatergordon.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Virginia Supreme Court
has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of asbestos-related claims,
finding that the plaintiff intended to release the instant lung
cancer claims as part of a settlement reached in an earlier
asbestosis case.

In the Aug. 31 opinions, the state high court further opined that
the release of the present claims was not void under Section 5 of
the Federal Employers' Liability Act, as the plaintiff had
contended.

For more than 35 years, Aaron J. Cole worked as a machinist for
Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NSRC"). During this time, he
was regularly exposed to toxic substances and dust, including
asbestos. In 1996, he filed a complaint in the circuit court
alleging that he contracted "occupational pneumoconiosis,
including but not limited to asbestosis" as a result of NSRC's
negligence. His complaint also alleged that he suffered "from
extreme nervousness, mental anxiety and fear of contracting
mesothelioma, lung cancer and/or other cancers and/or other
conditions caused by exposure to harmful and toxic dust and/or
conditions including, but not limited to, cor pulmonale. In
addition, [Cole], because of his occupational pneumoconiosis, now
has an increased risk of contracting mesothelioma, lung cancer,
and/or other cancers and/or other conditions."

On May 15, 2000, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
whereby Cole, who was 78 years old and represented by counsel,
signed a release of liability in exchange for $20,000.  On
February 16, 2009, Cole was diagnosed with lung cancer; he died on
November 14, 2010. Alan B. Cole, as the executor of Cole's estate,
filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging under FELA that
Cole's death was the direct and proximate result of NSRC's
negligence. In a plea in bar, NSRC argued that the complaint
should be dismissed because the claim was released as part of the
settlement of Cole's 1996 asbestosis action. Cole responded that
the release was void under Section 5 of FELA, which states that
"[a]ny contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the
purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier
to exempt itself from any liability created by this act . . .
shall to that extent be void."

Upon consideration of an evidentiary stipulation submitted by the
parties, the circuit court granted NSRC's plea in bar. It
acknowledged that a federal circuit split has resulted in two
tests for evaluating the validity of releases under Section 5 of
FELA, but concluded that the release was valid under either test.
The state supreme court granted Cole the appeal.

Under the risk of harm test, which we adopt as the rule of
decision in the Commonwealth, a release does not violate Sec 5 of
FELA if it is executed as part of a negotiated settlement of a
FELA claim and is limited to those risks that were known to the
parties at the time of its execution. The focus of this test is
not whether a release explicitly lists a potential future claim,
but whether the parties intended to release such a claim. The
evidence in the present case supports the circuit court's factual
finding that Cole intended to release the present lung cancer
claim as part of the settlement of his asbestosis action.
Accordingly, applying the risk of harm test, the release in 2000
of the present lung cancer claim was not void under Section 5 of
FELA. The state supreme court therefore affirms the circuit
court's judgment.

The case is ALAN BARRY COLE, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF AARON
JETHRO COLE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Record No.
161163 (Va.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Justice William C. Mims
dated August 31, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/YpVYuu from
Leagle.com.

CHARLES ROBISON ALLEN, Jr., (ESQ.), RUSSELL NASH BRAHM, III,
(ESQ.), JOHN E. GUERRY, III, PATICE LADELL HOLLAND, (ESQ.), for
Appellant, ALAN BARRY COLE, (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF AARON
JETHRO COLE).

JAMES W. JENNINGS, Jr., (ESQ.), DAVID A. DAMICO, ELIZABETH
GUILBERT PERROW, (ESQ.), FRANK KENNETH FRIEDMAN, (ESQ.), for
Appellee, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A VIRGINIA
CORPORATION.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Upholds $9MM Mesothelioma Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that the
widow of a man who died of malignant mesothelioma won a hard-
fought battle against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation when a
South Florida appeals court ruled in her favor and upheld a $9
million verdict. The company's attorneys had maintained that there
was insufficient proof that her late husband's illness was caused
by asbestos in its facilities, but the appellate judges rejected
that order, upbraiding the company for hypocrisy.

The case revolved around the illness of Dennis Britt, who died of
mesothelioma in the midst of his original lawsuit against the
defense contractor. Mr. Britt had been an employee benefits
advisor whose job responsibilities included visiting Northrop
Grumman's commercial and industrial sites in order to speak to
employees and sign them up for coverage. Britt and his wife Rosa-
Maria argued that the asbestos contaminating the job sites was
responsible for his illness, and the jury that originally heard
the lawsuit agreed. They awarded the widow $8.5 million in
compensatory damages, and provided the estate with over $519,000
to pay for the funeral and medical expenses that had been
incurred. The company then appealed the verdict, arguing that
there was no way to prove that the asbestos that had caused
Britt's mesothelioma had come from their locations.

In handing down the verdict, the judges of the 3rd District Court
of Appeals pointed out that it was hypocritical for the company to
maintain that there was no evidence of asbestos contamination when
the company hadn't been responsible enough to monitor their own
air quality over the years. "Having failed to monitor and quantify
airborne asbestos levels at Northrop's plants during the
applicable years, Northrop is hardly in a position to demand
precise quantification," they wrote. "On such a record, the
pathology and medical records reflecting the existence and level
of asbestos fibers in Mr. Britt's lungs, coupled with his personal
testimony regarding his visits to the premises and what he
observed while there -- followed by his undisputed death from
mesothelioma -- constitutes competent, substantial evidence
supporting the verdict."

Mesothelioma is a cruel disease that claims the lives of all those
who receive a diagnosis. For information on the best resources
available to victims of this condition, contact the Patient
Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-692-8608.

The appeals case is Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, etc.,
Appellant, v. Rosa-Maria F. Britt, etc., Appellee, Case No. 3D16-
2583 (Fla. Ct. App.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated September 6, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/msnT4U from Leagle.com.

DLA Piper and Fredrick H.L. McClure and J. Trumon Phillips
(Tampa); Munger, Tolles & Olson and Michael B. DeSanctis
(Washington, DC) and John B. Major (San Francisco, CA), for
appellant.

The Ferraro Law Firm and Juan P. Bauta, II, and Janpaul Portal,
for appellee.

Crowell & Moring and William L. Anderson; Shook Hardy & Bacon and
Frank Cruz-Alvarez, for Florida Justice Reform Institute and
Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., as amici curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Wins $13MM Judgment in Mesothelioma Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Halleman, writing for Northern California Record, reported
that the family of a man who died of mesothelioma caused by
asbestos use at a sugar refinery owned by Hillshire Brands Company
was awarded $13 million by a California jury in a wrongful death
lawsuit.

The case was heard in a California superior court and was brought
by the family of Mark Lopez, who lived a few hundred yards from
the Union City Sugar Refinery as a child. The housing was also
owned by Hillshire.

"Mesothelioma is a progressive lung disease related to exposure of
asbestos," court documents state.

Hillshire Brands plans to appeal.

Lopez died on July 7, 2015, from asbestos exposure at the age of
60.

"Mesothelioma is a very rare disease," said Jeff Kaiser of Kaiser
Gornick LLP, who represented Lopezs' family in the suit. "I don't
anticipate a huge amount of cases coming forward after this,
because it is so rare."

The suit alleged Lopez contracted mesothelioma that resulted from
asbestos exposure growing up in Betteravia, a small company town
near the sugar refinery. The housing he lived in also was owned by
Hillshire and contained asbestos.

Lopez was, "exposed to asbestos fibers emitted during the
operation, maintenance, disposal and other activities at the Union
Sugar Refinery, which caused friable asbestos fibers to
contaminate the area surrounding the plant, including company
housing," court documents state.

Lopez's father worked at the refinery from 1950 to 1993, which
caused secondary exposure for Lopez to asbestos. His grandfather
also was employed there.

During the trial, evidence was shown that Hillshire employees
worked with asbestos often, without safety precautions.

The jury concluded Hillshire was 100 percent negligent and at
fault. The Lopez family was awarded $11 million for non-economic
damages and $1,958,461 for economic damages.

"It was a slam dunk case," Kaiser said. "The jury deliberated only
10 minutes before reaching a verdict. The family would like
closure after 3 1/2 years of litigating and have maybe two more
years to handle an appeal. They will just be patient."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Sydney Asbestos Dumper Faces New Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
9News.com.au reported that a notorious asbestos dumper has fronted
court in handcuffs, facing fresh charges of dumping riddled waste
across the state's west.

Dib Hanna has a history of illegally leaving asbestos-laced
materials in locations including Ilandilo, Wallacia and East
Kurrajong from late 2015 to early 2016.

Dragged before the magistrate at the Land and Environment Court,
he became the first person to be extradited from Victoria to face
charges after failing to appear at his past three court
appearances.

Hanna was recently handed a three-month sentence after being
caught on CCTV dumping 80 tonnes of laced material at Sydney's
Picnic Point.

He has eight other convictions including three illegal dumps at
Liverpool and another at Hornsby.

Hanna's fresh charges allege he offered western Sydney residents
free top soil in a letter box flier, with those who took up the
offer receiving soil containing asbestos.

The court heard Hanna's lawyer is on holiday, delaying his bail
application.

He is expected to plead not guilty to the new charges, which carry
significant fines and a two-year jail term.

Hanna was escorted from the courtroom by police in handcuffs,
spitting on reporters when asked whether he was worried about
facing jail.

He will face court again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., Over Failure to Warn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing multiple corporations, citing alleged insufficient
measures were taken to prevent injuries.

Kevin Nolan and Marcelle Nolan filed a complaint Aug. 21 in the
St. Louis Circuit Court against Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC; CBS
Corp.; Crown Cork & Seal, USA Inc.; Cytec Engineered Materials
Inc.; et al., alleging they failed their duty to exercise
reasonable care and caution for the safety of others working with
or around products containing asbestos.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that in 1954,
Kevin Nolan was first exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from
certain products, manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
the defendants that resulted to his diagnosis of lung cancer in
January. As a result, the couple claims they suffered medical
expenses, emotional distress and loss of normal life.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly included asbestos in their products when adequate
substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings
of the dangers of inhaling asbestos to people working with or
around the products and failed to warn of ingesting or otherwise
absorbing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment in the
amount in excess of $50,000 for actual compensatory damages,
including costs of the action, and any other such relief as the
Court deems just and equitable. They are represented by Laci M.
Whitley of Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville, Illinois, and Jason
M. Ministrelli and Erik P. Karst of Karst & von Oiste LLP in
Houston.

St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1722-CC11064


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Fines GPS for Asbestos Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Taneisha Cordell, writing for WRCBTV.com, reported that a
Chattanooga private school is facing thousands of dollars in fines
after state inspectors discovered asbestos inside a building at
Girls Preparatory School that now houses a music program.

Responding to a complaint, the Tennessee Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (TOSHA) inspected that building on June 29.
The whistleblower who filed the complaint says the school was
aware of the problem months before state inspectors ordered them
to correct it.

The man who alerted TOSHA spoke to Channel 3 off camera and asked
to remain anonymous. About two weeks after the interview, he quit
his job. He says he warned the school that the building being
converted to Cadek Conservatory of Music was not safe three months
before TOSHA fined GPS.

He shared a photo of the asbestos he says found in March. TOSHA
verified the photo, saying the label is identical to what they
found.

TOSHA fined GPS $4,800 and gave the school until August 4th to
correct the problem. TOSHA tells Channel 3, the school did meet
that deadline.

"TOSHA can fine up to $7000 so that can really give you kind of a
scale of severity as to what this magnitude was," said Chris
Cannon, spokesperson for TOSHA.

According to TOSHA, an asbestos survey is required when working on
buildings built before 1989. According to GPS, this one was built
in 1952. Cannon says GPS did not conduct a survey.

"If they had conducted the asbestos survey prior to that
construction starting they would've known that was in there and
that it could cause hazard for the workers who were in that
garage," said Cannon.

TOSHA's inspection report show the school threw the hazardous
material in a dumpster at the school's tennis center. It also
shows the school did not warn the people working on the building
or give them protective gear. The report lists resulting 17
violations.

Channel 3 repeatedly reached out to GPS to request an interview.
We were referred to this written statement:

"During the renovation of our old business office building, which
was built around 1952 and is separate from our main campus,
asbestos was discovered. Out of an abundance of caution, GPS opted
to go beyond the required abatement measures and remove all
asbestos from the building, including the exterior. A professional
abatement company was hired to conduct the removal and testing of
materials. Following abatement and cleaning activities, the air
samples successfully passed the final clearance protocols."

A web search shows Cadek opened on July 1st, two days after TOSHA
found asbestos.

Parents of those students and employees were notified on August
31st, more than two months after GPS was fined. When asked why GPS
waited so long a spokesperson responded saying, "it was the right
time for them."

GPS oversees Cadek now located in the building. We have invited
GPS officials to talk about the timeline of its opening; that
offer still stands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Asbestos Found at Shopping Center
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sunshine Coast Daily reported that works have stopped on the Lend
Lease Sunshine Plaza project in Maroochydore after possible
asbestos was discovered on site.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union local organisers
were called to the site after workers made the discovery.

Samples have been collected from the site and will be sent off for
independent testing at a NATA accredited laboratory.

CFMEU OHS co-ordinator Andrew Ramsay said that the discovery was
highly concerning as the site is next door to a primary school.

"When asbestos containing materials are broken and crushed the
deadly asbestos fibres become airborne," he said.

"In this day and age with the level of awareness about the dangers
of asbestos, there is no excuse for workers and members of the
public to be exposed.

"Due to the location of this site and its proximity to shops,
cafes and local schools who knows how many members of the public
could have potentially been exposed."

Maroochydore State School principal Stuart Maish said he was
unaware of the possible asbestos discovery.

His school borders the northwestern edge of the construction site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman May Have Been Exposed During Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------
RTE reported that the family of a woman who died from a form of
cancer linked to asbestos say she may have been exposed to the
material during the construction of a Dublin flat complex.

Mary Wynne and her family were among the first to move into the
Dolphin's Barn Flat Complex in Dublin's south inner city in 1955.

The family took up residency in the first completed block of flats
while construction continued on the remaining blocks.

Mrs Wynne, an 86-year-old mother of 12 from Saul Road in Crumlin
and formerly Dolphin House, died from a rare form of aggressive
cancer linked to asbestos.

At an inquest into Mrs Wynne's death at Dublin Coroner's Court,
family members said asbestos had been found during the demolition
of the flats as part of the ongoing EUR25m redevelopment of the
Dolphin's Barn complex.

Family members said they thought Mrs Wynne may have been exposed
to the substance while a resident in the complex during the
construction phase. The family moved out of the flats in 1985.

When Mrs Wynne sought treatment in 2015, doctors found a tumour in
her abdomen, the family said.

She died from a form of cancer known as mesothelioma, which
develops in the lining of the lungs, heart or abdomen as a result
of asbestos exposure, on 11 December last year at Our Lady's
Hospice in Harold's Cross.

"The hospice staff were so good to her, they cared for her so
well, they are beautiful people," a family spokesman said.

Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane adjourned the inquest to address the
matters raised by the Wynne family.

"I will put the relevant people on notice and ask if they wish to
attend a reconvened inquest.

"We are expected to ascertain the facts as much as we can so that
would be the reason for reconvening," the coroner said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Unaffected by Ambient Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
city dwellers are no more likely to contract malignant pleural
mesothelioma from asbestos dust in the air than people who live in
rural areas -- even though there is more asbestos dust in cities.

That is the conclusion of a new study published in the journal
Risk Analysis.

The study was based on the fact that so-called "ambient asbestos",
or asbestos fibers that are free in the environment as dust, is
known to be up to ten times higher in urban areas.

What is Asbestos?

Asbestos, a fibrous mineral once widely used in building products
in the US, is the primary cause of malignant mesothelioma around
the world. Once asbestos fibers are breathed in or swallowed, they
tend to stay in the tissues, causing long-term irritation and
inflammation that can result in mesothelioma even decades later.

In most cases of pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, the asbestos
exposure happened in an occupational setting and most often to
men, who historically held the jobs with the highest asbestos
exposure risk.

Women and Ambient Asbestos

Although most asbestos exposure happens in the workplace, a
certain amount of asbestos is known to be free in the environment
as dust. In general, there is more of this dust in cities, where
there are more asbestos-containing buildings.

To measure the impact of this ambient asbestos on malignant
pleural mesothelioma rates, researchers at Cardno ChemRisk decided
to focus on women, who were less likely, as a gender, to have been
exposed to asbestos at work.

The team used the US government's SEER database to calculate
standardized incidence rates for malignant pleural mesothelioma in
both men and women in rural and urban areas over the course of 40
years.

Incidence Rates Unaffected in Women

While the rates of mesothelioma for men in both the country and
the city increased into the 1980s and 1990s before leveling off,
the rates of mesothelioma among women remained relatively constant
over time, about five to six times lower than men.

In fact, the study found no statistically significant difference
in the rates of pleural mesothelioma in women between the rural
and urban areas during the period from 1973 to 2012.

"The results suggest that differences in ambient asbestos
concentrations, which have been reported to be 10-fold or greater
across regions in the United States, have not influenced the risk
of pleural mesothelioma," concludes Meghan E. Glynn of Cardno
ChemRisk in Chicago, lead author on the paper.

Malignant mesothelioma is the most deadly of several diseases
caused by exposure to asbestos. There are about 2,500 new cases of
mesothelioma annually in the US.

Source:

Glynn, ME, et al, "Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-
Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence between Urban and
Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012)", September 1, 2017,
Risk Analysis


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Puts Six School Staff at Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Ward, writing for The World, reported that asbestos
exposure has potentially exposed up to six staff members at the
Coos Bay School District.

The district released a statement outlining events surrounding
the accident leading to asbestos exposure in one of the
classrooms inside the Harding Building.

"We learned recently that a maintenance action may have created
exposure to asbestos in a classroom at Harding School, and want to
keep our parents, staff and students informed of the steps we are
taking to ensure the safety of all," the release stated. "First
and foremost is our commitment to the well-being of our students
and staff, and . . . we have taken appropriate measures to make
the classroom safe for occupancy when classes begin Sept. 6."

One maintenance employee was in the process of sanding the wax
layer coating the building's original asbestos tiles on Aug. 16.
The sanding went too deep, knocking asbestos into the air.

The district was notified of the accident on Aug. 17. Between the
time of the accident and the district being notified of the
exposure, five other employees went into the room for various
reasons, totaling six people possibly breathing in asbestos before
the room was sealed.

"Such materials are generally considered safe provided they are
not disturbed by sanding or grinding," the release said about
asbestos. "Asbestos fibers suspended in the air have been linked
to cancer exposures."

According to the press release, on August 17 Arcadia Environmental
began efforts to fully clean and prep the room, including sealing
of the floor tiles.

"Arcadia Environmental specializes in asbestos clean-up," the
release said. "The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was
notified and they gave oversight to the clean-up work."

On Aug. 29, Arcadia Environmental issued a statement that lab
tests had shown that the room was safe from contaminants and ready
for human occupancy.

"It's hard to tell how much asbestos was exposed," said the
district's superintendent, Bryan Trendell. "We haven't received
the full air quality report from Arcadia, but those floor tiles
have a low percentage of asbestos in the tiles themselves."

There was no exposure to the rest of the Harding Building since
the classroom had its own ventilation system.

As for the six staff members potentially exposed to the asbestos,
the district is seeking medical options that would be best for
them.

"We're working with them on what the next steps would be and what
we can do for them," Trendell said. "Obviously if exposed to
asbestos, things don't show up for many years down the road so we
have to figure out the best course of action for the folks exposed
and help them move forward."

If you have questions or concerns, contact the district office at
541-267-1309.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Gets $1.7MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with $1.7 million for
ongoing work at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site.

"These monies are used by DEQ to participate in the Superfund
process with EPA in all aspects of the Libby Asbestos cleanup,"
said Libby Site Department Manager Lisa Dewitt. This funding is
different from the Lincoln County and EPA agreement that supports
the county's Asbestos Resource Program.

The legacy of Libby is an environmental and health tragedy. It's
well-known W.R. Grace Company illegally dumped industrial waste
containing large amounts of asbestos at several of their
facilities in Libby.

The vermiculite contained in the industrial waste is a naturally
occurring mineral used in the production of insulating materials.
The vermiculite ore also contained tremolite asbestos, which is
extremely toxic.

During the mine's 70 years of operation, the ore was shipped to
more than 50 processing plants throughout North America. Much of
the Libby vermiculite was used to produce Zonolite attic
insulation, but was also used in surfacing materials, window
glazing compounds, waterproofing compounds, cements, adhesives,
and plaster.

As a result, the small town of Libby, Montana is arguably "Ground
Zero" in the war on asbestos. Nearly half the population has been
diagnosed with asbestos disease. About 200 have died as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

"The community of Libby deserves a clean environment and this
[$1.7 million] grant will help achieve that," said Sen. Steve
Daines. "I applaud EPA for prioritizing the health of the people
of Libby."

The $1,672,106 covers the next two years as an amendment to a
cooperative agreement grant already in place. According to Rep.
Greg Gianforte and Daines this brings the total award to
$9,706,508.

In addition, earlier this year, a $25 million settlement was
reached between asbestos victims and the State of Montana. It will
provide compensation to over 1,000 people who were exposed to
asbestos by W.R. Grace and Co.'s mine and later diagnosed with
asbestos-related diseases. This includes former employees of the
mine as well as some of their family members.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Mine Workers' Mesothelioma Cases Undiagnosed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists in Johannesburg have found that, among 149 workers,
only 14 of the 27 cases of malignant mesothelioma were identified
in the patients' lifetimes.  They say more should be done to
improve diagnosis of diseases like mesothelioma.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of the
Witwatersrand and the National Institute for Occupational Health,
found that only 3 asbestos-related lung cancers were correctly
identified, although 22 patients were found to have lung cancer
when they underwent autopsies.

"Where clinical features suggest asbestos-related diseases but the
chest radiograph is negative, more sophisticated imaging
techniques or immunohistochemistry for asbestos-related cancers
should be used," writes the study's lead author, Ntombizodwa
Ndlovu, with the School of Public Health at the University of
Witwatersrand.

The study published in ERJ Open Research found that doctors were
only able to correctly diagnose malignant mesothelioma about 40
percent of time, but were able to accurately rule it out about 97
percent of the time.

"This study is just further confirmation that mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related diseases can be difficult to diagnose and
that it is risky to rely too heavily on one diagnostic tool," says
Alex Strauss, Managing Editor for Surviving Mesothelioma.

For the full details of the South African miner report, see Miner
Study Finds Mesothelioma Often Undiagnosed, now available on the
Surviving Mesothelioma website.

Ndlovu, N, et al, "Asbestos-related diseases in mineworkers: a
clinicopathological study", August 25, 2017, ERJ Open Research,
eCollection, http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/3/3/00022-2017


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Lung Cancer Caused by 4520 Corp. Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a widow alleges her husband's exposure to asbestos during his
career caused him to develop lung cancer.

Ann Boknevitz, individually and as special representative of the
estate of Leonard Boknevitz, deceased filed a complaint on Aug. 21
in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB
Inc., Albany International, et al. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during
Leonard Boknevitz's employment from 1962 to 2015, he was exposed
to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. As a
result, he was caused to develop lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease and died on March 14, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB Inc., Albany
International, et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly
negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with
or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages of more
than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian
of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-L470


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Prompts Search for Co-Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo reported that the widow of a former power
station worker who died from an asbestos-related illness hopes to
trace some of his old workmates after turning to legal experts for
help to investigate his death.

Frank John Gargett, who was originally from Trimdon, near
Sedgefield, died at the age of 71 from asbestosis, a condition
caused by exposure to asbestos materials.

Following his death in November 2015, wife Pauline instructed
specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to
search for answers about how he developed the illness and whether
more should have been done to protect him from the dangers of the
material.

They are now keen to hear from anyone who worked with Mr Gargett
between 1974 and 1983, when he was a boiler cleaner at Deptford
Power Station before he worked at a water treatment site at
Woolwich Power Station.

The couple returned to County Durham after his retirement in 2005.

Mrs Gargett said: "Moving back up north meant Frank lost touch
with his former workmates, so sadly we were not in contact with
anyone when he first became ill.

"Looking back, it was horrible to see how the illness affected him
and I would be hugely grateful if anybody who did work with him
was able to get in touch and provide information to help us
understand how he came to fall ill."

She said her husband had described his job at Deptford as dirty
work but he was never given any breathing protection or safety
advice about working around asbestos.

Emma Crowther, who represents Mrs Gargett from Irwin Mitchell's
Newcastle office, said: "A case of this nature demonstrates the
terrible impact that asbestos exposure can have on a victim, often
leading them to develop very serious health problems decades after
initial contact with the material.

"Our enquiries have led us to believe that Frank may have been
exposed to asbestos during his time at the power stations in
London, so we would be keen to develop a clearer picture of the
working conditions he faced on a daily basis.

"Any information may prove essential in our efforts to ensure that
Pauline can get the answers she deserves in relation to Frank's
death."

Anyone with information can contact Jennifer Fish on 0191-2790119
or email Jennifer.Fish@IrwinMitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims St. Louis-based Cos. Failed to Warn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that an
individual is suing manufacturers in the St. Louis area and beyond
that used asbestos in their products, citing alleged negligence.

James M. Richardson filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against ABB Inc., Ajax Tocco Magnethermic
Corp., Clark Drilling, Pump Co. LLC, et al., alleging they failed
to exercise ordinary care and caution for the safety of other.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his
employment from 1974 to 2000, he was exposed to and inhaled
asbestos fibers from certain products manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by defendants. As a result, he claims he
was diagnosed with lung cancer related to asbestos on May 11,
2016. He says he has suffered disability, disfigurement, great
pain, mental anguish, loss of earnings and medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
defendants in excess of $25,000, plus costs for this action and
all other relief that are just and equitable. He is represented by
Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10941


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Summary Judgment for Foster
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District Delaware recommends granting Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation's and Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment
in the asbestos litigation styled ICOM HENRY EVANS, and JOHANNA
ELAINE EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-681-ER-SRF, (D. Del.), because the Plaintiffs
have failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to
whether Warren Pumps' product was a substantial factor in causing
Mr. Evans' injuries.

Icom Henry Evans and Johanna Elaine Evans filed this asbestos
related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court
against multiple defendants on June 11, 2015, alleging injuries
due to asbestos exposure.

Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans developed mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products during the
course of his employment as a fireman and boiler tender with the
U.S. Navy from 1957 to 1967. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Evans was
injured due to exposure to asbestos-containing products that
Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, licensed, or
installed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs assert negligence, strict
liability, punitive damages, and loss of consortium claims.

The court recommends granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary
judgment, because Plaintiffs have failed to show that a material
issue of fact exists as to whether Foster Wheeler's product was a
substantial factor in causing Mr. Evans' injuries.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos-
containing products used in connection with Foster Wheeler boilers
while serving aboard the USS Bole. Mr. Evans testified that he
helped with the refractory and the re-bricking of the furnaces on
two Foster Wheeler boilers.

The Court notes that Mr. Evans did not know whether the refractory
or the brick were original to the Foster Wheeler boilers, and did
not know whether the boilers had this work performed on them
previously.

Mr. Evans testified that his job included breaking down the old
brick and cement, and replacing it with new brick and cement. Mr.
Evans thought the cement used during re-bricking contained
asbestos, because he recalled seeing the asbestos fibers in the
mix. Mr. Evans testified that the hammering process to remove the
cement created airborne particles.

Foster Wheeler states it did not manufacture the refractory
cement. In addition, Foster Wheeler also points to Military
Specifications and Affidavits from Admiral Ben J. Lehman (Ret.)
and Foster Wheeler corporate representative, J. Thomas Schroppe,
as evidence that the government was involved in the design and
manufacture of all products used on Navy warships.

The Court determines that the Plaintiffs did not cite any evidence
to support the claim that the brick and cement mix was original to
Foster Wheeler boilers. As such, the Court maintains that the
Plaintiffs fail to show that a material issue of fact exists as to
whether Foster Wheeler provided any asbestos containing components
to be used with its boilers aboard the USS Bole. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that summary judgment based on the government
contractor defense is not warranted. However, the Court says that
Foster Wheeler is, nonetheless, entitled to summary judgment based
on lack of causation under maritime law.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos-
containing products used in conjunction with pumps manufactured by
Warren Pumps while serving aboard the USS Kearsarge and the USS
Bole. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue Warren Pumps used
asbestos gaskets, packing and insulation with its pumps, and even
supplied asbestos-containing replacement parts to be used with its
pumps.

In his deposition, Mr. Evans recalled working on fire pumps, water
pumps, bilge pumps, and valves aboard the USS Kearsarge, but he
could not recall the manufacturer of any of the pumps. Mr. Evans
stated he performed "internal" pump work replacing carbon rings,
however, he only did this work on one occasion. Mr. Evans also
stated that he thought the carbon rings were made out of carbon.
But he said that he did not know whether replacing the carbon
rings exposed him to asbestos.

As such, Mr. Evans is unable to verify whether the pumps contained
original parts when he boarded the USS Kearsarge in 1957.
Consequently, Mr. Evans' testimony is not enough to establish
exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Warren
Pumps aboard the USS Kearsarge.

The Plaintiffs counter that circumstantial evidence establishes
that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos from pumps manufactured by
Warren Pumps aboard the USS Kearsarge. The Plaintiffs cite to Navy
records which show that Warren Pumps was the manufacturer of pumps
aboard the USS Kearsarge. However, the Court finds that the
documents produced by Plaintiffs show that the pumps manufactured
by Warren Pumps were located in the fire room on the USS
Kearsarge, but they do nothing more than show the presence of
pumps manufactured by Warren Pumps -- they do not establish
exposure. Moreover, the Court points out that there is no evidence
of record that Warren Pumps manufactured external flange gaskets -
- the only asbestos-containing component that Mr. Evans discusses.

Thus, the magistrate concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
produced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Mr. Evans was substantially exposed to
respirable asbestos dust from a Warren Pumps product on the USS
Kearsarge.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 30,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/fyi1dO from Leagle.com.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting,
Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Partial Summary Ruling for JCI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District Delaware recommends denial of John Crane Inc.'s
motion for partial summary judgment in the asbestos litigation
styled ICOM HENRY EVANS, and JOHANNA ELAINE EVANS, Plaintiffs, v.
ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-681-ER-
SRF, (D. Del.)

Icom Henry Evans and Johanna Elaine Evans filed this asbestos
related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court
against multiple defendants on June 11, 2015, asserting injuries
arising from Mr. Evans' alleged harmful exposure to asbestos.
Defendant Foster Wheeler removed the action to this court on
August 4, 2015. On September 9, 2016, the parties stipulated that
maritime law applies to all substantive claims.

The Plaintiff, Icom Evans, developed mesothelioma which he claims
resulted from his exposure to asbestos containing gaskets
manufactured by John Crane. Mr. Evans removed and replaced gaskets
during his naval service as a boiler tender and fireman on the USS
Kearsarge and the USS Bole between 1957 and 1968. John Crane
contends that the relevant time period for purposes of Plaintiffs'
punitive damages claim is confined to the time frame of Mr. Evans'
ship-board service.

John Crane admits to having knowledge of the hazards of asbestos
by 1970. However, the Parties dispute whether John Crane had
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos before 1970. The Parties
further dispute whether John Crane's knowledge after 1970 is
relevant to consideration of the punitive damages issue.

The depositions of John Crane's corporate representatives, George
Springs and George McKillop, were taken in connection with then
pending asbestos litigation in 2007, 2010, and 2015, respectively.
Each corporate representative testified regarding the time frame
of John Crane's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos.

John Crane argues that to defeat partial summary judgment,
Plaintiffs must show that by 1967, John Crane knew that asbestos-
containing products and gaskets it sold caused injury, yet it
continued to sell them with reckless indifference of the risks to
others. John Crane argues that the Plaintiffs have no evidence
establishing that by 1967, John Crane had actual knowledge that
exposure to its asbestos-containing packing or gaskets caused an
asbestos-related disease. As such, John Crane argues there is no
evidence that it sold asbestos-containing products in a willful,
wanton, or reckless manner, which would support a claim for
punitive damages.

In response, Plaintiffs argue that (1) John Crane had actual
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos as early as the 1930s, and
(2) John Crane's post-exposure conduct provides evidence that is
probative of John Crane's willful, wanton, and reckless state of
mind. The Plaintiffs assert that John Crane sold asbestos
products, including gaskets, from 1931 to 1985, and did not warn
of dangers of asbestos until 1983, if at all. Therefore,
Plaintiffs assert that John Crane had actual knowledge of the
health hazards associated with asbestos exposure, because starting
in 1933, academic and news periodicals, as well as state
legislation, were published addressing the harms of asbestos
exposure.

Additionally, the Court notes that Mr. Springs originally stated
that John Crane took precautions to prevent its workers from being
exposed to raw asbestos. John Crane states it did not sell raw
asbestos. Furthermore, John Crane contends that the products it
sold were encapsulated with various rubber coatings and
lubricants. As such, the Court cannot assess the credibility of
Mr. Springs' testimony at the summary judgment stage.

The Court concludes that a dispute of material fact exists as to
whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products were harmful
by 1967. As such, the Court recommends that a trier of fact should
determine whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products
were harmful, and chose not to warn potential users of the health
risks. Furthermore, the Court maintains that the trier of fact
should determine if John Crane had such knowledge, and whether
John Crane continued, nonetheless, to sell products in a manner
that was in willful or wanton disregard, or in reckless
indifference of potential harm to others.

The Court does not address the Plaintiffs' post-exposure conduct
argument, because a genuine issue of material fact exists
regarding whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products
were harmful by 1967.3 As such, the Court makes no recommendations
as to the admissibility of evidence of post-exposure conduct, and
leaves the issue to be decided by the District Judge at the
appropriate time.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 30,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/0xi0tE from Leagle.com.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting,
Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
determines that Union Carbide is entitled to summary judgment on
negligence claim as well as on strict liability claim because
there is nothing in the record indicating that Union Carbide had
any type of direction, control, or ownership of an asbestos
product used by Milton Kivell.

The Plaintiff Sandra Kivell alleges that her husband, Milton
Kivell contracted mesothelioma which ultimately caused his death.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Union Carbide was the
premises owner of a petrochemical facility in Taft, Louisiana
where Mr. Kivell worked. Between January 1967 and October 1969 Mr.
Kivell worked as a union pipefitter and welder.

Union Carbide's Taft facility was a large industrial plant, and
Mr. Kivell was involved in initial construction. Mr. Kivell did
not work for Union Carbide directly, and he had no interaction
with, and received no direction from Union Carbide personnel while
at the Taft facility. Rather, he was employed by different third-
party contractors, including Kiewitt Corporation and Stearns Roger
Corporation.

Union Carbide hired these third-party contractors to design and
construct various process units. Mr. Kivell's duties included
running pipe, and he stated that he worked "side-by-side" with
insulators. The Defendant contends that these firms exercised
exclusive control over Mr. Kivell's work area, and Mr. Kivell had
no interaction with, and received no direction from Union Carbide
personnel. Additionally, the Defendant also contends that these
employers supplied their own tools and materials, and Union
Carbide was not in custody or control of asbestos that Mr. Kivell
was allegedly exposed to.

But the Plaintiff argues that Mr. Kivel needed permission from
Union Carbide staff before performing a "tie in" to an existing
system, and Mr. Kivell "performed a fair bit of maintenance at
Union Carbide." The Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is not
vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Kivell's employer.

"Although the independent contractor defense is a bar to a
vicarious liability claim, it is not a bar to direct liability
claim arising out of a premises-owner's own negligence." The
Plaintiff claims that her husband was exposed to asbestos from
products used while employed by an independent contractor at
Defendant's facility.

However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not presented
evidence that the Defendant in this case knew of the risks of
asbestos, specified the use of asbestos in the construction, or
that Mr. Kivell used asbestos products in the construction of the
building. The Court also finds 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. Therefore, the Defendant Union Carbide's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim is granted.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, SANDRA KIVELL,
individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
MILTON J. KIVELL, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP. et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-07-093 ASB (Del. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/w3Plb6 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Allied Fluid Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Allied Fluid Products Corp., fka Allied Packing & Supply, Inc.,
stipulate that all claims against only Allied Fluid Products Corp.
fka Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., may be dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/zP59hA from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Siemens Industry Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Siemens Industry, Inc. fka Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc.,
stipulate that all claims against only Siemens Industry, Inc. fka
Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc., may be dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/g1ysTH from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Honeywell Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a AlliedSigna Inc., successor-
in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, stipulate that all claims
against only Honeywell International may be dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/00bE6H from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Armstrong Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Armstrong International, Inc., stipulate that all claims against
only Armstrong International may be dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/3Qc7mG from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Baldor Electric Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Baldor Electric Company stipulate that all claims against only
Baldor Electric may be dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/KnbbSA from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. M. Slayen Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
M. Slayen and Associates, Inc. stipulate that all claims against
only M. Slayen may be dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/ftouw9 from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Parker-Hannifin Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order
in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.),
where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant
Parker-Hannifin Corporation stipulate that all claims against only
Parker-Hannifin may be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/o8akDf from Leagle.com.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP.

Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa
Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin
Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A.
Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M.
McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP,
Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp,
Foley and Mansfield.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond,
Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold
Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP &
Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David
Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn,
Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo
Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William
Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein,
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,
Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M.
Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner,
WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP.

Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer
Kannett and Schweitzer.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D.
Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP.

Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi
Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL
Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented
by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP.

Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes,
K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon
LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer
Kannett & Schweitzer.

Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J.
Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown.

Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson
William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand,
Schiff Hardin 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  * * *