CAR_Public/170929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Friday, September 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 193



                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces ASEA/AFSCME Suit over Pacemakers
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Individual TCPA Claim Remains Pending
AKRON, OH: Dismissal of Hudson's Water Services Suit Affirmed
AMAZON.COM: 9th Cir. Won't Revive "Wiseley" Pricing Class Action
AMEREN CORPORATION: 2018 Trial Set in Municipal Tax Class Suit

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: "Boykin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Investor Class Action in N.Y.
ARIZONA: Arpaio's Pardon Unconstitutional, Amicus Briefs Claim
AUSTRALIA: Dec. 4 Trial Set in Queensland Floods Class Actions
BEYOND MEDIA: Faces Abante Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls

BMW OF NORTH: Faces "Gelis" Suit Over Breach of Warranty
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Dean" Suit in C.D. of California
CANADA: Class Actions Over Military LGBT Purge Pending
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Bid to Abstain in "Jerry" Denied
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Bid to Abstain in "Nichols" Denied

CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Class Suit Underway
COMPASS GROUP: Oct. 31 Case Management Conference in "Johnson"
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Action Dismissed
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Resolves Plaintiff Counsel's Claim
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Court Denied Unitholder's Appeal

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses ADA Violations Suit
DOW AGROSCIENCES: Sued Over Alleged Arsenic Pollution
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Class Action Underway
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "McGee" Suit Underway
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Chawdry" Suit Pending

EDGE FITNESS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "McArthur" Suit Says
EQUIFAX INC: Faces O'Dell Properties Class Action over Data Theft
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martin" Suit in Miss. Over Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bethea" Suit over FCRA Violation
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Feied" Suit in N. Dist. Cal.

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Geller" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Bank of Louisiana Suit in N.D. of Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Replaces Two Senior Executives After Major Hack
FAIR PROMOTIONS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. of New York
FLOWERS BANKING: Ct. Denies Prelim Approval of "Robinson" Deal

FUTURE CARE: Court Certifies Class in "Moreno"
GOOGLE INC: Ex-Female Employees File Pay Discrimination Case
GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Favor of GoPro Defendants
GOPRO INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Calif. State Court
GOPRO INC: California Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit

HAN DYNASTY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mu" Suit Claims
HESKA CORPORATION: Still Faces Suit over Unauthorized Faxes
HRG GROUP: Plaintiff's Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
ILG INC: Continues to Defend Mass Action in New York
INFINITY MAINTENANCE: Faces "Candelaria" Suit in S.D. Tex.

INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mesh Victims Tell Ordeal Before Senate Inquiry
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pain Specialist Speaks at Mesh Senate Inquiry
JOHNSON MATTHEY: Sued in Penn. Over Inaccurate Criminal Reports
JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in "Thurman"

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Pending
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: High Court Ruling in SAIC Case Expected in 2018
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Gaston" Suit
LG ELECTRONICS: Nagle Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
LIFE STORAGE: Court Decision on Settlement Expected Later in 2017

MA ROO: Faces "Du" Suit in E.D. of New York
MANUFACTURERS FIN'L: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Compressor Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminated Against Homeless People, Court Says
MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in Sainsbury, Arcadia MIF Cases Pending
MASTERS REALTY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Navarro" Suit Says

MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Hulings' Appeal
MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Stoopses' Appeal
MDL 2591: $217M Allocation Plan in MIR 162 Corn Litigation OK'd
METLIFE INC: Unclaimed Property Litigation Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Total Control Accounts Litigation Still Pending

METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Pending Against Sun Life
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Newman" Class Suit Underway

METLIFE INC: "Miller" Action Underway in California
MICHIGAN FIRST: Faces "Rothstein" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
MISONIX INC: Dec. 15 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
MYLAN INC: Louisiana Gets $6.9MM Share of EpiPen Settlement

NATIONSTAR LLC: Oct. 31 Reply Date for Solutionstar
NCI INC: Defending Against Merger Class Suit
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces "Dorfman" Suit in Cent. Dist. Cal.
NEW SOUTH WALES: Fishermen Mull Class Action
NEW YORK HEALTH: Approval of Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Affirmed

PENGUIN TRADING: Faces "Buso" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
PFIZER INC: Faces "Haj" Class Suit over Robitussin
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Suit over Green Parking Deals
PIZATTI ENTERPRISES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PURE NATURAL: Faces "Fareed" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.

QIAO XING: Nov. 7 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
QUINTIS: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Continuous Disclosure
REJ PROPERTIES: "Badgerow" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
SAN DIEGO, CA: Group of Homeless People Files Class Action
SCANA CORP: Faces "Delmater" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina

SHUTTERFLY INC: Must Defend "Monroy" Suit over Face Scans
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Substitution of Plaintiffs in "Smith" Okayed
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D. of Missouri
SYNGENTA CORP: Jurors Hear Conflicting Testimony in GMO Corn Case
THINK FINANCE: Faces "Banks" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.

TIER ONE: "Ceuric" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
U.S. TOBACCO: Settlement in "Speaks" Suit has Prelim. Approval
UBER TECH: Class-Action Waivers Invalid, Labor Watchdog Says
UNIVAR USA: Faces "Gill" Suit in N. Dist. Tex.
WELLS FARGO: $685K Settlement in "Santini" Has Final Approval

WESTAR ENERGY: Shareholders Challenge Merger with Great Plains
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sunroofs Spontaneously Explode, Deras Claims
ZTO EXPRESS: "McGrath" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California

* New York Employers Must Consider Impact of Gold Decision
* Sen. John Kennedy Swing Vote in CFPB Arbitration Rule Issue


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,400 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Activity in "Jones" at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Parsons" Remains Dormant at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decision Pending in "Lorillard"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Chapter 11 Plan Consummated

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1st Dept. Makes Way for Implementation of Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Headteacher Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Certain-Teed, Others Named in Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Conflict for Rivera-Soto in Fraud Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Products Accused of Having Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Power Plant Worker Gets $7.55MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Island Countries Vote to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Asbestos Removal Co. Fined for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana to Take Over Asbestos Cleanup Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ruling Instructive on "Judicial Hellhole"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury Garage Worker Dies of Asbestos Condition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Docs Show J&J Might Have Known Asbestos Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Checks Begin for Quake-Damaged Property
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State to Pay $2.9MM in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Over Hotel IRA Bomb Asbestos Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of MARDOC Plaintiffs' Claims Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Blossers' Bid to Compel Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Gibbs Dropped in "Rodriguez"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Filipeks' Asbestos PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Fitzgerald Opinions Exclusion

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Frank Testimony Preclusion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Validity of NSRC Release




                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces ASEA/AFSCME Suit over Pacemakers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
federal court that Abbott Laboratories and St. Jude Medical
concealed a defect in cardiac defibrillators that were later
recalled by the Food and Drug Administration, costing insurers
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The case is captioned, ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated third
party payors, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois
corporation, and ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendants, Case: 1:17-cv-06704 (N.D. Ill., September 19, 2017).

Counsel to Plaintiff:

     Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North
     Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
             alevitt@dlcfirm.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Individual TCPA Claim Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Physicians
Healthsource, Inc.'s individual TCPA claim remains pending.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that, on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011,
we or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Allscripts answered the complaint denying all material allegations
and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as well as
counterclaims for breach of a license agreement."

"After plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of the
counterclaims was granted, Allscripts made a demand in arbitration
where the counterclaims remain pending.  Discovery in the proposed
class action has now concluded.

"On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.  On May 31, 2016, we filed our opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and simultaneously
moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.

"On June 2, 2017, the court denied Allscripts' motion for summary
judgment, and also denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  Plaintiff did not seek appellate review of the
Court's denial of class certification, so the only claim remaining
in the case is Plaintiff's individual TCPA claim."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions delivers information technology
("IT") solutions and services to help healthcare organizations
achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational results.


AKRON, OH: Dismissal of Hudson's Water Services Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donna Carr of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Ninth
District, Summit County, affirmed Summit County Court of Common
Pleas' dismissal of the case captioned CITY OF HUDSON, Appellant,
v. CITY OF AKRON, Appellee, C.A. No. 28011 (Ohio App.).

This matter arises out of a water services dispute between the
City of Akron and the City of Hudson, two municipal corporations
in Northeast Ohio.

A portion of Hudson's residents and businesses receive water
utility services from Akron.  In addition to a capital projects
charge, Akron charges its Hudson customers a rate that is roughly
60% higher than the water rate charged to Akron customers.  In
November 2014, Akron began charging its residential Hudson
customers a surcharge of $17.76 per month and its commercial
Hudson customers a 42% increase in water charges.

A small portion of Hudson's residents and businesses receive water
utility services from the City of Stow.  When Stow declined to
charge its Hudson customers with a comparable surcharge, Akron
began directly billing Stow's customers in Hudson in order to
collect the Surcharge.

Before the increase in charges, Akron notified Hudson that it was
necessary to replace a major waterline known as the Twinsburg
Line.  The cost of replacing the line will be approximately 15
million dollars and the vast majority of that cost will be
absorbed by Hudson.  Hudson maintains that Akron imposed the
Surcharge on its customers in Hudson in order to pay for the
replacement of the Twinsburg Line.

On Dec. 12, 2014, Hudson filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against Akron in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas.  After filing an amended complaint, Hudson filed a
second amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2015.

Therein, Hudson sought a declaration that the Surcharge violates
Ohio law because it is unfair and unreasonable and bears no
rational relationship to the service being provided.  Hudson
further alleged that the unreasonable rates were implemented in
order to compel Hudson to enter into an unfavorable agreement for
water utility services.  In addition to the declaration, Hudson
sought permanent injunctive relief preventing Akron from
continuing to impose the Surcharge, as well as damages.

On Feb. 24, 2015, Akron filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  Hudson filed a memorandum in opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and Akron replied thereto.  Hudson then filed a
surreply brief with leave of court.  The trial court issued a
journal entry granting the motion to dismiss on the basis that it
did not have authority under Ohio law to grant the relief
requested by Hudson.

Hudson filed a timely notice of appeal.  In its sole assignment of
error, Hudson contends that the trial court erred by granting
Akron's motion to dismiss.

Judge Carr concludes that the trial court properly dismissed
Hudson's complaint in the case.  While Hudson urges the Court to
apply a reasonableness standard similar to the standard
established by the Supreme Court in State ex. Rel. Mt. Sinai Hosp.
of Cleveland v. Hickey, the instant matter has a vastly different
factual posture than the circumstances the high court confronted
in that case.

Unlike Mt. Sinai, this matter involves a dispute between a
municipality-owned public utility and extraterritorial customers
who are operating outside the bounds of a contractual agreement.
Hudson's reliance on Niles is also misplaced as the matter does
not involve a municipality functioning as a private corporation.
Moreover, though Hudson points to the Eighth District's decisions
in Lakewood and Bedford, the Judge notes that those decisions were
decided prior to the high court's decision in Fairway Manor, Inc.
v. Board of Com'rs of Summit Co.

The Supreme Court in Fairway Manor held that municipally owned
public utilities have no duty to sell their products, including
water, to extraterritorial purchasers absent a contractual
obligation.  The degree of control which the courts will exert
over such public utilities is strictly limited to protecting
residents of the municipality from the imposition of rates which
are unreasonable.  Thus, if Akron has no obligation to provide
water services to customers in Hudson absent a contractual
agreement under Fairway Manor, the most rudimentary extension of
that holding is that Hudson customers have no right to demand
reasonable water rates from Akron, unless those rates are
negotiated into a contract.

It follows that while Hudson suggests that every utility customer
in Ohio should have a mechanism for challenging their water rates,
to such right currently exists under Ohio law.  Under these
circumstances, Judge Carr finds that the trial court properly
concluded that it did not have authority to grant the relief
requested by Hudson and dismissed the complaint for lack of a
justiciable controversy.

For these reasons, Judge Carr overruled the assignment of error
and affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas.  She ordered that a special mandate issue out of the Court,
directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of
Ohio, to carry the judgment into execution.  A certified copy of
this journal entry will constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R.
27.

Immediately upon the filing, the document will constitute the
journal entry of judgment, and it will be file stamped by the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review
will begin to run.  The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of the judgment to the
parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket,
pursuant to App.R. 30.

The costs taxed to Appellant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yGS1Kk from Leagle.com.

R. TODD HUNT --  rthunt@walterhav.com -- AIMEE W. LANE --
alane@walterhav.com -- and BENJAMIN G. CHOJNACKI --
bchojnacki@walterhav.com -- Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.

EVE V. BELFANCE -- EBelfance@AkronOhio.gov -- Director of Law, and
DAVID FOLK, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellee.

STEPHEN W. FUNK -- sfunk@ralaw.com -- and JUSTIN MARKEY --
jmarkey@ralaw.com -- Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.


AMAZON.COM: 9th Cir. Won't Revive "Wiseley" Pricing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit on September 20, rejected a Californian's bid to
revive a class action in Pasadena, Calif., challenging Amazon's
policy of compelling arbitration, citing a provision in the online
retailer's conditions of use.

Allen Wiseley claimed that that California consumer laws rather
than Washington's should apply, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed a
ruling for Amazon in its unpublished opinion on September 19.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant had granted Amazon's motion to
compel arbitration of Wiseley's challenge to Amazon's conditions
of use, which rely upon Washington state law.

Wiseley asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate Judge Bashant's order.

The Ninth Circuit refused, in a 6-page memorandum. It agreed that
Washington law is controlling and rejected the argument that the
arbitration clause in the conditions of use was "unconscionable."

"Wiseley fails to explain how California's consumer protection
statutes are more protective than Washington's consumer protection
statutes; rather, Washington's and California's consumer
protection laws and protections against unconscionable contracts
appear to be substantially similar," the court wrote.

The three-judge panel found the conditions of use, which appear as
hyperlinks at Amazon's checkout and registration pages, create a
valid contract between the retailer and its customers.

"Wiseley conceded before the district court that there was
sufficient notice to create a valid contract, and neither
California nor Washington allows a party to escape contract
obligations if it had actual or constructive notice," the ruling
states.

The court found Wisely other claims of unconscionability of
contract without merit.

In his original 2015 complaint in San Diego, Wiseley accused
Amazon of cherry-picking the highest marketplace price to create a
false impression of consumer savings, in violation of California's
false advertising laws. He said Amazon's discounted prices are no
different from those offered by its competitors, including
traditional brick and mortar stores.

Consumer groups have made similar claims about a controversial
practice familiar to shoppers. Amazon displays a crossed-out list
price in black type which is supposed to represent the going
market rate. Amazon's price for the product is marked in red, and
it displays a putative savings in dollars and percentage.

Amazon has faced significant legal blowback over this. A study of
its website by the group Consumer Watchdog concluded that a
quarter of Amazon stock included crossed-out prices and that 40
percent of those were higher than the prices typically offered by
its competitors.

"Overall, Consumer Watchdog's findings suggest that Amazon
continues to flout Federal Trade Commission regulations on
deceptive pricing, as well as laws in many states where it does
business," Consumer Watchdog reported in August.

After Amazon announced its purchase of Whole Foods for $14 billion
this year, Consumer Watchdog called on 11 state attorneys general
to take action to stop the pricing practice.

Amazon says on its website that it regularly compares its own
prices against those of its competitors.

"Manufacturers, vendors and sellers provide list prices, but our
customers care about how the price they are paying compares to
other retailers," the company said in a March statement. "We
validate list prices against actual prices recently found across
Amazon and other retailers, and we eliminate list price when we
believe it isn't relevant to our customers."

Ninth Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Sandra Ikuta and U.S.
District Senior Judge Sarah Barker, sitting by designation from
the Southern District of Indiana, heard arguments in August.

The case is captioned, ALLEN WISELEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and ANDREA
FAGERSTROM, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-56799 (9th Cir., September
19, 2017).


AMEREN CORPORATION: 2018 Trial Set in Municipal Tax Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a 2018 trial has been set in a class action
lawsuit against Ameren Missouri over municipal taxes.

The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of
themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service
area, filed a class action lawsuit in 2011 against Ameren Missouri
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The lawsuit
alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to pay gross receipts taxes or
license fees on certain revenues, including revenues from
wholesale power and interchange sales. Ameren and Ameren Missouri
recorded immaterial liabilities on their respective balance sheets
as of June 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, representing their
estimate of the probable loss due as a result of this lawsuit.

Ameren and Ameren Missouri believe there is a remote possibility
that a liability relating to this lawsuit could be material to
Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial
position, and liquidity. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are
meritorious and is defending itself vigorously. However, there can
be no assurances that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its
efforts. A 2018 trial has been set, and an order is expected later
that year.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: "Boykin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Boyd Boykin, and all others similarly-situated v. Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02309 (D. Colo., September
22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and natural
gas exploration and production company.  The Defendant operates
throughout the United States, including Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              litkin@mybackwages.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Investor Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a
securities class action.

In February 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and two of its current officers.
Those cases have been consolidated into one purported class action
lawsuit under the caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880. The consolidated
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of March 16, 2015 to February 3, 2017.

In a June 2017 Order, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer appointed
the Investor Group, consisting of Joseph Bessent, John Corbitt,
and Eric Pearson as Lead Plaintiffs.  Their counsel, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, has been named lead counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/dx5Dk9
from Leagle.com.

On August 7, 2017, the Investor Group filed an Amended Complaint
against Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., Steven St. Peter, Craig A.
Tooman with Jury Demand.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time a loss is
not probable or reasonably estimable.

Aratana Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, is represented by Shannon
Lee Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.  She
also represents Michael Dezi, Consolidated Plaintiff

Plaintiffs Yanbing Min and Jesse Stone are represented by Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- JALieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP.

Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing,
developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs
and cats.


ARIZONA: Arpaio's Pardon Unconstitutional, Amicus Briefs Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn, writing for Truthout, reports that when Donald
Trump plunged a dagger through the hearts of former Arizona
sheriff Joe Arpaio's victims and all justice-loving people by
pardoning the racist serial lawbreaker, many threw up their hands
in resignation.  The president's constitutional pardon power is
absolute, they thought.

Not so, argue lawyers and legal scholars in two proposed amicus
briefs filed in US District Court in Arizona.  They contend the
Arpaio pardon is unconstitutional.

Judge Susan Bolton convicted Arpaio of criminal contempt on July
31, 2017, for demonstrating "flagrant disregard" of a 2011 court
order that he cease racial profiling. For 18 months following the
2011 order, Arpaio had continued his racist practice of detaining
Latinos without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.

While Arpaio awaited sentencing for his criminal contempt
conviction, Trump granted him a pardon on August 25, 2017.

After Trump announced the pardon, Arpaio moved to have his
criminal conviction dismissed.  Judge Bolton vacated the date that
had been set for sentencing and scheduled an October 4 hearing to
rule on Arpaio's dismissal motion.

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global
Wrongs.

If the judge determines Trump's pardon was invalid, she could
sentence Arpaio for his contempt conviction, thereby provoking an
appeal.

The Arpaio Pardon Violates Due Process

The Protect Democracy Project (PDP), a group of former Obama
administration lawyers, contend in their proposed amicus brief
that Trump's pardon of Arpaio violates due process and separation
of powers.  Thus, Judge Bolton should declare the pardon null and
void.

Arpaio was not simply convicted of committing a criminal offense.
He was convicted of criminal contempt for refusing during an 18-
month period to obey a court order to stop violating the Fourth
Amendment.  His contempt conviction stems from a civil class
action lawsuit filed by Arpaio's victims.

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law," the Fifth Amendment's Due Process
Clause says.  It "protects the rights of private litigants to
bring their claims before an impartial and empowered court and
prohibits extreme and arbitrary actions of government officials,
including the Executive Branch," the PDP amicus reads.

"Due process is violated if the President can eviscerate a court's
ability to ensure compliance with the law by those who wrong the
rights of private parties," the PDP lawyers write in their brief.
They quote the Supreme Court opinion in the 1998 case County of
Sacramento v. Lewis, which says, "the Due Process Clause was
intended to prevent government officials from abusing their power,
or employing it as an instrument of oppression."

The Arpaio pardon, the PDP lawyers argue, violates the Due Process
Clause "by limiting the protection of private rights, rendering
the due process guaranteed by law an empty promise."

The Arpaio Pardon Violates Separation of Powers

PDP maintains the pardon also "unconstitutionally interferes with
the inherent powers of the Judicial Branch," and thus violates the
principle of separation of powers.

The PDP lawyers argue in their amicus brief that the Constitution
does not grant the president power to pardon a criminal contempt
conviction when (1) it stems from a matter involving the rights of
private litigants, and (2) the contempt finding is "a valid and
binding exercise of judicial power designed to ensure proper
redress for those private litigants' rights," particularly when
they are constitutional rights.

PDP cites the Supreme Court opinion in the 1987 case Young v. U.S.
ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., which said the criminal contempt
power is so central to the judicial branch, it may not be left to
the mercy of the executive branch.  The power to punish those who
disobey judicial orders is essential to vindicate the authority of
the courts, and should not be dependent on the legislative or
executive branches.

"The President may no more use the pardon power to trample the
rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, than he may use
the Commander-in-Chief power to call down airstrikes on political
opponents," the PDP brief states.  "The pardon power does not
trump the rest of the Constitution."

Contempt Is Not a Pardonable Offense

Another proposed amicus brief was filed by Erwin Chemerinsky,
constitutional law scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley Law School;
Michael Tigar, prominent attorney and retired law professor; and
human rights lawyer Jane Tigar.  They argue that the Arpaio pardon
is not authorized by the Constitution because the pardon power
only extends to "offenses against the United States," and Arpaio's
contempt conviction is not an "offense."

The argument distinguishes between crimes, felonies and offenses
as defined by the legislature, on the one hand, and contempts,
which are inherent in the judicial power.  "The pardon power
logically and textually refers only to the former category," they
write.

Chemerinsky, Tigar and Tigar also contend the pardon runs afoul of
the principle that courts created by Article III of the
Constitution have a duty to provide effective redress when a
public official violates the Constitution.  Arpaio's victims are
entitled to a remedy for violation of their constitutional rights.

The three lawyers maintain that Article III courts have the
inherent authority to enforce their orders and that power "exists
outside and beyond legislative empowerment and executive whim."

If Arpaio's conduct is tolerated, they write, it would undermine
the court's "constitutional right and duty to protect its own
processes and the lives and liberty of those who come to seek
justice."

In their amicus brief, the three note, "The judiciary's counter-
majoritarian functions are most often used in ways that foster and
support the fundamental values of democratic government." They
identify these values as "the rights of all persons regardless of
race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation to participate in
and benefit from equal rights." In the Arpaio case, "one
fundamental value at stake is the right to even-handed treatment
at the hands of law enforcement -- surely a democratic value."

Before he pardoned Arpaio, Trump told a crowd of supporters in
Phoenix that rather than violating the law, Arpaio was "doing his
job." But "no President till now has proclaimed that a public
official who violated the Constitution and flouted orders was
'doing his job,'" the three lawyers write.

One of the most critical duties of a president is to "take care
that the laws be faithfully executed," under the Take Care Clause
of the Constitution. But, PDP argues, "The Arpaio Pardon does not
faithfully execute the law; its sends a signal that public
officials, so long as they are allies of the President, need not
execute the law at all."  Trump granted Arpaio a pardon "to reward
[him] for violating the Constitution."

Arpaio Might Feel "Outnumbered"

Judge Bolton has not yet ruled on whether she will allow these
amicus briefs to be officially filed in the case.  In his
opposition to the filing of the proposed amicus briefs, Arpaio's
lawyers wrote that the amicus briefs pose "a burden on the
[defendant]," who might "feel that he is outnumbered."

Just like his victims felt "outnumbered" when they were detained
by sheriff's deputies because they were brown or herded into what
Arpaio called his "concentration camp"?

Arpaio's brief calls his conviction for criminal contempt
"wrongful" but cites no facts to prove he was wrongfully
convicted.  His brief flippantly characterizes amici's arguments
as "a bitter soup that is too hard to swallow, being mixed with
one part irrelevant English history, one part political bile, and
a broth of 'Chicken Little syndrome,' to taste."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) supports Arpaio's request for
dismissal of his contempt conviction.  But the DOJ quotes the
federal circuit court opinion in United States v. Surratt, which
says, "absent some constitutional infirmity," an exercise of
presidential pardon power "simply closes the judicial door."   As
the authors of the amicus briefs argue, there are constitutional
infirmities with Arpaio's pardon -- specifically violations of due
process and separation of powers, and contempt is not a
constitutionally pardonable offense.

On September 14, Judge Bolton issued an order, citing Nixon v.
United States, in which the Supreme Court suggested that a
presidential pardon leaves intact the recipient's underlying
record of conviction.  She ordered the DOJ to submit a brief
addressing whether Arpaio's conviction should be dismissed.

We shall learn on October 4 whether Judge Bolton will uphold
Trump's pardon of Arpaio, or whether she will find it
unconstitutional and impose a sentence on Arpaio, thereby paving
the way for an appeal -- all the way to the Supreme Court.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of
Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy
secretary general of the International Association of Democratic
Lawyers.  Her books include The United States and Torture:
Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse; Cowboy Republic: Six Ways
the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and Drones and Targeted Killing:
Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Dec. 4 Trial Set in Queensland Floods Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that almost 7,000
Queenslanders will have to wait for another two months until
December 4 for their day in court in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit
against the Queensland government.

The trial to settle the Queensland floods class action -- now one
of Australia's largest class actions -- was to begin in the New
South Wales Supreme Court on October 3.

However, it will now begin on December 4.

There will be two weeks of hearings and then the trial will
recommence in February 2018.

The trial is set to run for 54 days.

The class action could progressively decide "hundreds of millions
of dollars" in flood compensation payments for the nearly 7000
Queenslanders who joined the 2011 Queensland floods class action.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has been preparing the class action
against the operators of Queensland's dams, Seqwater and the
Queensland government since 2011.

Maurice Blackburn's lead class action investigator Rebecca
Gilsenan on Sept. 17 confirmed the two-month delay in the trial
start.

"The trial start date is now December 4th," Ms Gilsenan said.
"It will run for two weeks (10 days) and then resume in February,"
she said.

The delay has been caused by mediation efforts between Maurice
Blackburn who are representing the flooded Queenslanders and
Seqwater and the Queensland government.

Seqwater manage the 12 dams around south-east Queensland including
Wivenhoe, Somerset, North Pine and Hinze dams.
The organisation is an arm of the Queensland government.

In May 2017, the New South Wales Supreme Court ordered the
mediation between Seqwater and Maurice Blackburn in an attempt to
resolve the complex issue, which has seen both parties spend large
sums of money to support their alternative flood-flow and dam-
management models.

The mediation started on August 14.
In April this year, Maurice Blackburn spoke in favour of seeking a
mediated outcome in a letter to its clients, telling them money
they received in mediation could not be held up by an appeal.

"If the case goes to trial and the court makes a decision, there
will be a winner and a loser.  A mediated outcome provides a
compromise between these binary outcomes . . . having regard to
the risks involved for each of them in going to trial," the firm
wrote in its letter, obtained by Fairfax Media.

"A mediated outcome would deliver compensation to group members
sooner, because it would not be subject to the possibility of
appeals . . . which can take several more years."

Seqwater in mid-year expressed surprise that mediation had only
been requested in August 2017, one month before the trial was set.

The August 2017 mediation sessions did not reach a settlement, Ms
Gilsenan said.

She said negotiations with Seqwater could still continue before
the trial.

"The mediation did not result in a settlement but that does not
mean that negotiations won't or cannot continue," she said on
Sept. 17.

Maurice Blackburn plan to have 250 "representative cases" put
forward first in the trial, with the other 6600 cases proceeding -
- if the trial is successful for Maurice Blackburn -- based on
precedents set in those first 250 cases.

They allege the negligence of the dam operators contributed
significantly to the downstream flooding experienced in Brisbane,
Ipswich and surrounding areas.

Seqwater maintains the action of their flood engineers "will
continue to be shown to have significantly reduced the impact of
the flood as the matter progresses through the court."

The Maurice Blackburn flood class action is financially supported
by IMF Bentham.

IMF Bentham is a commercial funding organisation that supports
class actions in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore,
United States and Canada.

The company will take a percentage of any successful claim, but on
its website it says it has a 91 per cent success rate in the legal
actions it pursues.

In the 162 cases it has contested, it has had settlements in 133
cases, wins in 14 cases and losses in 15 cases.

An attempt to start another class action for landowners who
suffered financial loss -- but no property loss -- from the 2011
floods has been rejected by the New South Wales Supreme Court
because it not find a financial backer by a court-imposed
deadline. [GN]


BEYOND MEDIA: Faces Abante Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter And Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Beyond Media Solutions, LLC and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-05349 (C.D. Cal.,
September 15, 2017), seeks to put an end to Defendant's practice
of using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its
calls to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.

Beyond Media Solutions, LLC operates an online branding agency in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


BMW OF NORTH: Faces "Gelis" Suit Over Breach of Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------
Artem V. Gelis and Bhawar Patel, and all others similarly situated
v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and BMW of North
America, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-07386 (D.N.J., September 22, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, misrepresentation, unfair and
deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment under the laws
of New Jersey and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs initiate the proposed class action involving 2012
through and including 2015 model year BMW motor vehicles equipped
with the N20 and N26 direct injection turbocharged engine.

Defendant BMW LLC is a duly organized Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business located at 300 Chestnut Ridge Road in
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW LLC manufactures, imports,
distributes and/or sells BMW motor vehicles including all class
vehicles and also acts as the authorized representative of BMW AG
in the United States.  BMW LLC operates its national marketing,
warranty, consumer relations and engineering offices from its New
Jersey facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Jay I. Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977

          - and -

      Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
      THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C.
      7 Evergreen Lane
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Tel: (781) 741-6075


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Dean" Suit in C.D. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Resources
Corp.  The case is styled as Michael Dean and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. California Resources
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07038 (C.D. Cal., September 22,
2017).

California Resources is an independent company and leading
producer of oil and natural gas focused exclusively on
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza Suite 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: mparmet@brucknerburch.com


CANADA: Class Actions Over Military LGBT Purge Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Maloney, writing for Huffington Post, reports that
Todd Ross came out in front of a two-way mirror as strangers
lurked.

When he repeated the word moments later, at last giving those men
in grey pants and sportcoats what they had long sought to push out
of him, Mr. Ross was strapped to a polygraph machine.

"Yes," he said.  Finally.

There was no release.  No sense that the heaviness Ross lugged
around for two decades had been lifted.  Only tears, and the
aching feeling that his life had vanished in an instant of
courageous truth that felt that day like defeat.

"Almost like I had been physically forced down and I was being
held," Mr. Ross explains one summer afternoon over coffee in
Toronto's Leslieville neighbourhood.

Mr. Ross knew the question was coming.  He had already told them
he wasn't gay, time and again over an 18-month military
investigation that began in 1989.  He told them in words as plain
as the ones he used to defend his love and loyalty to Canada and
the fact that he had never visited Russia.

"At that time, I was still 19. I think just turning 20.  And I
wasn't even out to myself at that point," Mr. Ross says.

But the question tailed him as much as the image of that light
blue K-car, the one they'd send for him.  The one he was certain
he could spot following him down the street some days.

Mr. Ross knew that people from the special investigations unit had
visited his small hometown of St. Stephen, N.B.  They had spoken
with the former commanding officer from Mr. Ross' time in the army
cadets, where he excelled as the province's best.

They even interviewed the guy who owned the camera shop next to
the bank where his mother worked.

"I felt like there was no stone left unturned that they didn't go
after.  That they had fully dissected every part of my history."

Whenever they came by, flashing cards identifying themselves as
SIU, Mr. Ross would be called to the gangplank over the ship's
public address system.

It was unfathomable to his shipmates on the HMCS Saskatchewan,
docked at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in B.C., that he was
ostensibly being probed for espionage, Ross says.  At the time, he
was a naval combat information operator.

The interrogations were a lot like what you'd see on crime TV
shows, Mr. Ross says.  Usually they'd put him in a room alone for
about an hour before coming in to pepper him.

"I knew absolutely it was because I was gay," he says.

One day, he'd had enough.

"So, when they came to the question . . . 'Are you gay?' . . . I
said yes.  It was almost like they closed the book at that point."

He knew it meant the end of his military career but the death of
something else, too.

"I really thought that if I wished it strong enough that I would
get settled down, have kids with a wife, and that I could lead a
straight life," Mr. Ross says.

"That was part of what was in my mind that had collapsed as well."

An official apology from the federal government is expected before
the end of this year for the so-called purge of LGBT Canadians
from the Canadian Armed Forces, federal public service, and Royal
Canadian Mounted Police over the course of more than three
decades.

Policies that included surveillance and demeaning interrogations
about the private lives of public employees continued long after a
justice minister named Pierre Trudeau proclaimed the state had no
place in the bedrooms of the nation and Canada decriminalized
consensual homosexual acts in 1969.

It is estimated that from the late 1950s to early 1990s, thousands
of gay and lesbian Canadians were fired, released from the
military, denied promotions, or otherwise demoted because of their
sexuality.

It's a shameful chapter of this country's past that one expert
believes is not fully understood by many Canadians, continuing the
legacy of secrecy surrounding a Cold War-era program initiated at
the very highest levels of the federal government.

"The ostensible reason (for the purge) was that lesbians and gay
men were supposed to be a national security risk because we
suffered from this supposed character weakness," explains
Laurentian University sociologist Gary Kinsman.

The enduring belief of the day was that gay or lesbian Canadians
in the public service or military, then mostly closeted, would be
more vulnerable to blackmail from Soviet agents or other foreign
enemies.

But Mr. Kinsman, who co-authored "The Canadian War on Queers:
National Security as Sexual Regulation," is quick to note purges
happened before the 1950s. During the Second World War, for
example, homosexuals could be discharged for having "a
psychopathic personality with abnormal sexuality."

A panel to weed out national security threats was established by
the cabinet defence committee in 1946 and later expanded to
include the RCMP and other government departments.

After 1958, the panel began aggressively searching for gay civil
servants through interrogations and surveillance of bars and
hangouts.  It initially focused largely on the navy and External
Affairs and broadened to other parts of the public service in the
1960s, Mr. Kinsman says.  Friends and acquaintances turned on each
other under the threat of criminal charges.

The campaign in the U.S. was very public, very visible against
what they would have referred to as sexual deviants in the public
service.  The campaign in Canada was kept as secret and as
privatized as possible.

Though gay Canadians were supposed to be the ones susceptible to
coercion and intimidation, Kinsman says it was actually the RCMP
and security forces doing the blackmailing, resulting in a
database of 9,000 "suspected homosexuals" by the late 1960s.

The campaign was initiated later than a similar effort in the
United States and much more discreetly, he says.

"The campaign in the U.S. was very public, very visible against
what they would have referred to as sexual deviants in the public
service," Mr. Kinsman says.  "The campaign in Canada was kept as
secret and as privatized as possible."

It's one reason a public apology is so needed, he says, adding
that the "network of surveillance and interrogation" expelled
people from the fabric of the nation and pushed some to take their
own lives.

Germany has already accepted recommendations of compensation for
LGBT people who faced historic discrimination.  Daniel Andrews,
premier of the Australian state of Victoria, apologized last year
for similar policies of "state-sanctioned homophobia" that ruined
lives.

"These purge campaigns are a major part of how the social
relations of the closet -- what some people would describe as
having to live a double-life, being heterosexual at work in the
public service or military but being lesbian or gay underground,
on the side -- these policies helped put that in place,"
Mr. Kinsman says.

And not only did the decriminalization of homosexual acts in 1969
and passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 fail to
make things easier, such steps may have paradoxically helped ramp
up efforts because of a sense that the window to act was closing.

At least that's the position of the activist lawyer now leading a
multi-million dollar class action lawsuit against the federal
government, seeking redress for all those who were wronged.

Martine Roy remembers a K-car, too.

She was just pretending to be a victim that day at CFB Borden, 100
kilometres north of Toronto, when the strange vehicle showed up on
the base.  Ms. Roy, who joined the military in 1981 at the age of
19, was training at the time to become a medical assistant.

Ms. Roy naively thought she was being asked for directions when
called over to meet the men in the vehicle.

"I really thought they were lost civilians that ended up in the
field and that I had to take them back," she says over the phone
while preparing for Pride events in her native Montreal.

After she got in the car, the men from the SIU drove her to a
small building at the edge of the base that she didn't know
existed.  Ms. Roy was interrogated for almost five hours about her
sex life.

They had received word that she was a lesbian.

Ms. Roy told them she had a boyfriend, which was technically true.
At that point she had fallen for a young woman she met at a
hospital but both decided it would look better to keep their male
partners.

"I could not tell you if I was gay or straight or bi or what," Ms.
Roy says now.  "I knew I liked people."

Her interrogators pressed for intimate details about the
boyfriend.

How many times do you see him? How many times have you had sex?
What type of intercourse do you have? Is there penetration?

After a while, Ms. Roy says she was told that if she was honest
about her "perversions," she could continue to serve.  So, she
opened up about her secret relationship and promised never to see
that girl again.

"They told me they would keep me because I was honest."

She soon began a two-year contract at the DND's medical centre in
Ottawa but dread followed her.  Ms. Roy was always worried she was
being watched, always felt a chip on her shoulder.

Ms. Roy was summoned to see a psychiatrist to determine if she was
abnormal and, over several sessions, tried to make the case she
wasn't a sexual deviant.

"I tried to tell them I made a mistake. Sorry.  I won't do it
again," Ms. Roy says.  "You want to survive.  You don't want
anything to happen to you."

In 1984, Ms. Roy landed a new job as a communications officer in
Kingston, which came with top secret clearance and a boost to her
confidence.  She celebrated by buying a brand new car -- a Hyundai
Pony.

Two months after signing her contract, the floor fell out beneath
her.  She was called into the office of the base colonel to learn
she was being dishonourably released.

She had nine days to pack her things and go.

"They just throw me out on the street.  Tell me I'm no good.  My
self esteem just went in the drain," she says.  "It took me about
10 years to make it back from that."

She returned to Quebec without a pension, she says, feebly seeking
answers from everyone from her local MP to her priest.

"I was destroyed," Ms. Roy says of the reckless, restless years
that followed.  "And like a good destroyed person, I went into
drugs."

Ms. Roy says she has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder.

"Everything comes back when I start talking about it again," she
says.

Even after getting sober, the feeling of being cast aside from the
military often made it a struggle for her to sustain the trust
needed in relationships.

Ms. Roy says a job at IBM, where she was finally comfortable
enough to be her authentic self, helped her regain the years she
lost.  She's embraced activistism and became a founding member of
Pride At Work Canada, a non-profit organization promoting
workplaces that support LGBT employees.

She got married in April and along with her wife, Jessica Paul, is
raising a daughter named Cascia, who is almost two.  The couple is
expecting a second child in November.

Ms. Roy, now 53, counts herself lucky compared to others who were
not able to fight their way back.

"It changed my whole life. It made me, maybe, stronger," she
reflects.  "But not everybody made it.  Some died; some just got
married because they didn't want anybody to know they were gay.
The impact on people from something like that is astronomical."

She never thought, decades later, she would be bracing for the
apology she deserves.

"Imagine.  Thirty years."

Mr. Ross wanted to kill himself.  The first time, back on the
ship, he took a bunch of vitamins because he couldn't find pills.

"That didn't work, obviously," he says, laughing.  "I had a
healthy glow afterwards."

The second time, shortly after his release, Mr. Ross was clawing
at his wrists.

"I could not envision a life as a gay person.  That, to me, was an
unavailable scenario for anyone," Mr. Ross says.  "I didn't think
it was something that people could do."

After the final interrogation, Ross agreed to give SIU access to
all his documents, from personal photos to shoeboxes filled with
letters, including ones from his grandmother.

Mr. Ross was later told his security clearance was being stripped
because of a picture of him and his three colleagues standing
behind a large radar computer in their workspace.  A radio
frequency could be seen on a wall.

He was offered an honourable discharge or a demotion that would
mean performing general duties on the base, such as sweeping. He
took the discharge in June 1990 because at that point his passion
for the military had been snuffed out.

Mr. Ross received about $1,500 he paid into his pension over two-
and-a-half years -- money he later blew hitchhiking in Europe --
and had his futon shipped back East.

He returned to St. Stephen, but couldn't come to terms with
explaining why his budding military career had ended.  After a
year at the University of New Brunswick -- where Ross had a
girlfriend "just to confuse Mom," he teases -- he headed back to
B.C. and found work at a vegetarian juice bar.

"I still had that fear of judgment and disgracing my family and
all of those things that go through your mind.  So, I moved to the
farthest point in Canada where there was a gay community."

It probably took me 20 years before I was able to sing the words
to 'O Canada.'

When he finally told his family the truth, Mr. Ross says they were
very supportive.  His brother, who also joined the military in the
'80s, is still active in the armoured corps.

Mr. Ross chokes up when he recalls the message he received one day
from his sister, now a RCMP officer, who wrote: "I just realized
what you went through."

"The realization of the year-and-a-half investigation that I'd
always talked about was actually an investigation about me being
gay, that hit them when I came out," he says.  "So, they had a
fuller understanding of what I'd gone through."

He returned to Toronto chasing love and, after years working sales
at Holt Renfrew, landed a job with Ontario MPP George Smitherman.

When Mr. Smitherman was appointed health minister in 2003, Ross
moved with him to that office but initially feared the Ontario
Provincial Police might deny him clearance because of his
discharge.

In 2013, Mr. Ross sought a federal Liberal nomination for a
byelection in Toronto Centre.  He had to explain the "blemish" on
his military record to the party's green-light committee.
Mr. Ross lost the nomination battle to Chrystia Freeland, now the
minister of foreign affairs.

"Should I have been successful, if I had won the nomination, if I
had become an MP, would that have been on my record when I went to
Ottawa? I don't know."

An acute feeling of betrayal has stayed with him.

"It took me a long time before I regained my pride in Canada," he
says, tears welling up in his eyes.  "It probably took me 20 years
before I was able to sing the words to 'O Canada.'"

Mr. Ross and Ms. Roy are two of the lead plaintiffs in a class
action suit launched against the Government of Canada last March
in Federal Court.

A third plaintiff, former postal clerk Alida Satalic from Nova
Scotia, says in court documents that she also took an honourable
release in 1989 after admitting she was gay after similar, graphic
interrogations.

The class action combines separate lawsuits into one, with legal
teams in Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax.

One of the driving forces behind the action, Douglas Elliott, is
perhaps best known as a leading lawyer in the successful fights
for marriage equality and securing survivor pension benefits for
widowed same-sex partners.

Mr. Elliott estimates as many as 9,000 people could end up being
included in the class action. They are seeking in excess of $600
million in damages.

Mr. Elliott says he was motivated to take action because the
government did not respond promptly to the recommendations from a
report he helped author for Egale, a national group promoting LGBT
rights.

The "Just Society" report, released the day after a massacre at an
Orlando gay nightclub in June 2016, urged the government to, among
many other things, provide an apology, pardons, and redress for
those swept up in the LGBT purge.

"Days went by and weeks went by and we had many positive
statements from the prime minister but no action," Mr. Elliott
says.

The class action is filed on behalf of current or former members
of the CAF or federal public service who were "investigated,
discharged, terminated, sanctioned or faced threat of sanction"
from the government because of their sexual orientation, gender
expression or gender identity between June 27, 1969 to the present
day.

The 1969 cutoff was chosen because that is when homosexual acts
were decriminalized and Elliott says the government could likely
have argued "they were entitled to fire criminals."  It was a
logical call, but a tough one.

Mr. Elliott is hoping a compensation package could be in place, at
least in principle, in time to harmonize with Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau's apology.  The government has also promised
legislation to expunge the records of gay and lesbian Canadians
convicted of crimes because of their sexuality, including gross
indecency.

Mr. Elliott is optimistic the case will settle, avoiding a messy
legal battle.

"I've never had the federal government come to the table so
quickly and with as much goodwill as I've seen in this case,"
Elliott says, adding he's told younger associates not to be lulled
into thinking negotiations are usually so smooth.

"I'm not saying that they're giving away the store, far from it.
But it's very clear to me that they would like to get this
resolved sooner rather than later on a basis that is fair to
everyone and that includes Canadian taxpayers."

Mr. Elliott believes a legal victory on this matter will stand on
equal footing with same-sex marriage as a moment when Canada took
a giant leap forward.

"Same-sex marriage was really about the future of Canada . . . but
it really didn't address the past injustices done," he says.

"There's been an attitude in Canada that, well, let's just forget
about the past and move on.  I think we've learned from
residential schools, in particular, that's not good enough.

"You can't really move on until you've addressed the injustices of
the past."

Michelle Douglas still feels badly for that young woman who was
made to feel like a criminal, not so long ago.

The one who was forced to concede she was gay, to catch up to her
government's label, while attached to a polygraph machine after a
"very intense period of harassment."

The one who was dismissed in 1989 as being "not advantageously
employable due to homosexuality."

"All I knew was that I was just in love with a woman," Ms. Douglas
says. Her first love, in fact.

She took to the military in a way she didn't expect and says she
graduated as a top candidate in every course she took.

Michelle Douglas sued the federal government after the military
deemed her not advantageously employable due to homosexuality.
But Ms. Douglas always knew her sexuality was something to be
hidden, despite the discreet club of lesbians in the military.
When she was moved into the SIU as an officer, a unit tasked with
the investigation of very serious crime and allegations of
homosexuality, Ms. Douglas feared it wouldn't be long until she
faced questions.

It happened about a month into her post.  Ms. Douglas denied her
relationship as she was grilled for two days in a hotel.  When she
was later flown to Ottawa to face a lie detector, Ms. Douglas
decided to tell the truth.

"It didn't matter how good you were.  It didn't matter how much
you were prepared to serve your country and indeed die for your
country," she says.  "It only mattered what your sexual
orientation was."

But Ms. Douglas opted to fight, to "lean in" as they say today. In
so doing, she changed the course of Canadian history.

She filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the Department of
National Defence in 1990, with noted civil rights lawyer Clayton
Ruby in her corner, arguing her Charter rights had been violated.

It didn't matter how good you were.  It didn't matter how much you
were prepared to serve your country and indeed die for your
country.  It only mattered what your sexual orientation was.

The case never made it to trial, however, and was settled in 1992
after the Progressive Conservative government abolished policies
overtly barring gay and lesbian soldiers from serving.

"I realized that I did have a role to play and I did step into
that role," Ms. Douglas says.  "Maybe I have the military's
leadership training to thank for some of that piece."

Ms. Douglas, now 53 and a federal government employee, has
dedicated the last 25 years fighting for LGBT equality with a
front-row seat to a succession of court cases breaking down legal
barriers, including ones preventing same-sex marriage.

She says she has remained optimistic and grateful through it all
and has never regretted signing up to serve her country.

"I gave them my best.  I guess I felt that it was their loss that
they could not have a place for me in the military of the day,"
she says.  "Of course, today it's completely different.  I like to
think that I played a small role in helping bring about that
change."

She wants to be in the same room as the prime minister when he
expresses regret and remorse this year.

"I need to hear those words."

Before the days of polygraphs, two vexing issues confronted
members of the security panel tasked with uncovering homosexuals:
the sheer cost of field investigations and growing resistance in
gay and lesbian networks to co-operate.

So, they came up with the "fruit machine."

A scientific way of determining homosexuality -- a sort of gaydar
-- was seen as a possible solution to both.

In 1961, the federal government sent Carleton University
psychology professor Frank Robert Wake to the U.S. to study the
development of technology to detect if someone was gay.

He returned with a proposal for what he dubbed the "special
project," a battery of tests to determine who was gay by
monitoring everything from anxiety to sweat.

At the core of it was a pupillary response test, Mr. Kinsman
explains, used first by the RCMP and then the military.  Subjects
would be shown images at half-second intervals of semi-naked
bodies.  The assumption was that there would be an involuntary
response that would give away the game.

"If the pupil expanded, that showed that you were interested in
those images.  And if somehow your interest in the images didn't
correlate with the gender you were and what your sexuality was
supposed to be, then you would be determined to be homosexual."

It was total quackery built on flawed assumptions, of course.  It
never worked.

"People didn't respond uniformly to the images that were shown to
them.  People had different widths between the pupils of their
eyes," Ms. Kinsman explains.  "There was just a whole series of
things that made the research project unviable."

The initiative was abandoned around 1968 after more than $10,000
in federal research money was wasted.  Though evidence of the
"fruit machine" technology appears to have been destroyed,
Ms. Kinsman and his group -- The We Demand An Apology Network --
want all government documents related to the project released for
Canadians.

"They can't be kept secret anymore on the grounds that this is a
matter of national security."

Some Carleton students are also calling on the university to
publicly apologize for its connection to the research.

Mr. Ross admits he was angry when he saw the tweets from the
supposed leader of the free world proclaiming transgender soldiers
would no longer be welcome in the U.S. military.

Then he saw the response from the Canadian Armed Forces: an image
of joyful, uniformed sailors playing musical instruments in a
Pride parade.

"I thought, good for them for being a little bit cheeky but also
being so proactive," he says.

Ross, now 48, has openly gay friends who serve in the military.
He's proud that Canada has evolved so greatly since his release in
1990.

"I do sing 'O Canada' now.  I don't sing it in the shower every
day."

Life is good now. He's been in a loving relationship for almost 12
years with Kirk, a teacher who always thought he'd be the famous
one of the pair.

And he's proud of the meaningful work he has done as an adviser
for the Metis Nation of Ontario, an organization that had his back
even after Ross told them he was, well, suing the federal
government.

And Ross has been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support. The
mayor of his hometown recently reached out to encourage him to
come to their high school reunion.

I still struggle speaking about this but I've met individuals who
. . . this has ruined their lives.

Mr. Ross says he is proud to be giving a face to the issue,
particularly on behalf of those who were dishonoured.

"I still struggle speaking about this but I've met individuals who
. . . this has ruined their lives.  And for them, the apology has
to come with more," he says.  "It has to help them get their lives
on track."

Mr. Ross remembers feeling that there were no gay role models when
he was adrift.  That a piece of what it meant to be gay needed
always to stay hidden.

He hopes helping to right this wrong will mean "there's never that
belief in a young person's life that they are wrong because of who
they are."

But Mr. Ross looks back fondly on the camaraderie of basic
training in Nova Scotia, back when he envisioned a long career in
the military.

You're not supposed to enjoy those gruelling few weeks but
Mr. Ross says he couldn't help it.  Even running laps in the gym,
where he says he was one of the fastest.

The weakest of the group would often be punished by being forced
to run with a medicine ball.

"So, I would run behind them, grab the medicine ball and carry it
for them," Mr. Ross says. [GN]


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Bid to Abstain in "Jerry" Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JERRY VENABLE REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CIV-16-782-M (W.D.
Okla.), Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma denied the Plaintiff's motion to
abstain from jurisdiction over the putative class action and
remanding the case to the District Court of Beaver County,
Oklahoma, under the home state exception to diversity jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiff filed the class action for breach of lease, breach
of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and constructive trust against
the Defendant in the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma on
June 14, 2016.

In the Class Action Petition, the Plaintiff defines the proposed
class as all persons who are (i) either an Oklahoma Resident or a
Texas Resident; and, (ii) a royalty owner in Oklahoma wells where
the Defendant is or was the operator (or a working interest owner
who marketed its share of gas and directly paid royalties to the
royalty owners) from Jan. 1, 2015 to the date Class Notice is
given.  The Class claims relate to royalty payments for gas and
its constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids,
helium, nitrogen, or drip condensate).

On July 11, 2016, the Defendant removed the action to this Court.
The Plaintiff moved the Court on April 17, 2017 for an order
abstaining from jurisdiction over the putative class action and
remanding the case to the District Court of Beaver County,
Oklahoma, under the home state exception to diversity jurisdiction
under the CAFA.

Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, and
particularly the evidence submitted by plaintiff, Judge Miles-
LaGrange finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the
members of the proposed classes in the aggregate are citizens of
Oklahoma such that the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction
applies in the case.

Specifically, the Judge finds there are significant flaws in the
evidence provided.

First, neither the Plaintiff's data nor its counsel's conclusions
regarding whether a particular member of the random sample was an
Oklahoma citizen properly addresses the requisite analysis for
determining the citizenship of a trust.  Neither the survey data
nor the skip-trace investigation documents provide any information
as to either the trustee's citizenship or the trust beneficiaries'
citizenship.

Second, upon a comparison of the Plaintiff's counsel's data
compilation and conclusions with the skip-trace investigation
documents, the Judge found a number of individuals that were found
to be Oklahoma citizens on the Plaintiff's counsel's data
compilation that the skip-trace investigation documents indicated
were deceased.  If an individual is deceased, an additional
analysis would necessarily need to be conducted to determine the
citizenship of any heirs, etc.

Finally, upon review of the data compilation and conclusions and
the skip-trace investigation documents, Judge Miles-LaGrange found
there was an insufficient basis for the Plaintiff's counsel's
determination of Oklahoma citizenship for a few of the members of
the random sample.

In light of these flaws, Judge Miles-LaGrange finds that the
conclusion of the Plaintiff's expert, Joseph B. Kadane, cannot be
relied upon by the Court and that without Mr. Kadane's conclusion,
and without sufficient reliable data, the Judge cannot find by a
preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the
members of the proposed classes in the aggregate are citizens of
Oklahoma.  Accordingly, she finds that the home state exception to
CAFA jurisdiction does not apply in the case.  Judge Miles-
LaGrange, therefore, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0xDIk0 from Leagle.com.

Jerry Venable Revocable Family Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA.

Jerry Venable Revocable Family Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp
PA, Michael E. Grant, Grant Law Firm & Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA.

Chesapeake Operating LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick L.
Stein -- patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Timothy J.
Bomhoff -- Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Craig Alan
Haynes --  Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight & Rachelle
H. Glazer --  Rachelle.Glazer@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Bid to Abstain in "Nichols" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BILL G. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING,
LLC, and CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CIV-16-
1073-M (W.D. Okla.), Judge of the Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain under the Home-State Mandatory
Abstention Exception to CAFA and the Plaintiff's Supplement to His
Motion to Abstain under Home State Exception to CAFA.

The Plaintiff filed the class action for breach of lease, breach
of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and constructive trust against
the Defendants in the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma on
Aug. 9, 2016.

In the Class Action Petition, the Plaintiff defines the proposed
class described as all persons who are (a) an Oklahoma Resident;
and, (b) a royalty owner in Oklahoma wells where the Defendant is
or was the operator (or a working interest owner who marketed its
share of gas and directly paid royalties to the royalty owners)
from Jan. 1, 2015 to the date Class Notice is given.  The Class
claims relate to royalty payments for gas and its constituents
(such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, nitrogen, or
drip condensate).

On Sept. 15, 2016, the Defendants removed the action to this
Court.  On Oct. 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.
On Feb. 23, 2017, this Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.  On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to
Abstain.

Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, and
particularly the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, Judge Miles-
LaGrange finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the
members of the proposed class are citizens of Oklahoma such that
the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies in the case.
Specifically, the Judge finds there are significant flaws in the
evidence provided.

First, neither the Plaintiff's data nor his counsel's conclusions
regarding whether a particular member of the random sample was an
Oklahoma citizen properly addresses the requisite analysis for
determining the citizenship of a trust.  Neither the survey data
nor the skip-trace investigation documents provide any information
as to either the trustee's citizenship or the trust beneficiaries'
citizenship.

Second, upon a comparison of the Plaintiff's counsel's data
compilation and conclusions with the skiptrace investigation
documents, the Judge found a number of individuals that were found
to be Oklahoma citizens on the Plaintiff's counsel's data
compilation that the skip-trace investigation documents indicated
were deceased.  If an individual is deceased, an additional
analysis would necessarily need to be conducted to determine the
citizenship of any heirs, etc.

Finally, upon review of the data compilation and conclusions and
the skip-trace investigation documents, the Judge found there was
an insufficient basis for the Plaintiff's counsel's determination
of Oklahoma citizenship for a few of the members of the random
sample.

In light of these flaws, Judge Miles-LaGrange finds that the
conclusion of the Plaintiff's expert, Joseph B. Kadane, cannot be
relied upon by the Court and that without Mr. Kadane's conclusion,
and without sufficient reliable data, the Judge cannot find by a
preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the
members of the proposed classes in the aggregate are citizens of
Oklahoma.  Accordingly, she finds that the home state exception to
CAFA jurisdiction does not apply in the case.  Judge Miles-
LaGrange, therefore, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Abstain and
his Supplement to His Motion to Abstain under Home State Exception
to CAFA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rJrtJK from Leagle.com.

Bill G Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA.

Bill G Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A Sharp PA & Michael E. Grant,
Grant Law Firm.

Chesapeake Operating LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura J. Long
-- laura.long@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, Patrick L. Stein --
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft & Timothy J. Bomhoff
-- Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft.

Chesapeake Exploration LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura J.
Long, McAfee & Taft, Patrick L. Stein, McAfee & Taft & Timothy J.
Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in the "Amey" class action
lawsuit remains pending.

Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669,
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims.

The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims.

The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the
range of potential loss.

Cinemark is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry,
with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay.


COMPASS GROUP: Oct. 31 Case Management Conference in "Johnson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD JOHNSON, MAISHA GROCHOWSKI, STEVEN
AGUILAR, and HECTOR PORTILLO, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMPASS GROUP, USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-03543-KAW (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the parties'
stipulation to continue the case management conference to Oct. 31,
2017, at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant who filed the
putative class action on June 20, 2017, alleging various
violations of the California Labor Code, including the failure to
provide meal and rest breaks and pay minimum wages and overtime.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint was served on June 26, 2017.  Shortly
thereafter, the counsel for the Defendant alerted the Plaintiffs
to a related case pending in the Superior Court of Riverside
County, California, Romero, et al., v. Compass Group, USA, Inc.
("Romero Action").

A class action settlement was preliminarily approved in the Romero
Action after the Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed in which the
Plaintiffs are all putative class members.  The Plaintiffs have
since received their class notices and are determining how to
proceed with respect to the settlement, which will greatly impact
how this case would proceed (if at all) in terms of scheduling,
discovery, and motion practice.  The Plaintiffs have until Sept.
21, 2017, to accept the settlement in the Romero Action and a
final approval hearing is set for Oct. 3, 2017.

The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate to and
jointly request a brief continuance of the Case Management
Conference currently scheduled for Sept. 19, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
They request that the hearing be continued from to Oct. 31, 2017
at 1:30 p.m., or the next date thereafter available on the Court's
calendar in order to permit the Plaintiffs time to determine how
to proceed in a pending class action settlement in the Romero
Action that could extinguish their claims in the case.

Magistrate Judge Westmore granted the parties' stipulation and
directed them to their initial case management conference
statement no later than seven calendar days before the case
management conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2WSHIS from Leagle.com.

Gerald Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew B. George --
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Maisha Grochowski, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew B. George,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Steven Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew B. George,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Hector Portillo, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew B. George,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a class action
complaint in North Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) has been
dismissed.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its
directors.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement,
are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin us from consummating the
merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively,
to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger,
in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs."

"On March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin FairPoint's special meeting of stockholders
to approve the proposed Merger.  On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to his
individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the
putative class.  No payment, promise of payment, or other
consideration has been offered or made to the plaintiff or his
attorneys."

Consolidated Communications is an integrated communications
services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC")
dependent upon the territory served.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Resolves Plaintiff Counsel's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that following a stockholder
vote and through the closing of a merger transaction, the parties,
through their respective counsel, engaged in arm's-length
negotiations to resolve plaintiff's counsel's claim for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses for a payment of $0.345 million to
plaintiff's counsel by the Company, which payment has not been
approved or ruled upon by the Court.

On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of the Company in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware ( the "Court") captioned Vento v. Currey, et
al. (Case No. 2017-0157) against the members of the Company's
board of directors ( the "Delaware Action").  The lawsuit is
related to our Merger Agreement with FairPoint.  Among other
things, the lawsuit alleged that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with soliciting approval of the Company's stockholders of the
issuance of the Company's common stock to stockholders of
FairPoint in the merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Merger
Agreement (the "Stockholder Vote") because Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by the Company on
February 24, 2017 failed to disclose allegedly material
information relating to the retention, compensation and financial
incentives of a financial advisor to the Company in connection
with the proposed Merger.  The plaintiff sought, among other
relief, to enjoin the Stockholder Vote.

On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Stockholder Vote until such time as
certain information concerning the financial interests of the
Company's financial advisor in the proposed Merger were fully
disclosed.  On March 22, 2017, the Court issued a letter decision
stating that it would preliminarily enjoin the Stockholder Vote
(the "Injunction") until five days after such time as the Company
had supplemented its disclosures to include a clear and direct
explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or any of
its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger if
the Merger is consummated.

In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and
direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to
receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company supplemented the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
Merger Agreement as described in the Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 22, 2017 at a time and in a manner that
would not cause any delay of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which was scheduled to be held on March 28, 2017, or
the Merger.

Subsequently on March 22, 2017, the Court entered an order that,
among other things, vacated the Injunction, dismissed the Delaware
Action as moot, and allowed the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which was held on March 28, 2017, to proceed as
scheduled.  The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose
of determining the plaintiff's counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

At a special meeting of the Company's stockholders, the issuance
of the Company's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the
Merger received the affirmative vote of approximately 98% of the
shares voted.  The Merger closed on July 3, 2017.

Following the Stockholder Vote and through the closing of the
Merger, the parties, through their respective counsel, engaged in
arm's length negotiations to resolve plaintiff's counsel's claim
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses for a payment of
$0.345 million to plaintiff's counsel by the Company, which
payment has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court.

Consolidated Communications is an integrated communications
services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC")
dependent upon the territory served.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Court Denied Unitholder's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that the court has denied a unitholder's appeal of a class action
settlement.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G. Farber, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Robert G.
Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Gettig,
Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood,
Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub
LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, and Crestwood
Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint alleges, among other things,
that Crestwood Midstream's general partner breached its fiduciary
duties, certain individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care, and that other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Robert G. Phillps,
Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Getting, Warren H.
Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood
Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood
Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity
Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP,
LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood
Midstream's general partner and certain individual defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an alleged incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4,
2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary
injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for September 23,
2015.

On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the
MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to the
class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court approval of
the settlement. In October 2016, the court approved the
settlement.

On November 7, 2016, a unitholder filed an appeal of the
settlement and a hearing was held on June 5, 2017, at which the
court denied the appeal and finalized the settlement.

"The settlement did not have a material impact to our consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.

Crestwood Equity is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware
limited partnership that develops, acquires, owns or controls, and
operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the
energy midstream sector.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses ADA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia dismissed the case captioned IVY BROWN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 10-2250 (ESH) (D. D.C.).

This action was brought by a class of individuals with physical
disabilities who (i) have received DC Medicaid-funded long-term
care services in a nursing facility for 90 or more consecutive
days; (ii) are eligible for Medicaid-covered home and community-
based long-term care services; and (iii) would prefer to live in
the community instead of a nursing facility.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the District's failure to provide effective transition
services has caused the class to remain in nursing facilities, in
violation of the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.

The integration mandate was first recognized by the Supreme Court
in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).  Under
Olmstead, the essential inquiry is whether a state administers its
Medicaid programs in a manner that unjustly segregates individuals
with disabilities.  Olmstead involved the question of whether the
integration mandate had been violated with respect to two disabled
individuals.

Proceeding under an Olmstead theory of liability, the Plaintiffs
contend that the District is violating the so-called "integration
mandate" of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide effective transition
services to a class of physically disabled individuals who receive
Medicaid-funded long-term care, have lived in nursing facilities
for more than 90 days, and would prefer to live in the community.
They seek class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

Based on the testimony and exhibits admitted at trial, the
parties' arguments, and the applicable law, Judge Huvelle
concludes that, under Rule 23, the Plaintiffs must prove more than
generalized allegations of deficient transition services as
measured by the lack of a significant number of transitions out of
nursing facilities.  Rather, the Plaintiffs must prove that the
District maintains a policy or practice (i.e., a concrete systemic
deficiency) that has caused the class members to remain in nursing
facilities despite their preference to receive long-term care in
the community.

She further concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry
their burden of proving the existence of a concrete systemic
deficiency in the District's transition services.  Given the
barriers to transitioning -- both systemic and individualized --
that are outside the District's control, the Plaintiffs have also
failed to prove that the class members' institutionalization is
caused by systemic deficiencies in the District's transition
services or that the harm can be redressed by a single injunction.

As she has concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry
their burden to prove that class-wide relief is appropriate under
Rule 23(b)(2), Judge Huvelle dismissed their class-wide claims.
Because the Plaintiffs do not seek individual relief, judgment
will be entered for the District.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/s7mWJW from Leagle.com.

LARRY MCDONALD, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara S. Wahl --
barbara.wahl@arentfox.com -- ARENT FOX LLP.

LARRY MCDONALD, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez, AARP
FOUNDATION, Kelly R. Bagby, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Lyndsay
Ayanna Niles - lniles@uls-dc.org -- UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Marjorie Lynn Rifkin -- mrifkin@uls-dc.org -- UNIVERSITY
LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Alison L. Andersen --
alison.andersen@arentfox.com -- ARENT FOX LLP, Brian D. Schneider
-- brian.schneider@arentfox.com -- ARENT FOX LLP & Kristina J.
Majewski -- kmajewski@uls-dc.org -- UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

DONALD DUPREE, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez, AARP
FOUNDATION, Lyndsay Ayanna Niles, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Alison L. Andersen, ARENT FOX LLP, Brian D. Schneider, ARENT FOX
LLP & Kristina J. Majewski, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

TANITA SANDERS, Plaintiff, represented by Alison L. Andersen,
ARENT FOX LLP & Brian D. Schneider, ARENT FOX LLP.

DENISE RIVERS, Plaintiff, represented by Alison L. Andersen, ARENT
FOX LLP & Brian D. Schneider, ARENT FOX LLP.

JAMES BUMPASS, Plaintiff, represented by Alison L. Andersen, ARENT
FOX LLP & Brian D. Schneider, ARENT FOX LLP.

IVY BROWN, Plaintiff, represented by Alison L. Andersen, ARENT FOX
LLP, Kelly R. Bagby, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Marjorie Lynn
Rifkin, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Brian D. Schneider, ARENT
FOX LLP, Kristina J. Majewski, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES & Maame
Gyamfi, AARP FOUNDATION.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Amanda J. Montee,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Chad
Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA & Conrad Z. Risher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by Joy
Levin Welan, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


DOW AGROSCIENCES: Sued Over Alleged Arsenic Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that a South African
firm is suing Dow AgroSciences and its Indianapolis-based
subsidiary over the chemical company's alleged arsenic pollution
at a commercial site in that country.

Zevoli 243, based in KwaZulu-Natal on the southeastern coast of
South Africa, claims that Dow Agrosciences South Africa did not
properly remediate arsenic pollution at a plant once owned by Dow
and concealed the extent of the contamination.

As the owner of the property now, Zevoli says the contamination,
which it could not have "reasonably be expected to have
discovered" before the sale," has rendered the site "virtually
worthless."

The plaintiffs filed the suit this month in U.S. District Court
Southern District of Indiana.

A representative from Dow AgroSciences said the lawsuit is
unfounded.

James Briggs: After merger, DowDuPont's plans for Indianapolis are
still unclear

More: Russian farming firm sues Dow AgroSciences for 90 million
rubles

"This lawsuit is meritless and there was no basis for it be filed
against these parties or in this court," said Jarrod Erpelding, a
Dow spokesman.

"The defendants will be moving to dismiss it."

Several attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to IndyStar
requests for comment.

Dow AgroSciences faces other lawsuits in the United States over
pollution allegations and a failure to notify plaintiffs of the
extent of contamination in both commercial and urban areas.

The case

In this case, a site located in Canelands, Durban, South Africa
was purchased by Dow Agrosciences South Africa in 1997 and was
used to manufacture agricultural chemicals.

In 2007, Dow sold the site to a company called Chemical
Specialties, a paint manufacturer also located in Canelands.

Court documents filed by Zevoli allege that at the time of the
sale, Dow representatives disclosed to Chemical Specialties that
there was a "discrete area of buried arsenic waste" contamination
in a "sump," a pit that collects liquid, and the Dow subsidiary
would clean up the pollution.

More: Indy mayor vows city will act on climate change

In 2009, ChemSpec sold the site to Zevoli, assuring the new buyers
that "ChemSpec and DAS SA had complied with all environmental
laws." Zevoli claims it learned of the extent of the contamination
after the sale.

In one instance, Zevoli representatives found that "highly
contaminated water was flowing continuously through the basement
of the main building and into the stormwater system," court
documents state.

"Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions directed to ChemSpec
were subsequently passed on to Zevoli," state the plaintiff's
attorneys, from Hoover Hull Turner LLP in Indianapolis and Hahn
Loeser & Parks LLP in Cleveland.

"Defendants did not disclose the full extent of the arsenic
contamination," plaintiffs say, adding that the contamination is
"worsening and spreading" to this day.

Zevoli alleges Dow AgroSciences committed intentional fraud and
negligence as well as "malicious, and/or grossly negligent
conduct."

"Due to this continuous course of misconduct, which persists to
this very day, Zevoli has incurred significant harm and increased
exposure to future liability in the form of potential third-party
claims and/or government penalties or fines," the complaint
states.

Last year, the Center for Environmental Health filed a lawsuit in
the State of California Alameda County Superior Court against Dow
Agrosciences.

The agency alleges the company failed to warn communities in
California about the dangers associated with wide use of the
chemical Telone.

Telone, a carcinogen, is the third most heavily used pesticide in
California.

The case focuses on the air pollution caused by the pesticide,
which disproportionately impacts the rural communities that live
in the immediate vicinity.

In a case this year in Michigan, a court ruled in June that the
statute of limitations had not passed and a class action suit can
move forward.

A Michigan Appeals court ruled 2-1 that property owners along the
Tittabawassee River didn't wait too long to sue the chemical
company over contamination in the river's floodplain.

The contamination was caused by the chemical dioxin released by
Dow decades ago. [GN]


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
a class action lawsuit by William Sponn.

The Company said, "On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or
Sponn, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, or the Court,
on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between January 11,
2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
us and certain of our senior officers and directors, collectively,
the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we
made materially false and misleading statements about the
government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that our five-
year exclusive procurement contract with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, or HHS, would be renewed and omitted
certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages,
including legal costs.

"On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On December
27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cites the
same class period, names the same defendants and makes similar
allegations to the original complaint.

"We filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs
filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017. Our Motion to Dismiss
was heard and denied on July 6, 2017. The Company filed its answer
on July 28, 2017. The Defendants believe that the allegations in
the complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against those claims."

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "McGee" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, remains in its early stages.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint,
which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false
and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material
facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015.  This litigation remains in its
early stages.

On April 10, 2017, the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District Firefighter Pension Plan filed its Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

On May 10, 2017, Constant Contact, Inc., Gail F. Goodman, Harpreet
S. Grewal, and Jeremiah Sisitsky filed a Reply to Response to
Motion to Dismiss.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any
assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding.

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Chawdry" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the motion to dismiss
the case, Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al., remains pending.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition
captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828
(together, the "Complaints") were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of
Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally alleged, among
other things, that in connection with the acquisition the
directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell
Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration,
engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing
to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The
Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the acquisition,
as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in
the action. The Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), naming as defendants the
former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
("Morgan Stanley"), Constant Contact's financial advisor for the
acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting
the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley.

The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in
support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. Plaintiff
Myers filed an opposition brief to the motion to dismiss on May
17, 2017, and the Constant Contact defendants' reply brief was
filed on June 19, 2017.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


EDGE FITNESS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "McArthur" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa McArthur, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Edge Fitness, LLC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01554
(D. Conn., September 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours above 40 in a
workweek.

Edge Fitness, LLC operates 13 fitness locations in Connecticut.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah McKenna, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (203)691-6491
      Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: dmckenna@hayberlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces O'Dell Properties Class Action over Data Theft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Massachusetts attorney
general filed the nation's first state-initiated lawsuit in Boston
on September 19, against Equifax for the data breach that
compromised the personal information of more than 143 million
Americans, including 3 million Massachusettsans. On September 20,
meanwhile a group of small business owners brought their own
federal class action in Atlanta, saying the high cost they pay for
credit reports makes dealing with the breach a "double whammy."

The case is captioned, O'DELL PROPERTIES, LLC, O'DELL & O'NEAL,
P.C., JELLI DONUTS, LLC, ONE CENT LANE, LLC, CHASELIGHT, LLC,
RAFCO, LLC, RAHUL FARUQI, MICHAEL CHASE, and JUSTIN O'DELL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-_____ (N.D.
Ga., September 20, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Jason R. Doss, Esq.
     Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
     THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
     36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
     Marietta, GA 30064
     Tel: (770) 578-1314
     Fax: (770) 578-1302
     E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martin" Suit in Miss. Over Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00174-NBB-JMV (N.D.
Miss., September 15, 2017), is brought against Equifax for failure
to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable
information ("Personal Information") which
Equifax collected from various sources in connection with the
operation of its business as a consumer credit reporting agency,
and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice
to the Plaintiff and other Class members that their Personal
Information had been stolen and precisely what types of
information were stolen.

Equifax, Inc. is one of three nationwide credit-reporting
companies that track and rate the financial history of U.S.
consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David McMullan Jr., Esq.
      Don Barrett, Esq.
      Sarah Sterling Starns, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      404 Court Square N
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
              dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
              sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One S. Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA  19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
      NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
      1201 Demonbreun St.  Suite 1000
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
              baaron@nealharwell.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bethea" Suit over FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Candice Bethea, Christopher Zarpas, Michael Pugh, Kathryn Bledsoe,
Marilyn Bledsoe, Matthew Bledsoe, Susan Chandler, David Batten,
Robert Cornett, and David Wood, and all others similarly-situated
v. Equifax. Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Equifax
Consumer Services LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00648 (E.D. Va., September
22, 2017), seeks damages, costs, and attorneys' fees brought
pursuant to the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act, Breach of Contract, and common law
negligence.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants negligently allowed the
fraudulent procurement of the critical private information of
class member consumer report files, and not only failed to
disclose, but actively withheld the fact of such procurement from
class members to whom it was obligated to make such disclosure.

Headquartered in Atlanta Georgia, Equifax Inc. is the parent of
company of Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer
Services LLC. All Defendants are consumer reporting agencies and
nationwide consumer reporting agencies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      Elizabeth Hanes, Esq.
      Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Tel: (757) 930-3660
      Fax: (757) 930-3662
      E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
              craig@clalegal.com
              elizabeth@clalegal.com
              matt@clalegal.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Feied" Suit in N. Dist. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Malcolm B Feied, individually, and as class
representatives of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-05524 (N.D. Cal.,
September 22, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
   Litigation Law Group
   1801 Clement Ave, Suite 101
   Alameda, CA 94501
   Tel: (510) 238-9610
   Fax: (510) 337-1431
   Email: gmf@classlitigation.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Geller" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Andrew C. Geller and Jody L. Geller,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-81056-RLR
(S.D. Fla., September 22, 2017).
Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and provides
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
   Wites&Kapetan
   4400 North Federal Highway
   Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
   Tel: (954) 570-8989
   Fax: (954) 354-0205
   Email: mwites@wklawyers.com

      - and -

   Steven C. Holzman, Esq.
   Law office of Steven C. Holzman
   4400 North Federal Highway
   Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
   Tel: (561) 789-5366
   Email: scholzmanlaw@gmail.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Bank of Louisiana Suit in N.D. of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Bank of Louisiana, Aventa Credit Union and First
Choice Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiffs v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03715-CC (N.D. Ga.,
September 22, 2017).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
   Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC
   8 E. Liberty Street
   Savannah, GA 31401
   (912) 447-8400
   Fax: (912) 233-6584
   Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

      - and -

   Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
   Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC
   3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
   One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 842-9700
   Fax: (404) 842-9750
   Email: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

      - and -

   Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 525-8100
   Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

      - and -

   Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. -MN
   1100 IDS Center
   80 South 8th Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 341-0400
   Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

      - and -

   Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
   Chestnut Cambronne, PA
   17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 339-7300
   Fax: (612) 336-2940
   Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

      - and -

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet &Kilpela& Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   JamisenEtzel, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
   115 Federal Street, Suite 210
   Pittsburgh, PA 15212
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
   Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
   230 Park Avenue
   17th Floor
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (212) 223-6444
   Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

      - and -

   Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen
   100 Washington Avenue South
   2200 Washington Square
   Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Email: khriebel@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen
   100 Washington Avenue South
   2200 Washington Square
   Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 525-8100
   Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Replaces Two Senior Executives After Major Hack
------------------------------------------------------------
ENCA reports that Equifax has replaced two senior executives
entrusted with watching over its computers after the credit
reporting agency revealed it suffered a major hack that led to one
of the worst-ever breaches of personal data.

The Equifax chief information officer and head of security will
retire, effective immediately, the firm said on Sept. 15, as part
of an "ongoing review of the cybersecurity incident" that resulted
in the theft of personal data from 143 million US customers.

Hundreds of thousands of British customers and an unspecified
number in Canada may have also been affected by the hack at
Equifax, one of the three major credit bureaus that collect
consumer financial data.

The breach is considered particularly serious because the type of
data collected -- names, social security numbers, addresses,
credit card numbers, and other financial details -- can
potentially be used by criminals to steal people's identities for
financial gain.

An internal investigation into the hack continues and the company
is working with FBI investigators, according to Equifax.

Word that top Equifax executives were out came on the same day
that Canada's privacy commissioner announced a high-priority
investigation into the massive data theft.

A lawsuit by Canadian consumers whose data was stolen was also
launched, seeking class action status and damages of Can$550-
billion (R5,950-billion, $450-billion US).

Equifax also confirmed on Sept. 15 that "limited" information from
as many as 400,000 British customers may have been hacked --
adding that the data was restricted to name, date of birth, email
address and a telephone number.

"Equifax believes identity takeover is unlikely for the UK
consumers who had their data potentially accessed in this
incident," the company's UK branch said in a statement, adding
that it was reaching out to the customers concerned.

Questions mount

Equifax collects consumers' financial data in order to rate their
credit-worthiness to banks, home sellers, auto sellers and others
who depend on consumer credit in marketing.

The hack took place from mid-May through July 2017 via a website
application vulnerability that US cyber security companies say
they had identified in March.

US officials have not revealed if they know who was behind the
breach, though foreign hackers are widely suspected.

In disclosing the breach on September 7, the Atlanta-based company
did not explain why it waited more than a month to warn those
affected about a risk of identity theft.

A senior US senator has asked the Federal Trade Commission, one of
the few bodies with oversight powers over loosely regulated credit
raters, to examine Equifax's security practices and its "widely-
panned response" to consumers potentially impacted.

Senator Mark Warner, a member of the powerful Senate Banking
Committee, accused the company of "exceptionally poor
cybersecurity practices" that continued even after the hack became
known.

He also said the company's woeful response to people whose data
may have been lost -- including trying to charge them for
protection -- was "alarming."

"The volume and sensitivity of the data potentially involved in
this breach raises serious questions about whether firms like
Equifax adequately protect the enormous amounts of sensitive data
they gather and commercialize."

Shares sold

US lawmakers have expressed particular outrage over allegations
that three Equifax officials sold their company stock before the
hack was made public.

Filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission showed that
three high-ranking Equifax executives sold shares worth almost
$1.8 million in the days after the hack was discovered.

An Equifax spokesperson told AFP the executives "had no knowledge
that an intrusion had occurred at the time they sold their
shares."

Senator Elizabeth Warren on Sept. 15 fired off letters to credit
reporting agencies Equifax, TransUnion and Experian as well as to
several governmental agencies as part of "a new, broad
investigation" into the breach and how it was handled, according
to a release.

"Equifax's initial efforts to provide customers information did
nothing to clarify the situation and actually appeared to be
efforts to hoodwink them into waiving important legal rights,"
Warren said in a letter to the company.

While not the largest-ever breach -- Yahoo attacks leaked data on
as many as one billion accounts -- the Equifax incident could
prove the most damaging because of the high-value of the data
stolen.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has scheduled an
October 3 hearing with Equifax chief executive Richard Smith, who
has openly apologized. [GN]


FAIR PROMOTIONS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Promotions Inc.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fair Promotions Inc.
doing business as: Adventurer's Park Family Entertainment Center,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05564 (E.D. N.Y., September 22, 2017).

Fair Promotions Inc. is engaged in the amusement industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


FLOWERS BANKING: Ct. Denies Prelim Approval of "Robinson" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Lungstrum of U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied without prejudice to refiling the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval in the case
captioned Rodney Robinson and Anthony Keith Smith, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Flowers Baking Company of Lenexa, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No.
16-2669-JWL (D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Robinson is a former hourly employee at the Defendants'
bakery facility in Lenexa, Kansas.  In September 2016, Mr.
Robinson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
filed this nationwide wage and hour collective action alleging
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and a Rule 23 class action alleging violations of
the Kansas Wage Payment Act.  Specifically, Mr. Robinson alleged
that the Defendants failed to compensate him (and others similarly
situated) for time spent performing activities such as donning and
doffing required uniforms and gear; and post-donning and pre-
doffing walking to and from work stations.  Shortly thereafter,
Plaintiff Smith filed a notice of his consent to join this
lawsuit.  The record does not reflect whether opt-in Plaintiff
Smith is a current or former employee and it does not reflect the
facility where he works or worked.

On Aug. 1, 2017, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a preliminary settlement of the case and were working on a
written settlement agreement.  On Aug. 30, 2017, Mr. Robinson
filed a second amended complaint.  In his second amended
complaint, Mr. Robinson added common law wage claims under Texas
and Arizona law as well as claims under the Arizona Wage Act.
After filing the second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs filed
their unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval.

The parties' proposed settlement creates a common fund of
$1,200,000 impacting approximately 872 current and former
employees who work or worked for the Defendants at bakery
facilities in Lenexa, Kansas; Denton, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona;
Mesa, Arizona; and Tolleson, Arizona.  The agreement provides that
class members will receive notice of the settlement and will be
paid their portion of the settlement unless they choose to opt out
of the settlement by filing a "valid and timely" opt-out request
form.  Any class member who does not file an opt-out request form
will release the claims set forth in the release, including FLSA
claims.

Judge Lungstrum declined to issue an order preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement.  The Judge explains that in their motion,
the Plaintiffs highlight that the parties' settlement agreement
calls exclusively for an opt-out settlement pursuant to Rule 23-
despite the fact that the agreement resolves and releases the FLSA
claims in addition to the state law claims.  Under the agreement,
then, settlement class members will release their FLSA claims
unless they affirmatively take steps to opt out of the settlement.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs direct the Court to no
authority, and the Court is aware of none, permitting an opt-out
settlement of FLSA claims.  If the Plaintiffs have authority
supporting the opt-out structure of the FLSA settlement in this
case, they should provide that authority to the Court.  In the
absence of any authority, the Court will not approve a settlement
agreement that relies on opt-out procedures for the release of the
FLSA claims.

Judge Lungstrum is also concerned that the scope of the release
exceeds the claims alleged in the second amended complaint.  While
the parties may ultimately persuade the Court that the release is
appropriate in light of the overall settlement of this case, he
cautions the parties that this issue will need to be addressed to
the Court's satisfaction before it will preliminarily approve the
settlement agreement.

To the extent the parties submit a revised settlement agreement,
the parties should also note that the objection procedure outlined
in the proposed Notice is far more burdensome than the procedure
described in the settlement agreement, the Judge says.  The Notice
should be revised to mirror the procedure in the agreement.
Moreover, the Notice does not reflect that settlement class
members have access to the settlement agreement itself for
purposes of reviewing that agreement.  Finally, the opening
paragraph of the Notice does not fully and accurately state the
names of the various entities for which settlement class members
may have worked and includes names such as "Flowers Foods" and
"Alpine Valley" which appear to be short-hand names for the
defendants in this case.

Judge Lungstrum therefore denied without prejudice to refiling the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval.
He further ordered that the parties must notify the court on or
before Oct. 13, 2017 of their intention to either (i) file a
revised settlement agreement in accordance with this memorandum
and order, including providing a date on which the parties
anticipate filing a motion for preliminary approval of that
agreement; or (ii) abandon settlement and proceed to litigate the
dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/ERWB4A from Leagle.com.

Rodney Jerome Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks --
dirks@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron, LLC.

Rodney Jerome Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L.
Kinsman, Krause & Kinsman, LLC.

Anthony Keith Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Dirks,
Williams Dirks Dameron, LLC & Robert L. Kinsman, Krause & Kinsman,
LLC.

Flowers Baking Company of Lenexa, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Mary Katherine Paulus -- katherine.paulus@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC & Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC.

Holsum Bakery of Tolleson, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary
Katherine Paulus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.

Flowers Baking Co. of Denton, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary
Katherine Paulus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.

Alpine Valley Bread Company, Defendant, represented by Mary
Katherine Paulus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.

Holsum Bakery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Katherine
Paulus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.


FUTURE CARE: Court Certifies Class in "Moreno"
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ADRIANA MORENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellants, v. FUTURE
CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents (N.Y. App. Div.),
Judge Ruth C. Balkin of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Second Department, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9.

In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for
violations of Labor Law article 19, the Plaintiffs appeal (i) from
an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 24, 2015,
which denied their motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR
article 9; and (ii), as limited by their brief, from so much of an
order of the same court, dated Oct. 27, 2015, as, upon reargument,
adhered to the original determination in the order dated April 24,
2015.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as home health care
attendants for Future Care's disabled and elderly clients.  They
worked a number of 24-hour shifts for Future Care for which they
were paid flat rates of $115 to $125 per shift, and they allegedly
did not "live-in" the homes of Future Care's clients.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action, alleging that Future Care's
practice of paying them a flat rate for their 24-hour shifts
resulted in a wage that was below the minimum wage in violation of
the Labor Law.

They moved to certify a class of home health care attendants who
had worked 24-hour shifts for Future Care after Feb. 6, 2007, and
had been paid a flat daily rate instead of the minimum wage for
each hour of the shift.  The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Relying on an opinion letter issued by the New York State
Department of Labor ("DOL") on March 11, 2010, the court concluded
that Future Care was not required to pay the Plaintiffs for each
hour of a 24-hour shift, but was permitted to exclude 8 hours of
sleep time and 3 hours of meal time from the Plaintiffs' wages, so
long as that time was actually afforded.

Based on its interpretation of the opinion letter, the court
concluded that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish the
numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements for class
certification because a fact-intensive individualized inquiry
would be required for each putative class member to determine
whether each putative class member was actually afforded 8 hours
of sleep time and 3 hours of meal time during each 24-hour shift.
Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination.

Judge Balkin held that to the extent that the DOL's opinion letter
fails to distinguish between "residential" and nonresidential
employees, it conflicts with the plain meaning of 12 NYCRR 142-
2.1(b), and should not be followed.  To the extent that the
members of the proposed class were not "residential" employees who
"lived" on the premises of their employer, they were entitled to
be paid the minimum wage for all 24 hours of their shifts,
regardless of whether they were afforded opportunities for sleep
and meals.

The Plaintiffs established the existence of the five prerequisites
to class certification, and none of the factors listed in CPLR 902
warranted a denial of the motion for class certification.
Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court should have
vacated its original determination and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Judge Balkin dismissed the appeal from the order dated April 24,
2015, as that order was superseded by the order dated Oct. 27,
2015, made upon reargument.  She reversed the order dated Oct. 27,
2015, insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of
discretion, upon reargument; vacated the order dated April 24,
2015; and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
pursuant to CPLR article 9.

The Judge awarded one bill of costs to the Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/hafTog from Leagle.com.

Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, New Paltz, NY (Michael J. D. Sweeney --
info@hjslawoffice.com -- and Artemio Guerra of counsel), Abbey
Spanier, LLP, New York, NY (Judith L. Spanier and Nancy Kaboolian
of counsel), and National Employment Law Project, New York, NY
(Catherine Ruckelshaus and Sarah Leberstein of counsel), for
appellants (one brief filed).

Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY (Aaron C. Schlesinger --
aschlesinger@pecklaw.com -- and Alexander X. Saunders --
asaunders@pecklaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


GOOGLE INC: Ex-Female Employees File Pay Discrimination Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Scott, writing for Employee Benefits, reports that
technology organisation Google is subject to a lawsuit that
alleges, in the US state of California, female employees are
discriminated against under the organisation's approach to pay and
opportunities for promotion.

Three former female employees have filed a class action lawsuit
accusing the US-based business of paying women less than men for
comparable work.

The lawsuit, Ellis v Google, which was filed on 14 September 2017
at the Superior Court of the State of California, alleges that
Google systematically pays female employees lower compensation
than it does to male employees with similar job experience and who
perform similar work in similar conditions.

The lawsuit also claims Google places female employees in job
ladders and levels with fewer advancement opportunities and lower
compensation ceilings than male employees.  For example, one
plaintiff was placed on a level three software engineering job
ladder, which is typically used for entry-level graduates, while a
male employee who graduated in the same year and had similar
qualifications and experience was hired to the level four software
engineering job ladder, which receives higher salary and bonus
opportunities.

The claimants allege that Google knew, or should have known, that
female employees were paid less than male counterparts because the
organisation completes annual internal pay equity analysis and
maintains employment records, which detail wage rates and job
classifications.

They claim that this is a violation off the California Equal Pay
Act and are therefore seeking payment of unpaid wages, a 10%
interest on the due wages, and liquidated damages.

As well as seeking relief for the affected plaintiffs,
Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri, the lawsuit will apply
to all women employed by Google in California at any time in the
past four years, through to the trial date.

Gina Scigliano, spokesperson at Google, said: "We work really hard
to create a great workplace for everyone, and to give everyone the
chance to thrive here.  In relation to this particular lawsuit,
we'll review it in detail, but we disagree with the central
allegations.  Job levels and promotions are determined through
rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass multiple
levels of review, including checks to make sure there is no gender
bias in these decisions.  And we have extensive systems in place
to ensure that we pay fairly.  But on all these topics, if we ever
see individual discrepancies or problems, we work to fix them,
because Google has always sought to be a great employer, for every
one of our employees."

James M Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- attorney at
Altshuler Berzon, one of the law firms representing the claimants,
said: "Google's motto is to do no harm, but it has harmed its
[female] employees by not treating them as well as its male
employees. It is time for that to stop."

Kelly M Dermody, attorney at Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein,
which is also representing the plaintiffs, added: "While Google
has been an industry-leading tech innovator, its treatment of
female employees has not entered the 21st century. This case seeks
to ensure fairness for women at Google." [GN]


GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Favor of GoPro Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the court has entered final judgment in favor of the
GoPro Defendants in shareholder class action lawsuits.

Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants"). Similar
complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and
February 19, 2016.  Each of the complaints purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for
the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and
January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint.  Each complaint
purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, fees and costs.

On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed
the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November
26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action")
and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action.
The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file
an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms
Class Action on July 28, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action.  On May 1, 2017, the
court granted that motion, dismissing the complaint with leave to
amend the complaint. On June 16, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the
Camia Investment Class Action did not file an amended complaint
and stipulated to enter final judgment in favor of the GoPro
Defendants. On June 18, 2017, the court entered final judgment in
favor of the GoPro Defendants.

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company continues to defend a shareholder class
action lawsuit.

On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the
Company's IPO ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring
suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's IPO and alleges claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on
June 7, 2016.  Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to
the consolidated action.  On July 13, 2016, the court sustained
the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the
complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7,
2016.

Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October
28, 2016. On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer
with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the
demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect
to the Section 12(a)(2) claim.

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

GoPro, Inc. (GoPro or the Company) makes mountable and wearable
cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold
globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the
Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are
located in San Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: California Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the court has denied the GoPro Defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended complaint.

On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Nick Woodman, the Company's
Chairman and CEO ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring
suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
4, 2016.  The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro
Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016.  On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 26, 2017, the court
denied that motion.

GoPro, Inc. (GoPro or the Company) makes mountable and wearable
cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold
globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the
Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are
located in San Mateo, California.


HAN DYNASTY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mu" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
De Hui Mu, Jun Ying Ma, Yan Nan Ma, Di Jemy Suen, Xing Wang,
Individually And on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly
Situated v. Han Dynasty NYU Corp., d/b/a Han Dynasty, Han Dynasty
Upper West Side Corp., d/b/a Han Dynasty, June Kwan, Han Ming
Chiang, Helen M Kwan, and Mark Allan, Case No. 1:17-cv-07065
(S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay their employees minimum wage, and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant business located at 90
Third Ave., New York, New York 10003. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


HESKA CORPORATION: Still Faces Suit over Unauthorized Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
related to the transmittal of unauthorized faxes, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter."

Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries sell advanced
veterinary diagnostic and specialty products.


HRG GROUP: Plaintiff's Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's time to seek discretionary review of a class
action lawsuit has expired, HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated (the "Plaintiff") v.
HRG, FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (together,
the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, requested
injunctive and declaratory relief and sought unspecified
compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not
presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and
claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity.

On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals").
On April 13, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
has no appeal as of right from the Court of Appeals' decision but
may seek discretionary review by the Court of Appeals en banc or
by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff's time to seek
discretionary review of this matter expired on July 12, 2017. FGL
does not believe that the Plaintiff has sought a discretionary
review of this matter prior to such date. As of the date of the
Company's SEC report, FGL does not have sufficient information to
determine whether it has exposure to any losses that would be
either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense
contingency estimate of $1.8 million, which was accrued by FGL
during the year ended September 30, 2016.

HRG Group, Inc. is a holding company that conducts its operations
through its operating subsidiaries. HRG's shares of common stock
trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol
"HRG."


ILG INC: Continues to Defend Mass Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a mass action remains
pending.

On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107
fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the
Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St. Regis,
New York (the "Club") filed suit against ILG, certain of our
subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. ("Marriott") and certain
of its subsidiaries including Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
LLC ("Starwood"). The case is filed as a mass action in federal
court in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action.
In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all
interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment
of the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold
fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged
acts by us and the other defendants breached the relevant
agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional
interests. The relief sought includes, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 21, 2017.  The court has not yet rendered any
decision on the motion.  We dispute the material allegations in
the amended complaint and intend to defend against the action
vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."

ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation
experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R),
Sheraton(R)  and Westin(R) brands in vacation ownership.  ILG
operates in the following two segments: Vacation Ownership (VO)
and Exchange and Rental.


INFINITY MAINTENANCE: Faces "Candelaria" Suit in S.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinity Maintenance
Services LP.  The case is styled as William Candelaria, and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Infinity Maintenance
Services LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00285 (S.D. Tex.,
September 22, 2017).

Infinity Maintenance Services, LP is a full service industrial
maintenance contractor serving the Chemical, Petrochemical and
Refining industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles William Branham, III, Esq.
   Dean Omar & Branham, LLP
   302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
   Dallas, TX 75202
   Tel: (214) 722-5990
   Fax: (214) 722-5991
   Email: tbranham@dobllp.com


INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
remains pending, Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss,
or range of loss, in connection with this matter.

Insulet Corporation is primarily engaged in the development,
manufacturing and sale of its proprietary Omnipod Insulin
Management System ("Omnipod System"), an innovative, discreet and
easy-to-use continuous insulin delivery system for people with
insulin-dependent diabetes.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mesh Victims Tell Ordeal Before Senate Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a woman who has
suffered crippling pain from a vaginal mesh implant has told
senators of the living nightmare her life has become.

NSW woman Gai Thompson is one of a dozen women to appear before a
Senate inquiry in Sydney on Sept. 18.

Ms Thompson told the inquiry of severe complications she's
suffered since the surgery including excruciating and chronic
pain, losing three pints of blood, multiple autoimmune diseases
and the inability to have sex.

"When the doctor told me I would no longer be able to have sex
with my husband, he said there was more than one way to skin a
cat," Ms Thompson told AAP.

The women are among 800 involved in a class action lawsuit against
Johnson & Johnson, claiming the vaginal mesh implants have left
thousands in pain.

Johnson & Johnson managing director Gavin Fox-Smith told senators
it was incredibly tough to hear stories from women in pain or
suffering.

However, he said stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ
prolapse were complex conditions and surgical intervention
remained an important treatment option.

Mr Fox-Smith said most patients had experienced good long-term
results.

"Unfortunately in dealing with a human body no technique,
instrument, approach or product is without some risk," he told the
inquiry.

Johnson & Johnson maintains it has acted ethically and responsibly
in the research, development and supply of its products.

The company discontinued two pelvic mesh devices from the
Australian market after the Department of Health asked for more
information to be added to the instructions for use of the
products.

Mr Fox-Smith said Johnson & Johnson was still confident in the
safety and efficacy of the products, and its decision was based on
their "commercial viability".

"The costs of making such a change only for the Australian market
exceeded the total value of sales for those products in 2016," he
said.

Ms Thompson received a mesh implant nine years ago in a bid to
repair her damaged pelvic floor.

Just three years later, she approached Australia's Therapeutic
Goods Administration to warn of a looming disaster involving the
device.

While the particular mesh implanted into Ms Thompson -- Prolift
Pelvic Floor Repair System by Johnson & Johnson -- has been taken
off the market, there are still surgeons in Australia who are
implanting vaginal mesh in women.

"While I'm speaking to you now I can guarantee there is a woman in
a Sydney hospital somewhere having mesh put inside her and not
realising," she said.

Having visited 13 different surgeons in Australia, Ms Thompson is
yet to find one willing to remove the permanent mesh implant.

The Senate inquiry into the devices was set to hold a public
hearing in Canberra on Sept. 19. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pain Specialist Speaks at Mesh Senate Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that a PAIN
specialist treating women pelvic mesh device victims has told a
Senate inquiry she had to see a psychologist for help because of
the severity of the suffering women experienced.

"I don't know how you can be human and not be affected," Women's
Health and Research Institute of Australia osteopath and pain
management specialist Liz Howard told a mesh inquiry public
hearing in Sydney on Sept. 18.

"I was awake at 3am every night trying to find how can we help
these women," she said.

Institute director Professor Thierry Vancaillie told the inquiry
the institute had seen 54 new patients in 2017 seeking help for
severe, permanent and disabling pain after mesh surgery, with an
average of six new women patients per week since August.

While the institute has treated women with chronic pelvic pain
since 1999, it had increasingly treated women with chronic pain
related to mesh surgery since 2007, only a few years after the
first mesh tapes were cleared for use in Australia for
incontinence and prolapse after childbirth.

The Senate inquiry into pelvic mesh devices was established after
a campaign led by women survivors who formed the Australian Pelvic
Mesh Support Group, and a speech in Federal Parliament by Senator
Derryn Hinch.  The systemic medical industry failures flowing from
the pelvic mesh decade, where about 150,000 mesh devices were
implanted in women, was one of the greatest medical scandals
against women in Australian history, Senator Hinch said.

More than 800 Australian women are taking part in a class action
against just one mesh manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and another
500 are registered in a class action against a second mesh
manufacturer.

Professor Vancaillie said many women implanted with pelvic mesh
devices were dismissed by their doctors for years -- sometimes for
more than a decade -- when they experienced extreme and disabling
pain.

While pain management specialists had been proactive in trying to
learn ways to treat women, the gynaecologists who implanted the
devices weren't as "forthcoming" in acknowledging and addressing
the serious pain complications following mesh, Professor
Vancaillie told the inquiry.

Women victims of mesh devices, Jo Manion and Gai Thompson, both
cried while giving evidence about the severe impacts of mesh
surgery, with both women saying the pain and other severe effects
had led them to experience suicidal thoughts.

"I am no longer the wife, mother and friend I used to be.  I am a
Christian and have a very strong faith but to be bluntly honest, I
am just hanging on by a thread," said Mrs Thompson, who was 43
when she was implanted with a Johnson & Johnson prolapse device,
without warnings of the extreme complications that could occur.

Mrs Thompson cried when talking about the impact on her husband
and two daughters, who were at the inquiry, after evidence that
her mesh surgery had forced the family to sell their house and
move to a unit.

"My eldest daughter can't live with us because we haven't got the
room," Mrs Thompson said.

"I would like one of these doctors to spend one day in my life.
The pain is indescribable."

She accused doctors, mesh manufacturers, regulators and medical
colleges of minimising the systemic failures that led to some
pelvic mesh devices being cleared for use in Australia and
overseas by quoting statistics showing complications occurred in a
minority of women.

"I'm not a statistic.  I'm not a percentage.  I'm not collateral
damage," Mrs Thompson said.

Ms Manion told the inquiry her doctor did not raise issues about
the risks, but said he told her she would be "back at the gym in
10 days" after the surgery.

"He said I would be like a 16-year-old virgin after the implants,"
she said.

Instead the disabling pain that she experienced as soon as she
woke from the surgery left her in "a world of pain" and seeking
the kind of painkillers usually reserved for palliative care
patients.

"There were days when I did not want to live," she said.

"I have lost my house, my job and my self esteem.  I now know I
did not require a mesh. I'm on a disability support pension.  In
the end it drove me to the point where I just thought I'm ready to
check out. I've had enough."

Sydney urogynaecologist Dr Jenny King told the inquiry doctors
were not credentialed to implant mesh devices, and were not
credentialed to remove them.

Told that a woman of 29 was implanted with a pelvic mesh device,
Dr King said that was "too young".

A Hunter woman was 21 when she was implanted with a pelvic mesh
device.

Dr King told the inquiry that some pelvic mesh surgeons were
"over-enthusiastic" with their use of the devices. [GN]


JOHNSON MATTHEY: Sued in Penn. Over Inaccurate Criminal Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Murray, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Johnson Matthey Inc. d/b/a Johnson Matthey
Testing and True Sreceen, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04136-GEKP (E.D.
Penn., September 15, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
furnishing a misleading and inaccurate criminal background report
to a third party.

Johnson Matthey Inc. operates a chemicals and sustainable
technologies company located at 435 Devon Park Drive, Wayne,
PA19087.

True Sreceen, Inc. is in the business of providing background
screening services, decision-making intelligence, public record
reports and operates as a consumer reporting agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
      ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
      1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 351-0200
      E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com

         - and -

      Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
      WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
      1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 656-3679
      E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in "Thurman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LINDA THURMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:12-cv-00724-RDP-TFM (M.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery
Division, has entered a memorandum opinion denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment and granting the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

In the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Linda
Thurman and Courtnee Carroll raise four categories of claims
against the Defendants.

First, they claim that they are entitled to declaratory judgments
against the Defendants.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask the
court to declare that: (i) JCS violated state and federal law by
commanding probationers to pay fines and fees pursuant to
documents that were not lawful orders of probation; (ii) JCS
violated state and federal law by commanding or coercing monetary
payments from individuals above the relevant statutory maximums;
(iii) JCS violated state and federal law by imposing probation for
periods longer than the relevant statutory maximum; (iv) JCS was
unjustly enriched by its conduct; and (v) JCS obstructed justice
and violated the Plaintiffs' equal protection rights.  Second, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by
their collection of fees without legal authority and should be
ordered to disgorge the ill-gotten gains.  Third, they allege that
the Defendants unlawfully obstructed the administration of law, in
violation of Alabama Code Section 13A-10-2, by warning the named
Plaintiffs to not contact the municipal court about probation
matters.  Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

In January 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, argue in that: (i) the Second Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief; (ii) the Second
Amended Complaint fails to allege a causal connection between the
Defendants' conduct and the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries; (iii)
the Defendants are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity;
(iv) JCS did not act under the color of state law; and (v) the
Second Amended Complaint does not plead fraud with particularity.

In April 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that JCS was not
authorized to collect probation fees from orders that had not been
signed by a municipal court judge.  In turn, the Defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment in September 2013.

After careful review of the parties' briefs, and with the benefit
of oral argument, Judge Proctor concludes that the Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on all claims in this suit.  He
explains that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and their
request for the Court to declare JCS's administration of
purportedly unlawful orders of probation to be unlawful are due to
be dismissed without prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
due to the Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim because the
claim either fails under the voluntary payment doctrine or
constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the municipal
court's judgments.  The Plaintiffs' claims for obstruction of law
and violations of equal protection are due to be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Finally, the Named Plaintiffs lack standing to seek declaratory
relief regarding probation terms or fines above the relevant
statutory maximums.

For the reasons explained, Judge Proctor denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  An order consistent with his
memorandum opinion will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/yOCHl2 from Leagle.com.

Linda Thurman, Plaintiff, represented by Kearney Dee Hutsler, III,
Attorney at Law.

Linda Thurman, Plaintiff, represented by William Lewis Garrison,
Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis,
L.L.C., Christopher Boyce Hood -- chood@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger
Garrison Davis LLC & Mark R. Ekonen -- mark@hgdlawfirm.com --
Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC.

Courtnee Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Kearney Dee Hutsler,
III, Attorney at Law, William Lewis Garrison, Jr., Heninger
Garrison Davis, L.L.C., Mark R. Ekonen, Heninger Garrison Davis,
LLC & Christopher Boyce Hood, Heninger Garrison Davis LLC.

Judicial Correction Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Larry Stephen Logsdon -- llogsdon@wallacejordan.com -- Wallace
Jordan Ratliff & Brandt, LLC, Michael Leon Jackson --
mjackson@wallacejordan.com -- Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt LLC,
Wesley Kyle Winborn -- wwinborn@wallacejordan.com -- Wallace
Jordan Ratliff & Brandt LLC & Wilson F. Green --
wgreen@fleenorgreen.com -- Fleenor & Green LLP.

Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Larry Stephen Logsdon, Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt, LLC,
Michael Leon Jackson, Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt LLC & Wesley
Kyle Winborn, Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt LLC.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit, Frank J.
Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and
William P. Weidner, remains pending.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S.
District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class
period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was
reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District
Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March
11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary
judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the
defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in
support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. The Company intends to
defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands is a casino operator.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: High Court Ruling in SAIC Case Expected in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a decision is expected by June 2018 in a U.S.
Supreme Court petition related to the case, In Re: SAIC, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through
September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual
defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the
Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in
connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The
plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members
allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit
issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the
District Court's ruling. In particular, the Second Circuit held
that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue omissions claims
against the Company with respect to the annual report the Company
filed on Form 10-K on March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed
dismissal of all other claims, including all the claims against
the individual defendants, and the case was remanded to the
District Court.

On September 23, 2016, the District Court issued an order
clarifying that the applicable class period relating to the March
2011 Form 10-K ends on June 2, 2011, not September 1, 2011, as
plaintiffs argued. The Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March
27, 2017. A decision is expected by June 2018. The District Court
granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including
discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned
subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc.
and Leidos Innovations Corporation.  Leidos is a FORTUNE 500(R)
science and technology company that provides technology and
engineering services and solutions in the defense, intelligence,
civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the
U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence
Community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health
and Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and
state and local government agencies. Leidos' international
customers include foreign governments and their agencies,
primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and
Australia.


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Gaston" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DELORIS GASTON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., ET AL., Defendants, Docket No.
5:16-cv-9 (W.D. N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Statesville Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Class Action Amended Complaint.  The Defendant will
Answer the Complaint within 14 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aZWUmB from Leagle.com.

Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The
Van Winkle Law Firm.

Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene Clark Covington,
Jr., Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac
vice, Heather Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry
S. McDevitt -- --lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- -- The Van Winkle Law
Firm.

Leonard Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The
Van Winkle Law Firm, Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., Covington,
Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac vice, Heather
Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry S. McDevitt,
The Van Winkle Law Firm.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis
Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP,
Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao -- mark.mao@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr. --
ron.raether@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice.

PoliceReports.US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle Deak,
Troutman Sanders, LLP, Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao, Troutman Sanders LLP,
pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Troutman Sanders, pro hac
vice.


LG ELECTRONICS: Nagle Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
----------------------------------------------------------
Gail Nagle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-07171
(D.N.J., September 15, 2017), seeks redress for LG's design,
manufacture, marketing, and sale of clothes washers ("Washing
Machines") with defectively designed valves that are used to wet
the clothes placed into the drum of the washer.

LG Electronics USA, Inc. is a manufacturer, producer, distributor,
and seller of numerous home appliances throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail:  bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      555 Lancaster Avenue
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 200-0580
      Facsimile: (610)727-4360
      E-mail: jgs@mccumewright.com
              mds@mccunewright.com
              jbk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
      Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
              ctourek@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Thomas B. Malone, Esq.
      THE MALONE FIRM, LLC
      1650 Arch Street Suite 2501
      Philadelphia, PA, 19103
      Telephone: (215) 987-5200
      E-mail: tmalone@themalonefirm.com


LIFE STORAGE: Court Decision on Settlement Expected Later in 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Storage, Inc., and Life Storage LP, said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a decision by the Court
on the settlement of a class action lawsuit is expected later in
2017.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of various
statutory laws.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company
brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted in part and denied in part.

On October 20, 2016, the complaint was amended to add additional
claims. The parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle all claims for an aggregate amount of $8.0
million and will be jointly moving for preliminary judicial
approval of the settlement in August 2017. The aggregate
settlement amount of $8.0 million ($5.0 million after considering
income tax impact) has been recorded as a liability of the Company
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30,
2017. A portion of the settlement expense relates to self-storage
facilities that are managed by the Company through its taxable
REIT subsidiary.

There is an income tax impact to the Company on that portion of
the settlement expense as a result. The settlement is subject to
approval by the court, a decision on which is expected later in
2017.

The Parent Company operates as a self-administered and self-
managed real estate investment trust (a "REIT") that owns and
operates self-storage facilities throughout the United States.


MA ROO: Faces "Du" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ma Roo, Inc.  The
case is styled as Kai Yi Du and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Ma Roo, Inc. doing business as:
Gang San Deul doing business as: San & Deul, Kim Doe, Homin Chen
and Yooree Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05570-ERK-SJB (E.D.
N.Y., September 22, 2017).

Ma Roo, Inc. is a Korean restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANUFACTURERS FIN'L: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Compressor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Compressor Engineering Corporation,
Plaintiff, v. Manufacturers Financial Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 09-14444 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
as to all claims asserted by the Plaintiff and the Class.

This case was filed in 2009.  On April 7, 2016, the Court
certified the class in this TCPA case of all persons or entities
who were sent one or more faxes on Nov. 29, 2005, or Nov. 30,
2005, that contained a Remove Hotline number of (718) 645-2018,
Ext 2234 and a Complaint Hotline number of (718) 645-2021, Ext
232. and offered either a Limited Release Refinance Program with a
toll free number of (800) 264-3898 or a Fast Track Approval for
Licensed Brokers! that included contact information for Julia
Kahn.

The Sixth Circuit issued a TCPA decision, Siding and Insulation
Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., on May 9, 2016.  The Plaintiff's
counsel were aware of that decision, as the class counsel Phillip
Bock was also the Plaintiff's counsel in that case and was
involved in the appeal.

The Court held a Status Conference on Sept. 13, 2016 during which
the Plaintiff's counsel advised that the only additional discovery
desired was the deposition of Caroline Abraham.  On Sept. 13,
2016, the Court issued an order that provided that the Plaintiff's
Counsel will take the deposition of Caroline Abraham by Dec. 14,
2016.  The order also allowed the parties to file summary judgment
motions by that date.

At the request of the parties, the Court later extended the date
for filing summary judgment motions until May 2, 2017.
Thereafter, both parties filed summary judgment motions.  The
motions reflect that the Plaintiff's Counsel did not depose
Caroline Abraham in this action, despite efforts to do so.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment asserts that the
evidence is "un-refuted" and that the Court should grant summary
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and the Class for the 14, 125
unsolicited fax advertisements Defendants sent to them, and enter
summary judgment in favor of the Class and against Defendants in
the amount of $7,062,500 in statutory damages for the Defendants'
violations of the TCPA and issue an appropriate injunction.

The body of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment contains the
following argument sections: (a) the Defendants violated the TCPA:
(i) the faxes at issue are advertisements for Defendants
(business); (ii) the Defendants' fax advertisements were
unsolicited; and (iii) the Defendants' advertisements were
successfully sent by fax to 14,137 different telephone numbers;
(b) the Class is entitled to statutory damages under the TCPA; and
(c) the Court should enjoin the Defendants from sending
unsolicited fax advertisements to Michigan consumers.

Although the motion includes a sentence acknowledging that in
order to prevail the Plaintiff and the Class must show that the
"Defendants' faxes were sent on their behalf," and Plaintiff's
Counsel was aware of the Sixth Circuit's decision in Siding &
Insulation Co., and that its "on behalf of" standard applies to
the fax ads at issue in this case, the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment does not include a section on that issue.  It
does not even cite Siding & Insulation Co. or discuss the standard
of liability set forth in that case.

In opposing the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Defendants stress that the Plaintiff did not depose Caroline
Abraham in this case and that they presumably cannot produce her
for trial.  The Defendants filed their own Motion for Summary,
which asserts that all three Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment.  Among other things, they contend that, based upon the
Sixth Circuit's decision in Siding & Insulation Co., the Plaintiff
and the Class cannot establish that the faxes at issue were "sent
on behalf of" the three Defendants (MFC, Stephens, and Charity
Marketing LLC).

Judge Cox held that the law pertaining to TCPA cases has developed
over the several years during which this case has been pending
before the Court.  It is now undisputed that the Defendants cannot
be held liable for the offending faxes in this case on a strict
liability basis.  In order to prevail on the TCPA claims asserted
against the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Class must
establish, among other things, that the fax ads were sent "on
behalf of" the Defendants.  In a TCPA decision issued on May 9,
2016, the Sixth Circuit set forth the multi-factor "on behalf of"
standard that the parties agree applies to the fax ads at issue in
this case.

As to Defendant Charity Marketing, the Judge found no evidentiary
basis for imposing liability against that entity.  This Defendant
is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims asserted by the
Plaintiff and the Class.

As to Defendant Richard Stephens, the individual who owns the two
corporate Defendants, the Plaintiff's Counsel acknowledges that
there is no Sixth Circuit authority that supports the Plaintiff's
position that Stephens can be held personally liable under the
TCPA.  Several district courts that have addressed the personal-
liability issue have concluded that individuals acting on behalf
of a corporation may be held personally liable for violations of
the TCPA where they had direct, personal participation in or
personally authorized the conduct found to have violated the
statute.  But here, Judge Cox said the Plaintiff has failed to
produce evidence that Stephens had such involvement.  Thus,
Stephens is also entitled to summary judgment in his favor as to
the Plaintiff and the Class.

Finally, as to the remaining Defendant, Judge Cox concluded that
it is also entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff and
the Class cannot produce sufficient evidence at trial such that a
reasonable jury could conclude that the two fax ads at issue in
this case were sent "on behalf of" the Defendant Manufacturers
Financial.

Accordingly, Judge Cox denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/JSpJ9Y from Leagle.com.

Compressor Engineering Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Compressor Engineering Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
David M. Oppenheim, Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, Jason J.
Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba
Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Tod A. Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC.

Manufacturers Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Dane A. Lupo -- DaneLupo@lupo-koczkur.com -- Lupo and Koczkur,
Dane A. Lupo, Jr. -- DaneLupojr@lupo-koczkur.com -- Lupo &
Koczkur, Michelle E. Vocht, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & William
A. Roy, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C..

Charity Marketing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dane A. Lupo,
Lupo and Koczkur, Dane A. Lupo, Jr., Lupo & Koczkur, Michelle E.
Vocht, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & William A. Roy, Roy, Shecter &
Vocht, P.C..

Richard K Stephens, Defendant, represented by Dane A. Lupo, Lupo
and Koczkur, Dane A. Lupo, Jr., Lupo & Koczkur, Michelle E. Vocht,
Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & William A. Roy, Roy, Shecter & Vocht,
P.C..


MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminated Against Homeless People, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Globe reports that when Ivelisse Florentino found herself
homeless, she was granted emergency housing assistance in
Haverhill, even though her kids attend public schools in Boston
and she doesn't have a car.  Then she joined a class action
lawsuit filed last year against the Commonwealth to challenge
Governor Charlie Baker's drive to end the practice of placing
homeless families in taxpayer-funded motel rooms.

A court ruling on the case earlier this month made it clear that
the state's policy of no motel placements for emergency housing
discriminated against families like Ms. Florentino's.  Her son has
a knee ailment, and a judge ordered the state to place
Ms. Florentino closer to Boston.  She and her kids now live at a
motel in Waltham.

While the Baker administration has made admirable progress in
reducing the number of homeless families placed in motels, the
court is right.  In exceptional circumstances, placing the
disabled and others with special circumstances into motel rooms
should be approved, as long as it doesn't revert to common
practice.

Massachusetts stands as the only state in the nation to give
shelter to allqualifying homeless families, but for years lacked
adequate shelter space and housed some families in motels instead.
In 2015, when Baker took office, there were 1,500 families in
motels.

Generally, motel rooms are costlier than a shelter bed. Moreover,
the Baker administration argues, shelters are preferable because
they're able to offer an array of social services. Motel rooms may
also be in isolated locations, far from public transit and ill-
equipped for children.  As of press time, there were only 45
families living in motels, while more than 3,000 are housed in
shelters across the state

But Suffolk Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Wilkins ruled that
federal law guarantees individuals with disabilities certain
modified program benefits -- e.g., a motel placement in a suitable
location when shelter beds are not available -- to accommodate
their needs.

Ruth A. Bourquin, the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs in
the lawsuit, noted that the court's ruling also made it clear that
the Legislature wanted the state to keep people close to their
home communities -- a requirement she says the Baker
administration has been ignoring "to the detriment of parents
getting to jobs, kids getting to school, and family members
getting to medical providers."

If the state had enough shelter space -- and had it in the right
places -- Ms. Florentino's hardships might never have happened.
And that should certainly be the state's long-term goal.  In the
meantime, though, the court has ordered a reasonable exception to
Baker's policy. [GN]


MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in Sainsbury, Arcadia MIF Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Freeman and Elaine Whiteford, writing for The Law Society
Gazette, report that practitioners have waited years for a
substantive competition damages judgment.  Now two have come along
at once, dealing with essentially the same issues.  Yet on the
question of whether the arrangements constituted an infringement
of competition law -- despite almost identical facts, evidence and
submissions -- conflicting conclusions were reached.

In July 2016, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found for
Sainsbury's that Mastercard's multilateral interchange fees (MIFs)
were an unlawful restriction of competition (Sainsbury's
Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Incorporated and Others).

In stark contrast, in January 2017, and having heard submissions
from counsel as to the Sainsbury's case, in the Commercial Court
Mr Justice Popplewell concluded that MIFs were not a restriction
of competition (the Arcadia case).

How did the CAT and the Commercial Court reach such divergent
conclusions?

When a card belonging to the Mastercard payment scheme is used for
payment with a retailer, the bank (usually) which issued the card
to the consumer (the issuer) makes payment of the purchase price
to the bank providing card services to the retailer (the acquirer)
but withholds a sum representing the MIF.  The acquirer then
passes on the sum recovered from the issuer to the retailer, less
an additional charge it makes.  The retailers in both cases argued
that the MIF (set by Mastercard) was a restriction of competition
contrary to article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, as it set a floor below which the acquirer could
not go in setting its charges to the retailer.

The key battleground was whether the MIFs had the effect of
restricting competition.  To determine this, it was necessary to
compare how the market in fact operated with what would have
happened had the MIFs not been set at all (or not at the levels
they were): in other words, it was necessary to establish the
appropriate 'counterfactual'. This is where the CAT and Commercial
Court diverged.

In the Sainsbury's case, the CAT reached the view that in the
counterfactual world where Mastercard set no MIF, bilateral
agreements would have been entered into between issuers and
acquirers, establishing a series of independent interchange fees.
This was not a counterfactual posited by any party to the
litigation before it.  The CAT concluded that this series of
independent bilateral interchange fees would have resulted in
significant and better competition between acquirers in the
counterfactual than existed with Mastercard's MIF.  The CAT
concluded that had such bilateral agreements been entered into at
the levels it concluded, then issuers would not have left the
Mastercard scheme to switch to Visa. Consequently, the Mastercard
scheme would have survived but with lower MIFs.

By contrast, in Arcadia, the Commercial Court found that in a
world where Mastercard was setting no MIFs or where its MIFs were
lower than those of Visa (which would continue to set MIFs at
around the same level as it had historically), issuers would move
from the Mastercard scheme in which they earned no MIFs to the
Visa scheme in which they earned significant MIFs, and in such
numbers that the Mastercard scheme would not survive.  This was
described as the 'death spiral' argument.  As a result, the
Commercial Court found that the MIFs were not a restriction on
competition because, without them, Mastercard would not have
survived.

These different conclusions as to what would have happened in the
counterfactual world flowed through to the conclusions reached by
the CAT and the Commercial Court on ancillary restraints and
exemptions.  In the Sainsbury's case, the MIF was found not to be
an ancillary restraint, since the market would operate well (in
fact better) in the counterfactual world of bilateral agreements.
In the Arcadia case, the MIF was found to be an ancillary
restraint because without it Mastercard could not survive.
Similarly, in the Sainsbury's case, the CAT found that no
exemption applied as the MIF was an inhibitor to competition,
whereas in Arcadia the MIFs were found to fall within the article
101(3) exemption as they gave sufficient benefits to retailers.

The cases illustrate the impact on outcomes that can result from a
relatively small difference of opinion as to the appropriate
counterfactual.  Both cases are now heading to the Court of
Appeal, with permission granted on the papers on August 16.  It
will be interesting to see how the differences between the CAT and
the Commercial Court will be reconciled in those appeals, and
indeed in the ongoing proceedings against Visa.  The consumer
class action against Mastercard has not survived certification so
will not be affected, unless the appeal sought in that case is
ultimately successful. [GN]


MASTERS REALTY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Navarro" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Masters Realty Services, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-06833
(C.D. Cal., September 16, 2017), seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's practice of making calls to all persons within the
United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry to
promote products or services without prior express consent.

Masters Realty Services, Inc. is a nationwide real estate agent
franchise company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Hulings' Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Diane Hulings'
appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

Hulings appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont wrongly denied her claim for Imprelis damage
to four trees.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary
process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits,
alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of
express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products
liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of
numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.  Under
the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by
the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation
for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and
maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages.

The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits
but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that
manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015.
On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

Ms. Hulings was originally offered a settlement that provided for
the removal and replacement of three trees.  She objected to the
offer, in part because she believed the three trees marked for
removal and replacement were improving and could be saved and in
part because she identified two additional trees that she believed
were damaged by Imprelis.  DuPont sent another arborist to inspect
her property in February, 2013.  That inspection confirmed that
the three trees originally marked for replacement had improved and
that one other tree showed some damage.  Ms. Hulings was then
offered a new claims resolution agreement providing tree care
compensation for four trees.  She objected to this amended claims
resolution agreement and claimed that there was still one more
tree that DuPont had not included in the agreement.

In 2015, DuPont visited Ms. Hulings' property again, and as a
result of that inspection, the newest offer included removal and
replacement for a fifth tree, as well as tree care for the four
trees previously identified.  She once again objected, claiming
that tree #4 had died, fallen down, and been removed prior to the
2015 re-inspection, and that therefore she should receive removal
and replacement compensation for that tree.  She did not submit
any photographs or other evidence regarding the condition of that
tree, however, and so DuPont denied her objection.  Ms. Hulings
then filed an appeal with the Arborist Panel, seeking removal and
replacement compensation for tree #4, as well as compensation for
three additional trees that she claimed were showing signs of
Imprelis damage.  The Panel denied her appeal.  Hulings appeals
the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

Ms. Hulings argues that because tree #4 was previously rated as a
1 and then subsequently died, she should receive removal and
replacement value for that tree.  She also argues that three
additional trees have shown signs of Imprelis damage, even though
they have never been included in any of her claims resolution
agreements.

Based on the photographs submitted by Ms. Hulings, however, it is
difficult to conclusively determine what caused damage to her
trees, Judge Pratter finds.  As to tree #4, in particular, the
only photograph is from 2012; there are no photographs of the tree
in a state of greater decline that would allow for an evaluation
of the cause of the tree's eventual death.  The mere fact that the
trees declined after the application of Imprelis is not enough to
prove that Imprelis was the cause of the damage, and the Judge
cannot conclude that the Arborist Panel, which is comprised of
three experts who have now reviewed scores of Imprelis appeals,
acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Ms. Hulings's appeal.
Therefore, Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel decision and
denied the Ms. Hulings' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/1KbegR from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Stoopses' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying James and Bonnie
Stoops' appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 11-md-02284
(E.D. Pa.).

The Stoopses appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont wrongly denied part of their warranty claim.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation.  After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage.  Despite this voluntary
process, various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits,
alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of
express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products
liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of
numerous states.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.  The Imprelis Class Action
Settlement covers three classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs.  Among the
three settlement classes is a property owner class.  That class
includes all persons or entities who own or owned property in the
United States to which Imprelis was applied from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, or Feb. 11, 2013.  Under
the Settlement, property owner class members who filed claims by
the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or compensation
for tree removal), payments for replacement trees, tree care and
maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for incidental damages.

The Settlement included a warranty that provided for all benefits
but the 15% incidental damages award for Imprelis damage that
manifested after the claims period closed but before May 31, 2015.
On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

The Stoopses submitted a warranty claim, seeking compensation for
Imprelis-related damage to five trees, four of which were
previously recommended for tree care.  A DuPont arborist visited
their property and found that one tree had significantly worsened,
two had improved, and two did not show signs of Imprelis-related
damage. DuPont made an offer to resolve the warranty claim in line
with these observations.  The Stoopses then objected to the offer,
contending that two trees (trees #14 and #15, which the arborist
had listed as not showing signs of Imprelis damage), were so badly
damaged that they should be removed and replaced.  DuPont denied
the objection, and the Stoopses appealed to the Arborist Panel.
With their appeal, they submitted photographs that they claim show
significant damage to trees #14 and #15.  After reviewing the
information submitted, the Panel denied their appeal.  The
Stoopses appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

The Stoopses argue that two of their trees are now completely dead
and that Imprelis caused the damage to their trees.  In
particular, they take issue with the Panel's statement that from
an application of Imprelis in the spring of 2011 and adverse
effects observed in 2011, based on the Mode of Action of Imprelis
it is not possible to cause the death of a tree 4 years later with
no symptoms observed in between.  The Stoopses contend that the
statement is inaccurate when it states that adverse effects were
observed in 2011, in that no symptoms were observed until the
Spring of 2013.  They also attach various documents which they
claim support the view that Imprelis remains in the soil and in
trees for long enough to cause a delayed reaction.

The documents included with the appeal regarding how long Imprelis
remains in soil and tree samples were not included with the
Stoopses' appeal to the Arborist Panel because the Court is to
determine whether the Arborist Panel acted arbitrarily or
capriciously based on the evidence they had before them.

As to the error in the Panel's statement regarding when damage
first manifested, Judge Pratter finds that that mistake does not
change the substance of the Panel's denial.  The Panel also noted
that photographs from 2013 show tree# 14 with full foliage and no
Imprelis symptoms and that the photographs from 2015 show tree# 15
with full foliage and minor wilting with no Imprelis symptoms.
Without evidence of a progression of Imprelis symptoms, the
Appeals Panel determined that it was impossible for Imprelis to
have been the cause of the trees' death.  The Judge does not find
this conclusion to be arbitrary or capricious.  Indeed, the
Stoopses have not presented any evidence from which the Court can
conclude the Imprelis was the direct cause of their trees' demise.
For these reasons, Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel
decision and denied the Stoopses' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/50QrBg from Leagle.com.


MDL 2591: $217M Allocation Plan in MIR 162 Corn Litigation OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION.
This Document Relates To: The Nationwide Certified Class and The
Kansas Certified Class, MDL No. 2591, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D.
Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (i) granted Syngenta's unopposed motion to
adopt a plan of allocation and to amend the judgment to
incorporate that plan; and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the judgment to include lists of those class members who
have successfully opted out of the classes.

On June 23, 2017, the Court issued its judgment in favor of
Defendant Syngenta on the claims asserted by the Nationwide
Plaintiff Class; and against Syngenta and in favor of the Kansas
Plaintiff Class in the amount of $217,000,000.  Syngenta's post-
trial motion for judgment or a new trial remains pending.

By written submission, the Plaintiffs have confirmed that they
conferred with Syngenta concerning the proposed plan of
allocation, that they believe the plan to be fair and equitable,
and that they therefore endorse the proposed plan.  Because the
Plaintiffs endorse the proposed plan, Judge Lungstrum sees no
reason to delay its adoption.  He therefore granted Syngenta's
unopposed motion to adopt a plan of allocation and to amend the
judgment to incorporate that plan.  He will issue the order
proposed by Syngenta that sets out and adopts the specific terms
of the proposed plan.  In addition, if the judgment survives
Syngenta's pending post-trial motion, the subsequent amended
judgment will incorporate the plan and adoption order by
reference.

In light of the parties' agreement that there is no requirement
that the judgment lists the opt-outs, and in light of Rule 23's
requirement that the judgment specify or describe the class, the
Judge concludes that the judgment in this case need not be amended
to identify the opt-outs by name.  Whether a class member has
properly opted out may be resolved when it becomes necessary, for
instance when the member tries to pursue individual claims or when
an award is distributed.  Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment to include lists of those
class members who have successfully opted out of the classes.

Certainly, the Plaintiffs' administrator should try to resolve any
claims of error that have been raised, but the Judge will not
require such resolution by any particular date.  Thus, he ordered
that all deadlines concerning the accuracy of the Plaintiffs'
lists be vacated.  The amended judgment issued after the
resolution of Syngenta's post-trial motion will make clear that it
applies to the certified classes (which will be described pursuant
to Rule 23) excluding those who have properly opted out in
accordance with the Court's previous orders.

Judge Lungstrum offered a final word about finality and
certification.  Although the parties have argued at length in
their submissions about whether the judgment (with a plan of
allocation) will be final for purposes of appeal, those arguments
have been directed to the wrong audience, as the Tenth Circuit
would resolve any such issue in the event that an appeal is filed.
Syngenta has also suggested that the Court could certify pursuant
to Rule 54(b), but the Court will reserve any such ruling until a
proper motion pursuant to that rule has been filed and fully
briefed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/ChMLU8 from Leagle.com.

In re All Plaintiffs (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY, represented
by Don M. Downing -- ddowning@grgpc.com -- Gray, Ritter & Graham,
PC, pro hac vice.

In re All Plaintiffs (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY, represented
by Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A.
Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac
vice & William B. Chaney -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed &
McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice.

In re All Defendants (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY, represented
by Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice & Thomas P. Schult --
tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw &
Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman
-- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP.

Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W.
Mason -- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac
vice, James J. Thompson, Jr. --  JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd -- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com --
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts --
mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey,
Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark
Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP &
Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason
Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd,
Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E.
Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy --  JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J.
Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy,
Sarah Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP.

Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice,
Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J.
Brett Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro
hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg --
paul@lundberglawfirm.com -- Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice &
Thomas V. Bender -- TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC.

Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro
hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm,
PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan, PC.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X.
Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP.

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro
hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com
-- Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene
Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP.


METLIFE INC: Unclaimed Property Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
Unclaimed Property Litigation.

City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife,
Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012), seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common
shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011.  The
plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and
former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated
the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or
causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading
statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for
millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been
paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Total Control Accounts Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
Total Control Accounts Litigation.

MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained
asset accounts, known as TCA, as a settlement option for death
benefits.  The case is, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).  Plaintiff filed this
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom
MLIC established a retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay
death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA
as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some
group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties
under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative
class. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary
judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary
judgment motion. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Pending Against Sun Life
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues
to defend against sales practices cases.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred
to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to
consider the indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging
sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases
against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------
The case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8,
2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), remains pending, MetLife,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed,
December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Newman" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal is pending in the case, Newman v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23,
2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting
of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay
at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased
after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be
increased for these class members and/or that marketing material
was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as
well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing the
action with prejudice. On April 21, 2017, plaintiff appealed this
ruling.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: "Miller" Action Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Miller, et al. v. MetLife Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed
April 7, 2017).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and MLIC purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy for a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein MetLife
allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
other relief. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


MICHIGAN FIRST: Faces "Rothstein" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Rothstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Michigan First Credit Union, Case No. 2:17-cv-13045-
AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich., September 15, 2017), arises out of Michigan
First's policy and practice of assessing an overdraft fee on
transactions when there was enough money in the checking account
to cover (pay for) the transactions presented for payment.

Michigan First Credit Union is a state chartered credit union with
headquarters located in Lathrup Village, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
      MICHAEL B. SERLING, P.C.
      280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 406
      Birmingham, MI 48009
      Telephone: (248) 647-9300
      Facsimile: (248) 647-8481
      E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
      Ontario, CA 91761
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      Robert Dart, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
              Robert@kicklawfirm.com


MISONIX INC: Dec. 15 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Sept. 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of the securities of
Misonix, Inc. (NASDAQ:MSON):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE SECURITIES OF MISONIX, INC.
ON THE NASDAQ FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 14, 2016,
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of  New York, that a
hearing will be held on December 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Arthur D. Spatt, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of New York, Long Island Courthouse, 100 Federal
Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722, Courtroom 1020, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$500,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $25,000, and an incentive payment of no
more than $3,000 to each of the Class Representatives, should be
approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June
23, 2017 (the "Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased the securities of Misonix, Inc. ("Misonix") on
the NASDAQ during the period from November 5, 2015 through
September 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in Misonix securities.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or
calling the Claims Administrator: Misonix, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net, where you can also obtain a copy of the
Settlement Stipulation. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than November 2, 2017 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Class Representatives must
be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and
received no later than December 1, 2017, to the following:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Class Counsel

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel at the
addresses provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: September 7, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
[GN]


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has not yet scheduled a
hearing on the motion to amend a class action complaint.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection. The
complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling
generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude
competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation
of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In
December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against
the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in
part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In
the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee denied our motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add
a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan
("DC37"). NGH and DC 37 seek to assert claims for damages under
the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin.

On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing
the motion to amend the complaint. The Court has not yet scheduled
a hearing on the motion to amend. While the outcome of litigation
is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was incorporated in the state of
Delaware in May 2001 and began operations in early 2002. Its
facilities are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Momenta is a
biotechnology company focused on developing generic versions of
complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for autoimmune
diseases. The Company presently derives all of its revenue from
its collaborations.


MYLAN INC: Louisiana Gets $6.9MM Share of EpiPen Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Louisiana is getting $6.9
million from EpiPen maker Mylan as part of a national settlement.

Attorney General Jeff Landry announced the state's share of the
$465 million federal agreement completed in August that settled
allegations it overbilled Medicaid programs for its emergency
allergy injectors for nearly a decade.

Mr. Landry called it Medicaid fraud.  In a statement, he said
people and companies that "deceive the hard-working taxpayers of
Louisiana should be held accountable for their actions."

It's the second settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice
that Mylan has made since 2009 for allegedly overcharging the
government.  The latest case involves Mylan paying Medicaid too-
low rebates for the devices by classifying its brand-name product
as a generic, which requires lower rebates. [GN]


NATIONSTAR LLC: Oct. 31 Reply Date for Solutionstar
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EUGENIO AND ROSA CONTRERAS, WILLIAM AND
MELVA PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH AND TERESA MARCEL, SHERLIE
CHARLOT, COLLEEN ANN O'HALLORAN, JENNIE MILLER, AND EDWARD YAGER,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; SOLUTIONSTAR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-00302-MCE-
EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division, granted the parties' stipulation to extend the deadline
for Defendant Solutionstar, LLC to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint up to Oct. 31,
2017.

On Aug. 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the operative amended
complaint.

Solutionstar's current deadline to respond to the amended
complaint is Sept. 13, 2017.  On Sept. 7, 2017, co-defendant
Nationstar Mortgage executed a Waiver of the Service of Summons
that made its response to the amended complaint due by Oc. 31,
2017.

The Plaintiff has agreed to extend Solutionstar's deadline to
respond to Oct. 31, 2017 to coincide with Nationstar Mortgage's
deadline to respond to the amended complaint.

The Plaintiff and Solutionstar stipulate that the time for
Solutionstar to respond to the complaint will be extended by 48
additional days, so that any response may be filed up to and
including Oct. 31, 2017.  Judge England approved the parties'
stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2o2cfl from Leagle.com.

Eugenio Contreras, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

Eugenio Contreras, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen S. Obrist --
gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice,

Ian J. Mensher -- imensher@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto --
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Rosa Contreras, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

William Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. Mensher, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Melva Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. Mensher, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Teresa Barney, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Keith Marcel, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Teresa Marcel, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Sherlie Charlot, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Colleen Ann O'Halloran, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. Mensher,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P..

Nationstar, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp --
ek@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, PC.

Solutionstar, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp,
Severson & Werson, PC & Gurinder Singh Grewal -- gsg@severson.com
-- Severson & Werson.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Gurinder Singh
Grewal, Severson & Werson.


NCI INC: Defending Against Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
NCI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company is defending against class action lawsuit
related to the acquisition of NCI by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital,
LLC.

On July 2, 2017, NCI entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Cloud Intermediate Holdings, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Cloud Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Purchaser"). Parent and Purchaser are beneficially owned
by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC (together with Parent and
Purchaser, "HIG").

The Company and members of NCI's Board of Directors are named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits, all filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, challenging the Transaction, one of which also names
Parent and Purchaser as defendants.

The first suit was filed on July 19, 2017 and is docketed as
Elliot Schwartz v. NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul A. Dillahay,
James P. Allen, Paul V. Lombardi, Cindy E. Moran, Austin J. Yerks
and Daniel R. Young, Case No. 1:17-CV-00816-LO-TCB (the "Schwartz
Action"). The second suit was filed on July 21, 2017 and is
docketed as Colleen Witmer v. NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul
A. Dillahay, James P. Allen, Paul V. Lombardi, Cindy E. Moran,
Austin J. Yerks, Daniel R. Young, H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., Cloud
Intermediate Holdings, L.L.C., and Cloud Merger Sub, Inc., Case
No. 1:17-CV-00838-LO-JFA (the "Witmer Action"). The third suit was
filed on July 25, 2017 and is docketed as Deborah A. Nichols v.
NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul A. Dillahay, Daniel R. Young,
Paul Lombardi, James P. Allen, Cindy E. Moran and Austin J. Yerks,
Case No. 1:17-CV-00839-LO-MSN (the "Nichols Action").

Each of the Schwartz Action, the Witmer Action and the Nichols
Action allege that NCI and the members of NCI's Board of Directors
violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a Schedule 14D-
9 that was materially misleading and omitted material facts
related to the Offer and the Merger. Each of the Schwartz Action,
the Witmer Action and the Nichols Action also allege that the
members of NCI's Board of Directors violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, as controlling persons who had the ability to
prevent the Schedule 14D-9 from being materially false and
misleading. Each of the Schwartz Action, the Witmer Action and the
Nichols Action seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the proposed Offer and Merger and an award of
costs for the actions, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees.

NCI is a provider of information technology ("IT") and
professional services and solutions primarily to U.S. Federal
Government agencies.


NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces "Dorfman" Suit in Cent. Dist. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Albertson's,
Inc.  The case is styled as Robert Dorfman and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. New Albertson's, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01659 (C.D. Cal., September 22, 2017).

New Albertson's, Inc. operates a network of grocery and drug
stores in the Northwest and West Coast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Deval R Zaveri, Esq.
   Zaveri Tabb APC
   402 West Broadway Suite 1950
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 831-6988
   Fax: (619) 239-7800
   Email: dev@zaveritabb.com


NEW SOUTH WALES: Fishermen Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------
David Claughton, writing for ABC News, reports that a fishing
consultant who has participated in industry reforms in three
Australian states says the New South Wales process is "lazy" and
contravenes one of the key principles of successful reforms
elsewhere.

Daryl Sykes now manages the NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council, but
has been involved with reforms in Queensland, Victoria and in
Commonwealth waters as a member of an Independent Allocation
Advisory Panels reporting to the Australian Fish Management
Authority.

He said the reform model in NSW "didn't look at the individual
fishing businesses" and had ignored the "hierarchy of wealth"
principles underpinning other reforms.

He also said it was not based on science, was lazy in its
approach, and had ignored widespread concern in the industry about
the devastating impact it had on family fishing businesses.

"Those fishing businesses were broken down into their component
parts and each part was reformed independently of the other,"
Mr Sykes said.

He said that had completely changed the mix of businesses and
their economic viability.

"It's a well-worn constitutional principle in Australia that when
it comes to fisheries management regimes, in the transition from
one regime to a new regime, there should be a protection of the
hierarchy of wealth," he said.

Class action or compensation claims considered

Some fishermen have been seeking legal advice to see if they can
mount a class action or a claim for compensation.

They argue the reforms left some of them in financial ruin and
that they were forced out of the industry by a NSW State
Government directive.

One of the most controversial decisions made by the Government in
the reform process was to distribute the catch history of active
fishermen to inactive fishers.

They did that to address the over-allocation of licences issued 20
years earlier.

Many of those latent licences are rarely or have never been used,
but the Government was concerned about the sustainability of the
resource if they had been.

Active fishermen then had to buy some of those latent shares to
stay in the game.

The Government subsidised many of them to do that and said the
reforms worked, but many fishermen said it was confusing, unfair,
and ended up decimating their businesses.

Mr Sykes said redistributing the catch history was an "error of
judgement on the part of the managers".

"Had I been a NSW fisherman when the Government proposed to take
that first action, which was to reallocate my catch history across
to people who had no catch history, I would have taken action to
stop that," he said.

CommFish satisfied

A new body set up by the State Government to represent fishermen
is satisfied with the reform process.

CommFish chairman Stuart Richey is a Tasmanian commercial
fisherman with experience in fish management in Australia and
overseas.

He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2005 for
services to the commercial fishing industry.

Mr Richey is satisfied with the reform process and said he was not
aware of any concern about the redistribution of catch history.

He said the focus now should be getting rid of red tape in the
sector.

"NSW has handled this in the correct manner, they've put money on
the table and they've ticked all the boxes," he said.

"But having been through this, there will always be some people
who get a little more, some a little less, and it takes time to
settle down."

Mr Richey said the shift to a quota system, which is the next step
in the reform process, should see fishermen's assets increase
considerably over time.

"Once you get into a share-managed fishery, or quota-managed
fishery, you have a lot more security of access and your fishing
rights become a lot more valuable," he said.

Minister convinced reforms successful

Fishing Minister Niall Blair said the reforms had been a success,
with 95 per cent of fishermen who went into the share-trading
getting the shares they needed.

He said the State Government was working with the rest.

Some fishermen sold their businesses and the overall number had
reduced from 1,060 to 895, where there were 4,000 fishing
businesses 30 years ago.

The Government provided low interest loans for fishermen, grants
for financial advice and support for the fishing cooperatives as
well. [GN]


NEW YORK HEALTH: Approval of Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ruth C. Balkin of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the order of the
Supreme Court, Kings County, granting the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification in the case captioned LILYA
ANDRYEYEVA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ET AL., Respondents, v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE, INC.,
DOING BUSINESS AS NEW YORK HOME ATTENDANT AGENCY, ET AL.,
Appellants, 2014-09087, Index No. 14309/11 (N.Y. App. Div.).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as home health care
attendants for NYHC's elderly and disabled clients.  The
Plaintiffs allegedly worked at the clients' residences in 24-hour
shifts.  They alleged that they did not "live in" the homes of
NYHC's clients and that they were not "working in the home of
their employer," NYHC.  The Plaintiffs were paid an hourly rate
for the 12 daytime hours of their 24-hour shifts and a flat rate
for the 12 nighttime hours.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action, contending that they were
entitled to the minimum wage for each hour of their 24-hour shifts
and that NYHC's payment practice violated the Labor Law and 12
NYCRR 142-2.1(b) ("Wage Order") because it resulted in a regular
hourly wage that was below the minimum wage.

In February 2014, after the Supreme Court had initially denied, as
premature, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the action as a class
action, the Plaintiffs made a renewed motion to certify a class of
approximately 1,063 home attendants who had worked 24-hour shifts
for NYHC between Dec. 28, 2007, and March 8, 2013.  In opposition,
the Defendants contended that they were not required to pay home
attendants for each hour of a 24-hour shift, but were permitted to
exclude 8 hours of sleep time and 3 hours of meal time from the
home attendants' wages, so long as that time for sleep and meals
was actually afforded.

In support of their contention, the Defendants relied on, among
other things, an opinion letter issued by the New York State
Department of Labor ("DOL"), which interpreted the Wage Order.
They thus contended that, contrary to the Plaintiffs' contention,
the members of the class could not simply rest on proof that they
worked 24-hour shifts; they would each also be required to prove
that they had not been afforded their sleep and meal times during
those shifts.

In light of the need for such a fact-intensive inquiry as to each
member of the putative class, the Defendants contended that the
Plaintiffs could not meet the numerosity, commonality, and
typicality requirements for class certification, and that class
certification should therefore be denied.  The Supreme Court, on
Sept. 16, 2014, granted the renewed motion for class
certification.  The Defendants appeal.

In as much as Judge Blakin rejects the DOL's interpretation of the
Wage Order, she also finds that, on their renewed motion, the
Plaintiffs established the existence of the five prerequisites to
class certification, and none of the factors listed in CPLR 902
warranted a denial of the motion.  Therefore, the Supreme Court
providently exercised its discretion in granting the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification.  The Defendants' remaining
contention is without merit.  Accordingly, Judge Balkin affirmed
the order of Supreme Court, Kings County, with costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/POsI7F from Leagle.com.

Cohen Tauber Spievack & Wagner P.C., New York, NY (Stephen Wagner
-- swagner@ctswlaw.com -- Sari E. Kolatch -- skolatch@ctswlaw.com
-- and Jackson S. Davis -- jdavis@ctswlaw.com -- of counsel), for
appellants.

Beranbaum Menken LLP, New York, NY (Jason Rozger --
jrozger@NYemployeelaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melville, NY (Lisa M. Griffith --
lgriffith@littler.com -- of counsel), for amici curiae Home Care
Association of New York State, LeadingAge New York, and Home Care
Association of America.

Hodgson Russ, LLP, New York, NY (Peter C. Godfrey --
pgodfrey@hodgsonruss.com -- John M. Godwin --
jgodwin@hodgsonruss.com -- and Emina Poricanin --
porican@hodgsonruss.com -- of counsel), for amicus curiae New York
State Association of Health Care Providers, Inc.


PENGUIN TRADING: Faces "Buso" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penguin Trading,
Inc.  The case is styled as Anthony Buso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penguin
Trading, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing business as FRUIT
BLISS and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-07025 (C.D. Cal., September 22, 2017).

Penguin Trading, Inc. (trade name Fruit Bliss) is in the Dried or
Canned Foods business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
   4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Haj" Class Suit over Robitussin
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that class action filed in
Chicago federal court claims that Pfizer misleads consumers with
its maximum strength Robitussin, which the lawsuit says contains
less cough suppressant and the same amount of expectorant as
regular strength.

The case is captioned, KARMEL AL HAJ and TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., Defendant, Case: 1:17-cv-06730 (N.D.
Ill., September 18, 2017).

Counsel to Plaintiffs:

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Tel: (708) 628-4960

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292

          - and -

     Darren Malek, Esq.
     VERITAS LAW GROUP
     Kalamazoo Building, 5th Floor
     107 W. Michigan Avenue
     Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
     Tel: (269) 270-3500


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Suit over Green Parking Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that three men who drive electric cars in Philadelphia
hit the city with a federal class action on September 21, over a
legislative hiccup that undermines benefits they secured 10 years
ago.

Philadelphia ushered in the era of parking in 2007 when it began
accepting applications from residents to set aside street parking
for their electric vehicles.

William Morlok, Adam Novick and Theodore Lewis -- the trio behind
the lawsuit -- say they each set aside time and money to get their
parking spaces approved, and they paid to install curbside
chargers for their vehicles as well.  Now that they have improved
public property, however, the city unilaterally terminated the
exclusivity at the center of the arrangement this past spring.

Whereas unapproved vehicles in spots were initially subject to a
fine or tow, the City Council revised the law in April so that the
spaces are reserved only from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.  During the day,
any vehicle can park in the previously electric-only spaces for
two hours at a time.  Morlok, Novick and Lewis note that
Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney declined to sign the bill, going
so far as to criticize it publicly, but that the amendment became
effective on April 20 thanks to the city's home-rule charter.

City Councilman Mark Squilla sponsored the bill targeted on
September 21 lawsuit.

Squilla's Chief of Staff Anne Kelly said in a phone interview that
the drivers behind the suit were still waiting on their parking
applications to clear when Squilla's moratorium passed.

"It's unfortunate those 12 or so people were caught up in the
pipeline," Kelly said, "but we were getting outcry from
constituents and a change needed to be made."

Kelly said the reserved spots were becoming an issue in Philly's
already limited parking scene, necessitating legislative action.

Seeking to represent a class, the drivers allege unjust enrichment
and violations of their constitutional guarantees to due process
and equal protection.  They demand damages or an injunction
ensuring continued exclusive access to their charging stations.

"By stripping plaintiffs and the putative class of their
exclusively reserved electric vehicle parking spaces after they
had expended substantial funds installing the electrical charging
stations servicing those stations, defendant has caused plaintiffs
and the putative class to lose the benefit and value of their
respective investments in the charging stations, and the
improvements they have made upon public property," the complaint
states.

The class is represented by Sean Whalen of Vintage Law in Ardmore.

Whalen has not returned a call requesting comment.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson is presiding over the case in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The case is captioned, WILLIAM MORLOK, ADAM NOVICK, THEODORE
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-04213-MMB (E.D. Pa., September 21, 2017).

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Contact Information:

     Sean P. Whalen, Esq.
     Joseph C. Monahan, Esq.
     VINTAGE LAW LLC
     6 Coulter A venue, Suite 1000
     Ardmore, PA 19003
     Tel: (484) 416-3207 (Whalen)
          (484) 413-2319 (Monahan)
     E-mail: sw@vintage-law.com
             jm@vintage-law.com

          - and -

     Stephan Matanovic, Esq.
     MATANOVIC LAW LLC
     399 Market Street, Suite 360
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215) 915-7978
     E-mail: smatanovic@matanoviclaw.com


PIZATTI ENTERPRISES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Noel Sanchez, Jose Moradel, Marcos Carmona, and Horacio
Alberto Ferrufino, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pizatti Enterprises, Inc., Pizatti Labor Services,
Inc., Miriam Pizzati, Maria Murillo, and Taylor Enterprises of
Louisiana, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-09116 (E.D. La., September 15,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
8135 Balter Street, Metairie, LA 70003. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


PURE NATURAL: Faces "Fareed" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Natural Nail
Lounge, LLC. The case is styled as La Shanna Fareed, individually,
and as class representatives of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pure Natural Nail Lounge, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Coy V. Bentley, Tuyen T. Bentley and Ian Pratt,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02196-EAK-AEP (M.D.
Fla., September 22, 2017).

Pure Natural Nail Lounge and Spa in St Petersburg, Florida, offers
an extensive menu of best natural nail salon and spa services
including pedicures, manicures, Shellac(R) gel manicures, waxing,
massage, facials and makeup applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter Anthony Sartes, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Tragos&Sartes, PL
   601 Cleveland St, Suite 800
   Clearwater, FL 33755
   Tel: (727) 441-9030
   Fax: (727) 441-9254
   Email: peter@greeklaw.com

      - and -

   Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
   Tragos & Sartes, PL
   601 Cleveland St, Suite 800
   Clearwater, FL 33755
   Tel: (727) 441-9030
   Fax: (727) 441-9254
   Email: petertragos@greeklaw.com


QIAO XING: Nov. 7 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Qiao Xing
Universal Resources, Inc. (OTCMKTS:XINGF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:      All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Qiao Xing Universal
Resources, Inc. ("Xing" or the "Company") from May 26, 2010 to
April 16, 2012, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior
to April 16, 2012.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, that the following
Class has been certified in the above-captioned action (the
"Action"):

All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of Qiao Xing Universal Resources,
Inc. ("Xing" or the "Company") from May 26, 2010 to April 16,
2012, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior to
April 16, 2012.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the present and former
officers and directors of Xing and any subsidiary thereof, members
of their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action is
currently being mailed to known Class Members.  If you have not
yet received a full printed Notice, you may obtain copies of this
document by downloading it from www.strategicclaims.net or by
contacting the Notice Administrator:

Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA 19063

If you did not receive the Notice by mail, and you are and decide
to remain a member of the Class, please send your name and address
to the Notice Administrator so that if any further notices are
disseminated in connection with the Action, you will receive them.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in Xing
common stock during the period from May 26, 2010 to April 16,
2012, inclusive.  You will automatically be included in the Class.
If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must
exclude yourself from the Class.  If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in the Action, including all past, present and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment in the Action, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later
than November 7, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the full printed Notice to the Notice Administrator.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
it is within the Court's discretion whether to allow a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a
settlement or judgment in the Action.

Please Do Not Call The Court with Questions

Dated: August 7, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
For the District of the Virgin Islands
[GN]


QUINTIS: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Continuous Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vesna Poljak, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a Federal Court action brought against sandalwood grower
Quintis is relying on the definitions of awareness outlined by the
ASX's listing rules to allege that the company knew of the
termination of the Galderma supply contract.

Galderma's early termination of the 20-year contract for the
supply of pharmaceutical-grade sandalwood oil, and Quintis'
disclosures in relation to that agreement, sparked a precipitous
drop in the company's market value, and the shares have not traded
since May's confidence-sapping revelation.  Quintis also missed
its interest payment to bondholders in August.

The Perth-based group is now months into recapitalisation talks to
save the business.

The statement of claim lodged by Quintis shareholder Andrew Wyma
earlier this month forms the basis of a class action brought by
Bannister Law on behalf of investors in the former TFS, alleging
that Quintis breached continuous disclosure rules.

The plaintiff references public statements made by Quintis,
especially its response to the ASX's inquiries submitted June 6,
and is anticipating further information will be made available via
discovery.

The company has previously said regarding the action: "If the
current board and current senior management had been aware of the
termination at the time it was signed, it is likely that the
company would have made an ASX announcement to that effect."
Although the deal was "economically immaterial" to earnings,
Quintis agrees it "had previously been widely discussed".

But Mr Wyma submits that the Galderma deal was "of economic
significance".  It was also information "that a reasonable person
would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of
Quintis shares", the claim says.

Further, at the time the agreement was concluded, Quintis was
"aware" of this, it is claimed.  ASX listing rule 3.1 requires a
company to "give ASX immediately any information concerning it
that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on
the price or value of the entity's securities".

This assertion is made even if that awareness was limited to
Santalis, the wholly owned pharmaceutical unit of Quintis which
was the counterparty engaging with Galderma, because of the direct
reporting structure that Quintis has described linking the
management of Santalis to Perth.

Bannister Law's action spans investors who bought the stock from
November 30, 2016 to May 10, 2017.

Quintis made headlines when US short-seller Glaucus Investments
publicly targeted the company and alleged in contested research
that the stock was worthless and had aspects similar to a Ponzi
scheme.

In refuting Glaucus' claims, which it did forcefully at the time,
Quintis admitted that its biggest customer in China had not placed
a single order for timber this year, amid a broader crackdown on
sandalwood importation and duty avoidance by Chinese authorities.

The fallout was two-fold: Quintis shares dropped sharply in
response, and its founder and serving managing director, Frank
Wilson, resigned to pursue a privatisation with an undisclosed
investment partner.

Meanwhile, the market began to better understand the company's
unique liabilities.  A put option held by hedge fund Davidson
Kempner had the capacity to topple Quintis had it been exercised
given the rate the business was running down cash (that option has
been rolled and delayed).

In May, it emerged that Quintis had lost Galderma as a customer, a
lapse the company has yet to recover from. [GN]


REJ PROPERTIES: "Badgerow" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise A. Badgerow, and all others similarly-situated v. REJ
Properties, Inc. dba Walters, Meyer Trosclair & Associates, and
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-09492 (E.D.
La., September 22, 2017), seeks monetary relief and other damages
for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and
Louisiana laws prohibiting intentional discrimination and
retaliation in employment, and state and federal laws prohibiting
conspiracy, and La. Civ. Code Art. 2324.

Defendant REJ Properties, Inc., a Louisiana business corporation,
doing business as Walters, Meyer, Trosclair & Associates is
domiciled in the Parish of Lafourche, State of Louisiana and is
engaged in an industry affecting commerce.

Defendant Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation, authorized to do and is doing business in the State
of Louisiana, with its principle place of business in Minneapolis
is a diversified financial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda J. Butler, Esq.
      Stephanie D. O'Brien, Esq.
      BUSINESS LAW GROUP, LLC
      700 Camp St., Ste. 405
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 528-9500
      Fax: (504) 754-7776
      E-mail: abutler@lawgroup.biz
              sobrien@lawgroup.biz


SAN DIEGO, CA: Group of Homeless People Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that two
months ago, a group of homeless people in San Diego filed a class-
action lawsuit against the city's practice of ticketing people for
pitching tents on public sidewalks.  Now comes word of another
potential class-action lawsuit against the city, this time from
homeless people living in their cars and recreational vehicles.

On September 19, the city council was set to discuss a threat of
litigation submitted by Disability Rights California. The
nonprofit advocacy group says San Diego's Oversized Vehicle
Ordinance targets those people who live in their cars or
recreational vehicles.

The group's attorney, Ann Menasche, says the city needs to address
the shortage of beds in shelters as well as lack of affordable
housing before it starts issuing citations to those whose only
options are to sleep in their cars or on the street.

"The City's enforcement of nighttime parking and vehicle
habitation ordinances criminalizes those homeless individuals who
are lucky enough to have a vehicle, and discriminates against
people based on their disabilities," Ms. Menasche said during a
September 15 phone interview.

"These individuals barely have enough money to eat and pay for
medicine and other basic needs, let alone exorbitant fines per
these ordinances. The fines and the City's impounding of their
vehicles put their health, safety, and very lives at risk."

The group is asking Mayor Faulconer and the city council to modify
the ordinances and allow homeless people with disabilities to park
on the street and not worry about whether they will be ticketed or
if their cars will be impounded.

The threat of litigation is the latest controversy involving San
Diego's treatment of homeless people.

In July 2017, ten people sued the city for instructing its
officers to hand out tickets to those who place personal
belongings in the public right-of-way.  According to an attorney
who is representing the ten plaintiffs, police officers have
issued thousands of encroachment citations.

"These ordinances discriminate against those most vulnerable,
especially those who are poor due to their disabilities and have
no place to live.  If the city doesn't respond by stopping the
ticketing, our clients will consider all their options including
potential litigation."

More recently, San Diego's elected officials are scrambling to
find a solution to a deadly hepatitis A outbreak.  Since
November of last year, 16 people have died.  A total of 421 people
have been infected with the disease; 65 percent of those are
believed to be homeless.

To address the outbreak, the county is offering free vaccines and
employing mobile hand-washing stations. [GN]


SCANA CORP: Faces "Delmater" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCANA Corporation.
The case is styled as Christine Delmater, Stephanie Speicher and
Jeff Shelton, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SCANA Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-02563-TLW (D.S.C., September 22, 2017).

SCANA Corporation is a $9 billion energy-based holding company,
based in Cayce, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Brian C Gambrell, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jason E Taylor
   1122 Lady Street, Suite 1020
   Columbia, SC 29201
   Tel: (800) 351-3008
   Fax: (803) 610-1931
   Email: bgambrell@jasonetaylor.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Must Defend "Monroy" Suit over Face Scans
---------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell Bergner, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that a federal judge in Chicago, refused to dismiss
class-action claims that online photo service Shutterfly gathers
and stores facial-geometry scans of people who have never uploaded
digital images onto its website.

Shutterfly allows users to easily upload and share digital
photographs. Lead plaintiff Alejandro Monroy sued the photo-
sharing site in Chicago federal court last year, claiming its use
of facial-geometry software violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The state law regulates the gathering, use and storage of
biometric identifiers of companies, groups and individuals.

Examples of biometric identifiers include fingerprints,
voiceprints, iris or retina scans, facial patterns and other
unique human characteristics.

"When a user uploads a photo, Shutterfly's facial recognition
software scans the image, locates each of the faces in the image,
and extracts a highly detailed 'map' or 'template' for each face
based on its unique points and contours," according to a ruling
issued on September 22, by U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall.

Monroy's class-action lawsuit claims a person can be uniquely
identified by their face geometry, just like they can be
identified by fingerprints.

Shutterfly allegedly stores the facial-geometry maps in a massive
database and compares them to every photograph uploaded onto the
website.

Monroy -- who represents a class of people who are not Shutterfly
users but whose face scans were allegedly collected by the website
via photos uploaded in Illinois -- says that once a person's face
template matches an image in Shutterfly's database, users are
prompted to "tag" the photo with the individual's name.  He claims
a Shutterfly user living in Chicago uploaded a photo of him onto
the website in 2014 and tagged his name in the photo.

Shutterfly argued in court that biometric data, by definition, is
the in-person collection of data, such as fingerprint scans at
stores and schools, and not information gathered from digital
images.

But Judge Gottschall disagreed in her 19-page opinion and denied
the photo service's motion to dismiss the case.

"Shutterfly's argument assumes that the other biometric
identifiers listed in the [state law's] definition can be obtained
only via in-person processes. That is incorrect. For example, it
appears fingerprints and retinal scans can be obtained from images
and photographs," she wrote.

Gottschall also shot down Shutterfly's argument that Monroy failed
to show he suffered damages over its alleged invasion of his
privacy.

"Monroy specifically alleges that 'by collecting, storing, and
using plaintiff's and the class's biometric identifiers and
biometric information as described herein, Shutterfly violated the
right of plaintiff and each class member to privacy in their
biometric identifiers and biometric information,'" she concluded.

The case is captioned, ALEJANDRO MONROY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10984 (N.D. Ill., September 19, 2017).


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Substitution of Plaintiffs in "Smith" Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California approved the Movants' motion for
the substitution of parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25 in the case captioned MARGARETTE SMITH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16cv2519-
GPC(BLM) (S.D Cal.).

On Oct.7, 2016, Plaintiff Smith filed a purported class action
complaint against the Defendant for violations of Regulation X of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and related causes of
action.  On May 3, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  On
May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a first amended purported class
action complaint ("FAC") against the Defendant for violations of
Regulation X, and California Unfair Competition Law.

Prior to the filing of the FAC, Smith died on April 18, 2017.
According to her last will and testament filed with the San Diego
Recorder's Office, her home at 2452 Blackton Drive, San Diego, CA
92105, the subject property at issue in the case, is part of an
irrevocable trust to which her three granddaughters, Zarah Kimble,
Seher Basak, and Sarah Sakinah Groza O'Loughlin are equal
beneficiaries.  According to the FAC, Smith's granddaughters are
her successors in interest and succeeded to Smith's interest in
the property.

On May 24, 2017, SLS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing because the Plaintiff passed away, and in the
alternative, a motion to strike the class allegations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).  On July 12, 2017, the
Court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss until the
substitution issue is resolved.

In the motion, Movants, Zarah Kimble, Sarah Sakinah Groza
O'Loughlin and Seher Basak, seek to substitute themselves in as
the Plaintiffs as their late-grandmother's successors in interest
to the family home at issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25.  The Defendant opposes arguing the Movants are not
successors in interest.

In California, a decedent's successor in interest means the
beneficiary of the decedent's estate or other successor in
interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item
of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.  The
beneficiary of the decedent's estate' means that if the decedent
died leaving a will, the sole beneficiary or all of the
beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular
item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under
the decedent's will.

Here, Judge Curiel finds that the Trust, the Amendment to the
Trust and the Will clearly demonstrate that the movants, as
granddaughters of the Plaintiff, are beneficiaries of her Estate
or successors in interest to her Trust.  The Defendant does not
dispute that the Movants will succeed to the property at issue but
dispute whether the property at issue is part of the Trust, in
which case the movants take the property without probate, or is
part of the Estate, in which case the property would have to go
through probate.  However, on a Rule 25 motion, the Judge needs
only address whether the Movants are decedent's successors in
interest or legal representative and not whether California state
procedures have been followed.  Accordingly, the Movants have
demonstrated they are successors in interest under Rule 25 and may
be substituted in as the Plaintiffs.

Judge Curiel therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion for
substitution of parties.  The Movants will file a Second Amended
Complaint that substitutes them in place of Plaintiff Smith in the
action within seven days of the Order.  The hearing date set for
Sept. 15, 2017 will be vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/oqJFoP from Leagle.com.

Margarette Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Law Sagafi --
ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Margarette Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Andrew Paino -- bpaino@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford &
DhruvMohan Sharma -- dsharma@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D. of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of St.
Louis, Missouri. The case is styled as Maleeha S. Ahmad and Alison
Dreith, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00285 (E.D. Mo., September 22, 2017).

St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi
River.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
   906 Olive St., Suite 1130
   St. Louis, MO 63101-1448
   Tel: (314) 669-3420
   Fax: (314) 652-3112
   Email: trothert@aclu-mo.org


SYNGENTA CORP: Jurors Hear Conflicting Testimony in GMO Corn Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Nelson, writing for Minnesota Lawyer, reports that jurors in
the high-stakes, closely watched legal clash between Minnesota
corn growers and Syngenta Corp. are hearing conflicting testimony
about who cost the farmers an alleged $400-plus million in lost
sales -- the company's commercialization of genetically modified
seed without Chinese approval or Mother Nature and market forces.

Minnetonka-based Syngenta Seeds Inc. "took a risk on the backs of
American farmers" when it began marketing its Agrisure Viptera
corn seed before getting China's OK, attorney Rick Paul,
representing farmers in the civil case, told jurors in his opening
statement.

Some 22,000 farmers in the class did not plant Viptera seed but
were "innocent bystanders in an international trade dispute," that
began when China refused most U.S. corn shipments for three years
because of the crop's commingling with Viptera-grown grain, Mr.
Paul said.

Minnesota farmers will have lost $402.8 million because of "corn
price suppression" from 2013 through 2018 delivery, Mr. Paul said,
because Syngenta's launch of Viptera was "too soon, too broad, too
much."  Chinese officials also turned away corn grown from
Syngenta's Agrisure Duracade seed, launched for 2014 planting.
Both Viptera and Durade eventually received import approvals in
China.

Attorney Mike Brock, representing Syngenta, countered in his
opening statement that rainfall that spurred a 2013 bumper crop in
the Corn Belt caused a drop in corn prices before China began
rejecting U.S. corn.  After rains in June and July in that year
"the bottom dropped out of the price of corn," Mr. Brock said.

"It's a small market and the market adjusts," Mr.  Brock said of
U.S. feed corn exports, which account for about 15 percent of the
annual yield, with 85 percent going to feed, ethanol production
and other domestic uses.  "Minnesota farmers were not harmed."

Testimony in the state class action case against the Swiss-
headquartered agribusiness giant began Wednesday, September 13,
before Hennepin County District Court Judge Laurie Miller after
two days of jury selection.  It is one of two actions in
Minnesota, the other a state consolidated complex litigation
proceeding, with both bringing similar claims under master
complaints.

Syngenta maintains that it had full approval to bring Viptera to
market from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental
Protection Agency and Food and Drug administration and in key
import markets, except China, recommended by the National Corn
Growers Association and other groups.  Viptera seed, which
incorporates a genetic trait known as MIR162, was a key innovation
that helped farmers realize yield potential without the use of a
chemical pesticide to combat a variety of insects damaging to
corn, Mr. Brock said.

Mr. Brock asked jurors to focus on whether Syngenta's 2010 launch
of Viptera was reasonable under the circumstances that existed in
the fall of 2010.

Paul, representing Minnesota farmers, said that Syngenta knew the
risk of creating a trade disruption from its 2007 rollout out of
another corn seed, known as MIR604/Agrisure RW, without import
approvals, which led to a standoff with Japan and Canada.
Mr. Brock, however, said that Syngenta had approval from U.S.
officials to launch that seed and believed it would have approvals
from Japan and Canada before the first harvest and shipment of
that corn.

China -- with a population of more than 1.35 billion people and a
need for corn to feed more than 440 million hogs -- was seen an
increasingly important export market, Paul said.

Mr. Paul pointed out that Jack Berens, Syngenta's head of
technology acceptance, stated in a December 2014 email that he had
predicted 24 months earlier that grain companies would raise
issues with Viptera not having approval in China or the European
Union.  Mr. Berens stated in other emails that, "China may become
an issue for unapproved biotech traits" and "this could become a
problem for us."

Mr. Brock said that Syngenta acted responsibly in bringing Viptera
to market and that growers organizations did not expect the
company to have approvals from China or the European Union before
the launch because those were not required under the policies of
the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group or growers
organizations.

Mr. Berens, the trial's first witness, testified under questioning
by plaintiff's attorney Mikal Watts that concerns arose in 2005
about the company's ability to produce Viptera seed economically.
Viptera got renewed attention in 2007 as a possible response to a
competing Monsanto product.

Watts focused on the issue of the foreseeability of China's
rejection of Viptera, returning to it several times in questioning
Mr. Berens, who responded at one point, "I saw the possibility
that could happen."

Mr. Brock, in his opening statement, contended that China does not
have a properly functioning regulatory system that "allows control
and manipulation of imports" and that results in "substantial
delays" so waiting for approval doesn't make sense. Syngenta
officials hold that U.S. companies should not have to depend on
approval from China or other foreign governments, in effect giving
them veto power over when companies here commercialize new
technology.

In April, Hennepin County District Court Judge Thomas Sipkins
ordered that plaintiffs in both cases could bring claims for
punitive damages. As a result, the case now at trial of Daniel
Judge Mensik, a Nebraska resident, can include a claim for
punitive damages although Nebraska law does not permit punitive
damages.

Syngenta faces thousands of other lawsuits in Minnesota and other
states. The company is appealing a June verdict in which a Kansas
jury awarded close to $218 million in damages.  An Ohio judge in
June dismissed a suit against Syngenta, stating that making
technological advances of U.S. companies dependent on the approval
of foreign governments would have "a chilling effect on those
parties investing time and resources into their creation."

Syngenta is being acquired by state-owned China National Chemical
Corp. in a $43 billion deal. [GN]


THINK FINANCE: Faces "Banks" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Think Finance, Inc.
The case is styled as India Banks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kenneth Rees, Think
Finance, Inc., Think Finance SPV, LLC, TC Decision Sciences, LLC,
TC Loan Service, LLC, Tail Wind Marketing, LLC, TC Administrative
Services, LLC and GPL Servicing, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-
cv-02201-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., September 22, 2017).

The Defendants provide technology, analytics, and marketing
services to financial businesses in the consumer lending
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall, PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7572
   Fax: (703) 591-0167

      - and -

   Andrew Silver, Esq.
   Tycko & Zavareei LLP
   1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: (202) 973-0900
   Fax: (202) 973-0950
   Email: asilver@tzlegal.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
   Tycko & Zavareel, LLP
   1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: (202) 973-0900
   Fax: (202) 973-0950
   Email: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

      - and -

   Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly& Crandall, PLC
   4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
   Hiraldo PA
   401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 400-4713
   Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


TIER ONE: "Ceuric" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Michael Ceuric, and all others similarly-situated v. Tier One, LLC
dba Tier 1 Rental and Distribution, Case No. 2:17-cv-01240-RCM
(W.D. Pa., September 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant is a rental and distribution company operating
primarily in Pennsylvania with headquarters in Pittsburgh and a
satellite location in Beaver County.  Tier 1 specializes in
trucking, solids control equipment, consulting and cut-dry
solidification services. Tier 1 employs consultants such as Solids
Control Operators to carry out its work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


U.S. TOBACCO: Settlement in "Speaks" Suit has Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERESA M. SPEAKS, TOBY SPEAKS, STANLEY
SMITH, EDDIE BROWN, ROBERT POINDEXTER, MIKE MITCHELL, ROY L. COOK,
ALEX SHUGART, H. RANDLE WOOD, ROBIN ROGERS and DANIEL LEE NELSON,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. TOBACCO COOPERATIVE, INC. f/k/a FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 5:12-CV-00729-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, preliminarily approved the Parties'
Stipulation and Agreement of Class Action Compromise, Settlement
and Release.

The Parties' Settlement Agreement is intended to resolve, on a
global basis, this litigation in the Court against the Defendant
arising out of claims inter alia, that the fundamental purposes
for which U.S. Tobacco was created had ceased to exist, and that
the actions of U.S. Tobacco were unfair and would have the effect
of divesting or eliminating the value of the Plaintiffs' alleged
equity interests in U.S. Tobacco.  The Plaintiffs asserted a claim
for distribution of U.S. Tobacco's assets, a claim for declaratory
judgment, or, alternatively, a claim for judicial dissolution of
U.S. Tobacco.  U.S. Tobacco denies the Plaintiffs' allegations.

Judge Dever preliminarily approved the Parties' Settlement
Agreement, subject to further consideration thereof at the Final
Approval Hearing.  The Settlement will be submitted to the Class
Members for their consideration and for a Final Approval Hearing.

The Judge preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only,
the Settlement Class of individuals, proprietorships,
partnerships, corporations and other entities that are or were
shareholders and/or members of U.S. Tobacco at any time during the
Class Period, without any exclusion, including any heirs,
representatives, executors, powers-of-attorney, successors,
assigns or others purporting to act for or on their behalf with
respect to U.S. Tobacco and/or the Settled Claims.

He preliminary appointed the Named Plaintiffs as the class
representatives for the Settlement Class.  He also preliminarily
appointed Gary K. Shipman SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP 575 Military
CutoffRoad, Suite 106 Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 N. Leo
Daughtry DAUGHTRY, WOODARD, LAWRENCE & STARLING, LLP 403 E. Market
Street Smithfield, North Carolina 27577, as the Settlement Class
Counsel.

Judge Dever approved, as to form and content, the Long Form Notice
(attached to the Declaration of Shannon R. Wheatman, Ph.D on
Adequacy of the Class Action Notice Program) and approved it for
online publication on the Settlement Website.  He approved, as to
form and content, the Postcard and Publication Notices (attached
to the Wheatman Declaration), and approved them for publication
and/or mailing as set forth in the Notice Plan.

The Parties will supervise and administer the notice procedures as
set forth in the Notice Plan, including the following:

     a. Within 30 days after the Settlement is Preliminarily
Approved by the Court, the Notice Administrator will cause a copy
of the Postcard Notice to be mailed to all Class Members known to
the Parties with viable mailing addresses after having first
updated the addresses using the National Change of Address
database.

     b Within 15 days after the Settlement is Preliminarily
Approved by the Court, the Notice Administrator will post the Long
Form Notice, Settlement Agreement, FAQ's pertaining to the
Settlement, along with other documents as agreed to by the
Parties, on a website with the domain name:
www.FlueCuredTobaccoSettlement.com.

     c. Within 45 days after the Settlement is Preliminarily
Approved by the Court, the Notice Administrator will commence
Publication Notice in accordance with the Notice Plan.

Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Notice Administrator will
serve and file a sworn statement attesting to the mailing of the
Notice and compliance with the Notice Plan, along with the Opt-Out
List and the Defendant will file with the Court a declaration of
compliance with CAFA notice requirements.

The parties and their respective counsel are authorized to retain
Rust Consulting, Inc. to serve as the Claims Administrator and
Kinsella Media, LLC to serve as the Notice Administrator, in
accordance with terms of the Settlement Agreement, Notice Plan and
the Order.

Any member of the Settlement Class who desires to request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will submit to the Claims
Administrator an appropriate and timely request for exclusion to
the address stated in the Notice on or before Nov. 13, 2017.

A person making an objection must sign the objection personally
(an attorney's signature is not sufficient).  To object, the
Objector must provide to the Claims Administrator (who will
forward it to Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant), and file
with the Clerk of the Court not later than 30 days before the date
set for the Final Approval Hearing, a statement of the objection.

If a Settlement Class Member retains an attorney to represent him,
the attorney must (a) file a notice of appearance with the Clerk
of Court no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing
or as the Court may otherwise direct; and (ii) serve a copy of
such notice of appearance on Gary K. Shipman, Esq., Shipman &
Wright, LLP, 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106, Wilmington, NC
28405 and Derek L. Shaffer, Esq., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, 777 6th Street NW 11th floor, Washington, D.C.
20001-3706 within the same time period.

Any responses to objections must be filed with the Court and
served upon the Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendant on or
before a date set by the Court that is no later than 30 days from
receipt of the objection or five days before the hearing,
whichever is earlier.

All Claim Forms must be either received by the Claims
Administrator or postmarked on or before the end of the relevant
Claims Period set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Jan. 19, 2018 at 10:00
a.m.  The Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
incentive awards for the Named Plaintiffs will be heard at the
time of the Final Approval Hearing.  Any application for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs and application for incentive awards
for the Named Plaintiffs will be filed with the Court no later
than 30 days prior to the expiration of the opt-out and objection
periods.

Judge Dever granted any pending Motions to Amend.  The Class
Counsel will file an Amended Complaint within 10 days of the entry
of the Order.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further
applications arising out of or connected with the Settlement.  It
may approve the Settlement, with such modifications as may be
agreed to by the Parties, if appropriate, without further notice
to the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3kfsMo from Leagle.com.

Teresa M. Speaks, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman --
gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Associates, LLP.

Teresa M. Speaks, Plaintiff, represented by Namon Leo Daughtry,
Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling & William Grainger Wright,
Sr. -- wright@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman and Wright, LLP.

Toby Speaks, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman &
Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence &
Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright, LLP.

Stanley Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman
& Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence
&
Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright, LLP.

Eddie Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman &
Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence &
Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright, LLP.

Robert Poindexter, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman,
Shipman & Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard,
Lawrence & Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and
Wright, LLP.

Mike Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman
& Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence
& Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright,
LLP.

Roy L. Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman &
Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence &
Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright, LLP.

Alex Shugart, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman &
Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence &
Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright, LLP.

H. Randle Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Gary K. Shipman, Shipman
& Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry, Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence
& Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr., Shipman and Wright,
LLP.

U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, represented by Derek
Lawrence Shaffer -- derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Lee M. Whitman -- lwhitman@wyrick.com --
Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP & Paul J. Puryear, Jr. --
ppuryear@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP.


UBER TECH: Class-Action Waivers Invalid, Labor Watchdog Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that appearing before a Ninth Circuit panel on September 20, a
lawyer for the federal government's labor watchdog said Uber can't
make drivers give up their rights to participate in San Francisco
class actions against their employer.

"The opt-out provision in Uber's arbitration agreement does not
rehabilitate what would otherwise under this court's decision in
Morris be an unlawful waiver of an employee's Section 7 rights,"
said National Labor Relations Board attorney Jeffrey Burritt,
referring to the Ninth Circuit's 2016 ruling on the
unenforceability of class action waivers in Ernst & Young v.
Morris.

Burritt was speaking at a hearing on Uber's consolidated appeals
in four related labor class actions. Uber wants the appeals court
to dismantle a class of drivers and rule the workers must resolve
their labor disputes through individual arbitration.

Finding that the National Labor Relations Act has historically
deemed arbitration a valid means of resolving disputes, Ninth
Circuit Judge Richard Tallman said he found it "very curious" that
the board now takes a position that is "contrary to decades of
practice."

Burritt replied that arbitration is not the issue, but rather
agreements that require employees waive their rights to resolve
disputes collectively.

"The board's concern is the ability of employees to retain their
rights to either engage in or refrain from concerted activity at
the time a dispute arises," Burritt said.

In September 2016, Tallman and two other Ninth Circuit judges
upheld Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements as valid,
reversing a federal judge's ruling to the contrary. But the ruling
only applied to one of four class actions against the ride hail
giant -- Mohamed v. Uber.

"This court already held that Uber's arbitration agreements are
enforceable," Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. told the panel
on September 20.

The latest set of appeals seeks to decertify a class of drivers in
O'Connor v. Uber and reverse denials of motions to compel
arbitration in two other cases -- Yucesoy v. Uber and Del Rio v.
Uber.

Arguing before the same Ninth Circuit panel that validated the
arbitration clauses, Boutrous reminded the panel that it already
rejected the notion that Uber's arbitration agreements were
"unconscionable."

"For that reason alone, we respectfully submit the class in the
O'Connor case must be decertified," Boutrous said.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan parroted
the position of the National Labor Relations Board, stressing that
Uber can't make workers give up their rights to pursue collective
legal action against an employer.

"The National Labor Relations Act precludes employers from
preventing employees from engaging in concerted activity, and an
opt-out provision cannot save it from illegality," Liss-Riordan
said.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton asked if it would make sense to hold
off issuing a ruling on this appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court
decides three similar cases on the validity of class action
waivers.  The high court is set to hear oral arguments in those
cases - National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young v. Morris - on Oct. 2.

One of those cases - Ernst & Young v. Morris - was decided by the
Ninth Circuit in August 2016. The appeals court held that the
accounting firm could not force its employees to arbitrate their
disputes individually, rather than collectively.

Burritt said it would be prudent for the Ninth Circuit panel to
wait for the Supreme Court's ruling in those cases before it
decides on Uber's appeal. A decision is expected early next year.

Moving beyond the issue of class waivers, Boutrous also urged the
panel to decertify the class of Uber drivers on separate grounds.
He argued that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen erred in holding
that the drivers' individualized beliefs and intent "were not a
significant factor" in whether they were misclassified as
independent contractors.

Boutrous argued that directly contradicts the California Supreme
Court's reasoning in the 1989 ruling S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v.
Dept. of Industrial Relations. Because those individual factors
require separate inquires for each driver, that makes class
certification unfeasible, Boutrous argued.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta joined Tallman and Clifton on the
panel, which took the arguments under advisement after 70 minutes
of debate.


UNIVAR USA: Faces "Gill" Suit in N. Dist. Tex.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Univar USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Kethenus Gill and Raymond Forman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Univar USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02600-N (N.D. Tex.,
September 23, 2017).

Univar is a global chemical and ingredients distributor and
provider of value-added services, working with leading suppliers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jay D Ellwanger, Esq.
   DiNovo Price Ellwanger& Hardy LLP
   400 South Zang Blvd., Suite 1202
   Dallas, TX 75208
   Tel: (214) 948-3334
   Fax: (214) 853-9410
   Email: jellwanger@dpelaw.com


WELLS FARGO: $685K Settlement in "Santini" Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LINDSAY SANTINI, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, a
National Association with its principal place of business in the
State of California, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01992-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
Motions for: (1) Final Judgment and Order Approving Class Action
Settlement; and for (2) Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
Class Representative's Service Payment Award.

The Class Representative and the Defendant, through their counsel
of record, have reached an agreement to settle claims in this
putative class action.  Judge Rogers convened a hearing on Sept.
12, 2017 on the Plaintiff's Motions.

Judge Rogers fully and finally approved the Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release which provides for a gross
settlement amount of $685,000.

She granted final certification approval for settlement purposes
to the Class, defined as individuals who, according to Wells
Fargo's personnel and payroll records, are or were employed by
Wells Fargo in California as Phone Banker 1's and/or Phone Banker
2's at any time from April 15, 2012, through April 15, 2017.

She granted final certification approval for settlement purposes
to the Opt-In Class which consists of the Class Members who cash
their settlement checks, consenting to join this Action as a party
plaintiff under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and expressly releasing
in writing any and all claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. that are or
could be based on or related to the same matters alleged in the
Complaint and/or First Amended Complaint.  The members of the Opt-
In Class are also Members of the Class.

Judge Rogers finds the Payments to Participating Class Members
under the terms of the Settlement to be fair and reasonable in
light of all the circumstances.  She, therefore, ordered the
calculations and payments to be made and administered in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

She approved the $25,000 payment to Rust Consulting, Inc. for
administration fees, which include all costs and fees incurred to
date, as well as estimated costs and fees involved in completing
the administration of the Settlement.

The Judge confirmed The Markham Law Firm and United Employees Law
Group as the Class Counsel in this action.  She also approved (i)
an award of attorneys' fees of $185,149.25, (ii) the reimbursement
of the Class Counsel's costs in the amount of $11,634, pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) the Class
Representative's Service Payment Award in the amount of $5,000.

Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order,
the Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties to the Settlement, including the Defendant and the Class
Members, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce the
Settlement in accordance with its terms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UmvcVE from Leagle.com.

Lindsay Santini, Plaintiff, represented by David Roger Markham --
dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm.

Lindsay Santini, Plaintiff, represented by Maggie K. Realin --
mrealin@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm, Peggy J. Reali --
preali@realilaw.com -- The Markham Law Firm & Walter Lewis Haines
-- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C..

Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant, represented by Theresa Ann Kading --
tkading@kadingbriggs.com -- Attorney at Law & Glenn Lansing Briggs
-- gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com -- Kading Briggs LLP.


WESTAR ENERGY: Shareholders Challenge Merger with Great Plains
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
after spending several months brokering a merger deal and revising
it after rejection from regulators, Westar Energy and Great Plains
Energy face a federal class action in Topeka, Kan., from Westar
shareholders.

Westar, of Kansas, and Great Plains, of Missouri, announced a
merger in July to create a $14 billion utility to serve 1.6
million customers.

But lead plaintiff David Pill says in September 21, lawsuit that
the two companies have not been forthcoming with financial
information about the new company. Shareholders from both
companies are to vote on the merger in coming months.

Pill claims that the companies and Westar executives purposely
left out information in the S-4 filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, failing to include earnings projections for
the proposed new company, Monarch Energy Holdings.

"Financial projections are considered by courts to be among the
most important information a stockholder can have when evaluating
the proposed consideration in a merger and deciding whether to
vote in favor of a merger," the complaint states. "Here, the
Monarch projections would be highly material to Westar's
shareholders because they are being asked to vote for a
transaction in which they will receive Monarch shares, and the S-4
specifically warned such shareholders not to add together Westar's
and Great Plains' projections."

While the two companies shared projections for each separate
company, they did not do so for Monarch. The merger proposal was
submitted to regulators in Kansas and Missouri in late August. The
companies hope to complete the merger by summer of 2018.

Pill calls statements from Westar executives misleading and asks
the court to enjoin the merger unless and until the companies
publish more detailed information about Monarch.

"Defendants prepared, reviewed, filed and disseminated the false
and misleading S-4 to Westars's shareholders," the complaint
states. "In doing so, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that the S-4 failed to disclose material facts necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading."

Pill is represented by Michelle Moe Witte with Joseph, Hollander &
Craft, of Wichita.

The case is captioned, DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTAR ENERGY, INC.,
MOLLIE H. CARTER, JERRY B. FARLEY, MARK A. RUELLE, CHARLES Q.
CHANDLER IV, R. A. EDWARDS III, SANDRA A.J. LAWRENCE, RICHARD L.
HAWLEY, B. ANTHONY ISAAC, S. CARL SODERSTROM, JR., KING ENERGY,
INC., GREAT PLAINS ENERGY INCORPORATED and MONARCH ENERGY
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case 5:17-cv-04086-SAC-KGS (D. Kan.,
September 21, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Michelle Moe Witte, Esq.
     JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC
     500 North Market
     Wichita, KS 67214
     Tel: (316) 262-9393
     Fax: (316) 262-9006
     Email: mmoe@josephhollander.com

          - and -

     Christopher M. Joseph, Esq.
     JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC
     1508 SW Topeka Blvd.
     Topeka, KS 66612
     Tel: (785) 234-3272
     Fax: (785) 234-3610
     Email: cjoseph@josephhollander.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sunroofs Spontaneously Explode, Deras Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Francisco, claims sunroofs in 2013-15
Volkswagen Beetles spontaneously explode.

The case is captioned, ROSAURA DERAS, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-05452
(N.D. Cal., September 19, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff ROSAURA DERAS, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals:

     Robert L. Starr Esq.
     Adam Rose, Esq.
     Matthew A. Giovannucci Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
     23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Telephone: (818) 225 - 9040
     Facsimile: (818) 225 - 9042
     E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
             matthew@starrlaw.com

          - and -

     Stephen M. Harris Esq., Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC
     6230 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (818) 924 - 3103
     Facsimile (818) 924 - 3079
     E-mail: Stephen@smh-legal.com


ZTO EXPRESS: "McGrath" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed August 21, 2017, captioned Michael
McGrath, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., Case No. 17-CIV-03805, was
removed on September 15, 2017, from the superior Court for the
County of San Mateo, California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-05364-EMC to the proceeding.

The class action asserts claims under the federal Securities Act.
The case was commenced over American Depository Shares ("ADSs")
purchased in connection with ZTO's October 2016 initial public
offering.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. through its subsidiaries provides
express delivery and other value-added logistics services in
China. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
      Virginia F. Milstead, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
      Telephone: (213) 687-5000
      Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
      E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com
              virginia.milstead@skadden.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
      Robert A. Fumerton, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 10036
      E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com
              robert.fumerton@skadden.com


* New York Employers Must Consider Impact of Gold Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
George Carroll Whipple, III, Esq. -- gwhipple@ebglaw.com -- of
Epstein Becker Green, in an article for Lexology, reports that
Nausheen Rokerya, Associate General Counsel, Labor & Employment,
for Visiting Nurse Service of New York, offers some advice on what
to do in light of recent employee arbitration agreement decisions.
This includes most recently the Gold decision in New York, which
found class action waivers to be unenforceable:

"New York employers sitting in Manhattan and the Bronx are bound
by the Gold decision, and so they should carefully consider the
likely impact it will have on litigation strategy of plaintiffs'
attorneys.  First, plaintiffs' lawyers are unlikely to file FLSA
complaints in federal court, where Second Circuit precedent
finding class action waivers enforceable is still binding.  At the
same time, we do expect to see an uptick in state court filings,
where plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to seek to nullify class
action waivers, making it nearly impossible for employers to then
rely on those waivers to defeat class certification. While the
Gold decision is current law in Manhattan and the Bronx, the U.S.
Supreme Court is actually scheduled to hear oral argument on this
very issue on October 2.  We do expect the [Supreme] Court's
decision to resolve the current split among the federal courts
sometime in early 2018." [GN]


* Sen. John Kennedy Swing Vote in CFPB Arbitration Rule Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryn Stole, writing for The Advocate, reports that in a Capitol
Hill battle over the financial industry's use of arbitration
clauses in contracts to limit class-action lawsuits, a key
undecided Republican has attracted the attention of bank lobbyists
and consumer advocates.

That person is U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana's recent arrival
in D.C. with a seat on the Senate's banking committee.  So far, as
the debate has started to percolate, Kennedy has kept his cards
close the chest on how he might vote on a Republican-led effort to
scrap an Obama-era regulation making it far easier for customers
to bring class-action lawsuits against banks, credit-card
companies and other financial institutions.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency regulation, rolled out in
2015 but not yet in effect, would bar financial institutions from
including legal language in the fine print of contracts to limit
the ability of customers to join class-action lawsuits.

Financial industry groups have met with Sen. Kennedy's staff to
push their case that a wave of class-action lawsuits would drain
the industry and ultimately drive up prices.

Consumer advocacy groups, meanwhile, have launched TV ads on
Louisiana aimed at convincing Kennedy -- and his voters back home
-- that the issue amounts to leveling the playing field between
powerful corporations and wronged customers.

The rollback effort has already passed the U.S. House of
Representatives with overwhelming Republican support.

Louisiana U.S. Reps. Garret Graves, R-Baton Rouge; Mike Johnson,
R-Bossier City; Ralph Abraham, R-Alto; and Clay Higgins, R-Port
Barre, all voted in favor. U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New
Orleans, voted against. U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Metairie, who's
still recovering from a gunshot wound suffered in an attack over
the summer, did not vote on the bill.

The Senate Banking Committee's chairman, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-
Idaho, is pushing a nearly identical bill in the Senate, with
every Republican on the banking committee besides Sen. Kennedy
signed on as a co-sponsor.

The bill, currently awaiting action in the Senate, would overturn
the regulation using the Congressional Review Act -- a law that
allows Congress to override new regulations within a limited time
period.

Sen. Kennedy, the former state treasurer who took office as a
senator in January, has so far declined to say which way he's
leaning. That's made him one of about five Republican senators on
the fence on what's shaping up to be a razor-thin vote.

"We're talking very closely with (Sen. Kennedy's) office as an
industry and we know the importance of his vote.  It's a key swing
vote on this issue," said Bill Himpler, executive vice president
of the American Financial Services Association, which represents
consumer lenders.  "What we've heard from him is he's weighing all
the different arguments from both sides here."

An advertisement from the consumer advocacy group Allied Progress,
meanwhile, asserts that Sen. Kennedy's vote "can protect Louisiana
consumers" and "end forced arbitration."

Karl Frisch, Allied Progress' executive director, said they've
launched ads in home states targeting Kennedy and four other
undecided Republican senators: Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Maine's
Susan Collins, Ohio's Rob Portman and Arizona's John McCain.

"We're heartened that Sen. Kennedy has expressed an open mind
about this," Mr. Frisch said.

Stephen Waguespack, the president and CEO of the Louisiana
Association of Business and Industry, said his organization's
board traveled to Washington to meet with lawmakers on a number of
issues.  Near the top of the list? Rolling back the restrictions
on forced-arbitration clauses.

"I'm hearing from a lot of banks -- community banks especially --
here in Louisiana that, if the arbitration language isn't allowed
to go forward, you'll see a rash of class-action lawsuits coming
in," Waguespack said.

A pair of high-profile issues at financial institutions -- an
ongoing scandal at Wells Fargo involving millions of accounts
opened without customers' knowledge as well as a massive data
breach at the credit-reporting agency Equifax -- have served to
highlight the issue, potentially ramping up pressure on the vote.

Equifax offered free credit monitoring to the more than 140
million victims whose personal information was exposed in the
breach -- but initially inserted a mandatory-arbitration clause
into the user agreement which would've stripped victims of the
right to sue the company.

The company dumped the clause following public backlash.  Consumer
groups, however, say the Equifax case highlights the ways
corporations use the clauses to evade accountability.

Sen. Kennedy led a bipartisan group of senators in writing a
letter demanding that a number of federal agencies investigate the
Equifax breach and the sale of millions of dollars in stock by
three executives shortly after the massive problem was discovered.

"I have a lot of concerns about how Equifax handled the recent
security breach, including the sale of stock by executives before
the breach was publicly announced," Sen. Kennedy said on Sept. 14
when asked if the issue might shape his thinking on the forced-
arbitration regulation.  "Equifax needs to be transparent with the
public, and that includes ensuring that consumers understand what
legal recourses they may be giving up simply by trying to protect
themselves from the repercussions of the breach."

Sen. Kennedy has told reporters with a number of publications that
he hasn't yet made up his mind on the broader issue.  A
spokeswoman for the senator didn't directly address questions
about where he currently stands on the proposed legislation.

The Equifax breach is "showing how important it is for consumers
to hold companies like these accountable," said Rachel Weintraub,
legislative director and general counsel with the national
Consumer Federation of America.

The disputed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulation,
Ms. Weintraub said, "would make that harder and create a more
equal playing field between consumers and the financial industry."

But business groups said the rush to file lawsuits in the wake of
the breach actually pointed to the very issue forced-arbitration
clauses are meant to prevent: a wave of costly litigation.

Mr. Himpler, with the American Financial Services Association,
said more than 20 class-action suits have been filed in the two
weeks since the breach was made public.

"Nobody knows any of the facts yet but the plaintiff bar didn't
waste any time," Mr. Himpler said.

"From our perspective, arbitration is most beneficial . . . both
in terms of the consumer and the business being able to address
the individual complaint," he added. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,400 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against 1,400
asbestos claims at June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The Company stated, "The Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure
to asbestos.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company sold its insulation
business unit at the end of April 1958.  The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

"As of June 30, 2017, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 1,400 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2016,
approximately 88% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 9% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million
or less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater
than $15 million but less than or equal to $100 million.

"Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages.  The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a
complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or
disposition value.  Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is
determined by such factors as the type and severity of the
plaintiff's asbestos disease, the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents, the product
identification evidence against the Company and other co-
defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other co-
defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made,
and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant.

"In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-
handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and
negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under
the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such
claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by
the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period
ending in 1958.

"The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, the Company believes that these
categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material
liability and they are not included in the pending matters or in
the description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2017, has disposed of asbestos claims of approximately 398,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of approximately $9,500.  The Company's asbestos indemnity
payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to
continue to vary considerably over time.  Asbestos-related cash
payments for 2016, 2015 and 2014 were $125 million, $138 million,
and $148 million, respectively.  The Company's cash payments per
claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately
$71,000, $95,000, and $81,000 for the years ended December 31,
2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.
Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure
criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling
agreements has generally reduced the number of claims that would
otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system. In
addition, certain court orders and legislative acts have reduced
or eliminated the number of claims that the Company otherwise
would have received by the Company in the tort system.  These
developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

"Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established
in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.9
billion through June 30, 2017, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.  The Company's estimates of its
liability have been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the inherent uncertainty of future disease
incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, the
significant expansion of the defendants that are now sued in this
litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to which
these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in which
the Company is also a defendant.

"The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables
likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos
claims against the Company.  The material components of the
Company's total accrued liability are determined by the Company in
connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist
of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such
liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated:
(i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the
Company; (ii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted
against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated
to be incurred in connection with the claims already asserted and
those claims the Company believes will be asserted.

"The Company conducts a comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  As part of its annual comprehensive legal review,
the Company provides historical claims filing data to a third
party with expertise in determining the impact of disease
incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop
information to assist the Company in estimating the total number
of future claims to be filed.  The Company uses this estimate of
total future claims, along with an estimation of disposition costs
and related legal costs as inputs to develop its best estimate of
total probable liability. If the results of the annual
comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount of
the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably
estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an
appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations
to increase (decrease) the accrued liability.

"The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   a) settlements will continue to be limited almost exclusively
to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   b) claims will continue to be resolved primarily under the
Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable
to those set forth in those agreements;

   c) the incidence of serious asbestos-related disease cases and
claiming patterns against the Company for such cases do not change
materially;

   d) the Company is substantially able to defend itself
successfully at trial and on appeal;

   e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
bankruptcies do not change significantly the assets available to
participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is a
defendant; and

   f) co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue
to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos
lawsuits and claims.

"For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company
concluded that accruals in the amount of $692 million and $817
million, respectively, were required. These amounts have not been
discounted for the time value of money. The Company's
comprehensive legal reviews resulted in charges of $0 million, $16
million and $46 million for the years ending December 31, 2016,
2015 and 2014, respectively.

"The Company believes it is reasonably possible that it will incur
a loss for its asbestos-related liabilities in excess of the
amount currently recognized, which is $692 million as of December
31, 2016.  The Company estimates that reasonably possible losses
could be as high as $825 million.  This estimate of additional
reasonably possible loss reflects a legal judgment about the
number and cost of potential future claims and legal costs. The
Company believes this estimate is consistent with the level of
variability it has experienced when comparing actual results to
recent near-term projections. However, it is also possible that
the ultimate asbestos-related liability could be above this
estimate.

"The Company expects a significant majority of the total number of
claims to be received in the next ten years.  This timeframe
appropriately reflects the mortality of current and expected
claimants in light of the Company's sale of its insulation
business unit in 1958.

"The Company's asbestos-related liability is based on a projection
of new claims that will eventually be filed against the Company
and the estimated average disposition cost of these claims and
related legal costs. Changes in the significant assumptions have
the potential to impact these key factors, which are critical to
the estimation of the Company's asbestos-related liability
significantly."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AwR6l4

Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells glass containers to food and beverage manufacturers
primarily in Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Asia
Pacific. Owens-Illinois, Inc. was founded in 1903 and is
headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Activity in "Jones" at June 30
--------------------------------------------------
There is no activity in the case captioned Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County, Mo.), according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County,
Mo., filed 1998), the plaintiff filed a class action against the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a
putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers
who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is
currently no activity in this case.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jms55O

Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures
tobacco and smokeless tobacco products. The Company's subsidiary
sells its products in the United States and its territories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Parsons" Remains Dormant at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County,
W. Va.) remains dormant, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed
1998), the plaintiff brought a class action against asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of
a putative class of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke. The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually for her purported
injuries and an unspecified amount for the class in compensatory
and punitive damages. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jms55O

Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures
tobacco and smokeless tobacco products. The Company's subsidiary
sells its products in the United States and its territories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decision Pending in "Lorillard"
------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending in the case captioned Major v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Cal.), according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (Super. Ct.
Los Angeles County, Cal., filed 2011), the jury awarded the
plaintiff approximately $17.74 million in compensatory damages on
the negligence and strict liability claims and found the plaintiff
50% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 17% at fault, and RJR Tobacco and
another manufacturer collectively 33% at fault. Punitive damages
were not at issue. RJR Tobacco and the other manufacturer had been
dismissed prior to trial. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result
of the use of the defendants' products and exposure to asbestos,
the decedent, William Major, suffered from lung cancer, and sought
an unspecified amount of damages. In August 2014, the trial court
entered an initial final judgment of approximately $3.9 million
against Lorillard Tobacco. On July 1, 2015, the trial court
entered an amended final judgment in the amount of approximately
$3.78 million in compensatory damages, approximately $135,000 in
costs, approximately $1.9 million in prejudgment interest, and
post-judgment interest from August 25, 2014 in the amount of
approximately $1,100 per day. Lorillard Tobacco appealed from the
original and amended judgments, which appeals have been
consolidated, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of
approximately $9.1 million. On October 20, 2015, the appellate
court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to substitute itself for
Lorillard Tobacco. Oral argument occurred on June 27, 2017. Before
oral argument, the court issued a tentative ruling in which it
indicated it was inclined to affirm the judgment.  A decision is
pending.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jms55O

Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures
tobacco and smokeless tobacco products. The Company's subsidiary
sells its products in the United States and its territories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Chapter 11 Plan Consummated
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries said the joint plan of reorganization filed in
the Chapter 11 case of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC has been
consummated, according to EnPro Industries' Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2017, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

"During the second quarter, we achieved the final two major legal
milestones in our long journey to resolve the asbestos issue that
has weighed on our company since our founding in 2002. The
Bankruptcy Court recommended confirmation of the joint plan of
reorganization in May, and the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina confirmed the plan in early June."

"Earlier today, we announced that the joint plan of reorganization
has been consummated, effective at 12:01 a.m. today," the Company
said in a press release dated July 1, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Fj4Sq3

                   About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1st Dept. Makes Way for Implementation of Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that as
attorneys prepare to clash before an appeals court over new rules
for the New York City asbestos docket, which includes an option
for plaintiffs to assert punitive damages, the court ruled to
allow full implementation of the rules while the appeal is
pending.

A panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, issued a
brief motion order ending a stay on the new case management order
for the New York City Asbestos Litigation docket issued in July by
fellow First Department Justice Ellen Gesmer.

Gesmer's stay had spared the provision to reinstate the punitive
damages option for plaintiffs, a portion of the new order that has
been met with vehement resistance from the defense bar.

Other provisions in the new management order include limiting the
joinder of cases for trial to two cases and relaxing hearsay rules
to allow the submission of information that would typically be
barred by New York's rules of evidence.

Justices Richard Andrias, Judith Gische, Cynthia Kern, Jeffrey
Oing and Anil Singh signed the motion order.

While the ultimate fate of the case management order, which had
been set to take effect on July 20 before it was met with a legal
challenge, will be determined after arguments before a full panel
of First Department justices, Seth Dymond, a partner at Belluck &
Fox and a member of the asbestos plaintiffs' bar, said the ruling
to deny a full stay indicates that the plaintiffs bar may succeed
on the merits.

Dymond said oral arguments on the appeal are set for the First
Department's November term.

Attorneys for the asbestos defense bar did not respond to requests
for comment.

Punitive damages have been unavailable for plaintiffs since 1996,
when then-Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman deferred
punitive claims indefinitely.

But in 2014, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein Heitler
found that punitive claims could be sought; the First Department
affirmed Heitler, but stayed reintroduction of punitive claims
until a new case management order was hammered out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Headteacher Dies After Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Anita Merritt, writing for Devon Live, reported that a retired
headteacher died of asbestos exposure which she believed occurred
during her teaching career.

An inquest at Exeter's County Hall heard how Cathy Kowan, who was
living in Exmouth at the time of her death, had varied jobs, but
the majority was spent working in education.

During her retirement she was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in October 2015, following a CT scan after
complaining of having felt shortness of breath for the past six
weeks.

The following year she received chemotherapy and radiotherapy but
she passed away in a hospice in Exeter on May 3, aged 72-years-
old.

A statement from her GP Simon Kay confirmed she had smoked up
until the age of 40. He described Mrs. Kowan as "very active and
proactive", but that she had previous abdominal health problems
including a hysterectomy.

Her cause of death was confirmed as malignant mesothelioma, and an
existing condition of intra-abdominal adhesions was noted.

Mrs. Kowan's previous places of work in Devon included Copplestone
Primary School from 1986 to 1987, and Southbrook, a special school
in Exeter from 1984 to 1985.

However, in a statement made after her diagnosis, Mrs. Kowan said
she believed she might have been exposed to asbestos while working
as a headteacher at Dulvertton First School and Nursery in
Somerset.

Somerset County Council do not accept she was exposed to asbestos
during her time working for them.

Their solicitor Jamie Mitchell, who attended the inquest, said
Mrs. Kowan's husband was a carpenter who worked in a joinery shop
and would take his clothes back home from work which could have
contained asbestos fibres. However, in a previous statement the
claim was denied by Mrs. Kowan, who was born in London.

Referring to the alleged poor condition of the walls at Dulverton,
Mr. Mitchell said following investigations it was deemed
"unlikely" to have resulted in any exposure.

Mr. Mitchell said: "There is no form of evidence anywhere she was
exposed to asbestos. It's merely speculation."

Coroner John Tomalin said: "There is ongoing mitigation which is
outside of my remit. I think it's more likely than not that Mrs.
Kowan was exposed to asbestos fibres during her lifetime. As to
where this happened or when I cannot say. I have not direct
evidence to give such a conclusion."

A conclusion of asbestos related death was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Certain-Teed, Others Named in Asbestos Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a man alleges he learned in June he had developed lung cancer
and claims that it was caused by exposure to asbestos.

Luis Rivera and Sandra Rivera filed a complaint on Sept. 7 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against AERCO International Inc.,
Buffalo Air Handling, Certain-Teed Corp., et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during the entire career life of plaintiff Luis Rivera, he
was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed
by defendants. As a result, he alleges, he was wrongfully caused
to develop lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease.

The plaintiffs hold AERCO International Inc., Buffalo Air
Handling, Certain-Teed Corp., et al. others responsible because
the defendant 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 plaintiffs seek judgment in their favor, in the amount of more
than $50,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-608


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Conflict for Rivera-Soto in Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
the judge in a suit over alleged destruction of asbestos-related
evidence by BASF Corp. and law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel has
rejected claims that Roberto Rivera-Soto has a conflict of
interest that should prevent him from serving as discovery special
master.

BASF and Cahill opposed the appointment of Rivera-Soto, a former
justice of the state Supreme Court, as special master because his
firm, Ballard Spahr, was represented in an unrelated suit in the
Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia by Williams & Connolly,
which also represents Cahill in the present case.

In addition, the defendants asserted that Rivera-Soto should not
serve as master because he was with Fox Rothschild, one of the
firms representing the plaintiffs in the present case, before he
joined the Supreme Court in 2004.

The action was brought on behalf of plaintiffs in thousands of
asbestos injury suits who claimed that Engelhard, a predecessor of
BASF, and Cahill conspired to destroy evidence in those cases, and
that they were shortchanged on their recoveries as a result.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey
said Sept. 22 that the passage of 13 years since Rivera-Soto was
affiliated with Fox Rothschild was sufficient to assure
impartiality and to negate any appearance of impartiality. Linares
said Rivera-Soto's prior involvement with Fox Rothschild would not
impede his ability to be impartial in the present case, citing the
former justice's assertion that he received his equity payout from
the firm all at once, rather than in installments.

Linares also noted that New Jersey's Code of Judicial Conduct
requires a judge to refrain from hearing matters involving his
former firm for seven years, and no more.

Linares also rejected the defendants' Williams & Connolly
objections, since that firm's representation of Ballard Spahr is
over. Williams & Connolly represented Ballard Spahr in an action
to recover unpaid client fees, Ballard Spahr v. Symphony Health
Solutions, but the case settled.

Rivera-Soto has affirmed that he was not aware of the Pennsylvania
case and had no interaction with Williams & Connolly while it was
representing Ballard Spahr, according to Linares. Under the
circumstances, there is no conflict between Ballard Spahr and the
parties in the present case, and Williams & Connolly's former
representation of Ballard Spahr has no impact on his ability to
serve as an impartial special master, Linares said. He added that
the facts would not lead a reasonable person to perceive any
appearance of impropriety.

Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank,
who represents the plaintiffs and the class, declined to comment
on the dispute over Rivera-Soto, but says he's "anxious to move
the case forward."

Rivera-Soto declined to comment.

Lawyers representing BASF and Cahill did not return calls about
the case.

The controversy marks the second time in recent months that the
appointment of a special master sparked a dispute in this case.
In June, after Linares selected Garrett Brown Jr., former chief
judge for the District of New Jersey, to serve as special master,
the plaintiffs complained that his hourly rate of $900 was too
expensive. Brown declined to serve after the objections were
raised, and Linares appointed Rivera-Soto, whose hourly rate is
$695.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Products Accused of Having Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
family is suing several companies over a relative's exposure to
asbestos.

Arvinmeritor Inc., Auto Clutch/All Brake Inc., Borgwarner Morse
Tec LLC, BWDAC Inc., Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction Inc.
f/k/a Motion Control Industries Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Cummins
Inc., Dana Companies LLC, Eaton Corporation, Elgin Sweeper
Company, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Ford Motor
Company and several others are named as defendants.

Linda Melcher, personal representative for the estate of Theodore
L. Melcher, filed a complaint on Aug. 23 in Cook County Circuit
Court, alleging the defendants included asbestos in their products
despite allegedly knowing its potential harmful effect.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Melcher, an
auto mechanic, was diagnosed with cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for
allegedly failing to warn Melcher of the potential harmful effects
of prolonged exposure to asbestos.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendants in an amount
that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of this court. She is
represented by Jon R. Neumann and James Morrow of Maune Rajchle
Hartley Frency & Mudd LLC in St. Louis.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017L008552


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Power Plant Worker Gets $7.55MM Asbestos Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass, writing for Law360, reported that a Massachusetts jury
has granted a regional record of $7.55 million to a power plant
worker who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working with
asbestos at New England Insulation, the worker's attorneys said.

Following an eight-day trial, the jury issued its verdict in favor
of Gerald Sylvestre and his wife, Marjorie, over the diagnosis
tied to his former employment. The company "sold, distributed,
ripped out and installed asbestos insulation material" until the
1970s, and Sylvestre oversaw equipment at a power plant in New
Hampshire, Waters Kraus & Paul said.

"The jury's verdict is a rare bit of good news for the Sylvestre
family, given the suffering the family has endured," lead counsel
Gary Paul said in a statement. "The jury placed blame squarely
where it belongs -- with NEI, who had long-standing knowledge of
the dangers of asbestos and selfishly chose profitability over
people's lives."

Sylvestre co-counsel, Massachusetts' Thornton Law Firm, said it's
the largest verdict in an asbestos-related case in New England.
That verdict breaks down to $3 million in medical expenses, $3
million in pain and suffering and $50,000 in lost earning
capacity. Sylvestre's wife was then given the remaining $1.5
million for loss of companionship.

The jury had found that NEI was negligent, and that its breach of
its duty toward Sylvestre caused his injury. They jury also ruled
in favor of Sylvestre on breach of express and implied warranty
claims, which were related to whether NEI should have known that
its workers could be injured by the asbestos, according to the
verdict form.

Sylvestre had been healthy until he was diagnosed with the cancer
about two years ago, Waters Kraus said. Since then, he's had
multiple surgeries and chemotherapy, which stops him from enjoying
parts of life like long walks, snowshoeing and travel.

"No one should have to go through this illness, and I particularly
hate the suffering it has caused my family, especially because it
could have been prevented," Sylvestre said in a statement. "My
wife and I were very happy with the verdict, but what meant the
most was that we got to tell our story and the jury heard it and
responded as they did."

An attorney for NEI didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Sylvestre is represented by Gary M. Paul, Susan Ulrich and Chris
Johnson of Waters Kraus & Paul, and Andrea Marino Landry and
Andrew S. Wainwright of the Thornton Law Firm.

NEI is represented by Chris Sanetti and Christopher Tauro of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

The case is Gerald and Marjorie Sylvestre v. New England
Insulation Company, civil action No. 15-7031, in the Middlesex
County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Island Countries Vote to Ban Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
One Papua New Guinea reported that history was made in Apia with
the endorsement of a proposal to work with Pacific islands on
restricting or banning asbestos.

The proposal, championed by Cook Islands and co-sponsored by Tonga
and Australia, was endorsed by representatives of the 21 Pacific
island and five metropolitan members of the Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) at its Twenty-
eighth Meeting of Officials.

Speaking on behalf of Cook Islands, Director of the Cook Islands
National Environment Service, Joseph Brider, expressed delight at
the positive outcome:

     "The Cook Islands is extremely pleased with the decision of
the SPREP Meeting. We believe that it reaffirms that the Pacific
islands are truly united in our shared stewardship of the region
and our commitment towards a sustainable future."

The proposal was co-sponsored by Tonga and Australia, and received
strong support from the majority of SPREP Member countries and
territories.

Paula Ma'u, Chief Executive Officer of Tonga's Ministry of
Meteorology, Energy, Information, Disaster Management,
Environment, Climate Change and Communications, said that the move
to ban asbestos in the Pacific is particularly important given the
repeated failure of the Rotterdam Convention to reach consensus on
the listing of chrysotile asbestos on Annex III of the Convention:

"Tonga is very pleased to have been able to co-sponsor the
proposal from Cook Islands for a Pacific regional ban on asbestos.
Planning the details of the ban will be important as it will need
to allow for the importation of asbestos waste for disposal, as
some Pacific islands have limited capacity to safely dispose of
legacy asbestos stockpiles."

Information about the extent of asbestos in the Pacific region was
very limited until the European Union-funded PacWaste project
undertook a Pacific regional asbestos baseline survey in 2014.

PacWaste is a EUR7.85 million (US$9.36 million) project funded by
the European Union and implemented by SPREP to improve regional
hazardous waste management across the Pacific.

The survey found more than 187,000 square metres of confirmed non-
residential asbestos across 11 Pacific island countries, 78% of
which was classified as either high or moderate risk. The survey
also found evidence of new asbestos containing building materials
being imported into the region.

At last year's SPREP Meeting of Officials in Niue, SPREP and
PacWaste sought support for a similar ban on asbestos. While the
proposal received strong support there was apprehension from
Members as to how the implementation of such a ban would be
resourced.

SPREP's Director General, Kosi Latu, explains that these concerns
around resourcing, capacity, and monitoring for a Pacific-wide
asbestos ban have since been alleviated, thanks partly to the
announcement of new funding from the European Union for a follow-
up project called PacWaste Plus:

"This direction from our members to work with them on banning or
restricting the importation, re-use and re-sale of products and
wastes containing abestos through PacWaste Plus, will make great
inroads into ensuring the safety of future generations from the
harmful effects of asbestos."

Head of Cooperation at the European Union Delegation for the
Pacific, Christoph Wagner, noted the leadership shown by Pacific
island countries to progress with the Pacific-wide ban:

"We welcome this decision from Pacific Island nations to work
towards joining 59 other countries, including all member states of
the European Union, to ban asbestos. It's a fantastic outcome for
the health and wellbeing of communities across the Pacific region,
and a pleasing endorsement of the work undertaken through PacWaste
and planned for PacWaste Plus," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Asbestos Removal Co. Fined for Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Oregon environmental regulators
say they've fined a Salem asbestos removal company for numerous
violations of regulations.

The Statesman Journal reported that Abate Right Inc. was fined
$2,380.  Regulators say the company failed to submit notification
and fees to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality within
three days of starting work, as required, on three separate
asbestos removal projects.

The company is also accused of failing to provide accurate
information about the amount of asbestos to be removed on three
more projects and of failing to submit final air clearance reports
on four other projects.

Department of Environmental Quality spokeswoman Katherine Benenati
says the company had a chance to appeal the fine, but chose not to
do so.

Company officials did not respond to requests for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana to Take Over Asbestos Cleanup Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Brown, writing for Associated Press, reported that the
cleanup of a northwest Montana community where health
professionals say hundreds of people have been killed by asbestos
exposure entered a new phase as officials turn their focus to
keeping residents safe over the long term.

The five-member Libby Asbestos Superfund Advisory Team met for the
first time after being established by the Montana Legislature
earlier this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Ruling Instructive on "Judicial Hellhole"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that in 2013, the
roof of a refrigerated warehouse near Grand Rapids, Michigan,
collapsed.  Fish stored in the warehouse were contaminated. The
fish owner's insurer, Aspen American Insurance, paid a claim for
the losses, then turned around and sued the warehouse owner,
Interstate Warehousing, for causing the accident.

The insurance dispute went to the Illinois Supreme Court last May.
Three asbestos defendants, Honeywell, Union Carbide and
Certainteed, filed an amicus brief backing Interstate Warehousing.
Two major trial lawyers' groups, the American Association for
Justice and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, responded with
a brief backing Aspen American.

Why would a fight over insurance for a warehouse full of
contaminated fish attract dueling amicus briefs from asbestos
defendants and plaintiffs' lawyers?

Because the issue in Aspen American Insurance v. Interstate
Warehousing was whether plaintiffs from outside Illinois can sue
corporations based in other states for alleged misconduct that
took place elsewhere. And the reach of Illinois' jurisdiction is
of enormous consequence to personal injury lawyers and the
corporations they sue.

Tort reform groups, as you're probably aware, have been howling
for years about "judicial hellholes" in Cook, Madison and St.
Clair counties, where supposedly plaintiffs-friendly judges and
juries have a reputation for delivering outsized verdicts against
corporate defendants. That reputation, according to defendants,
makes Illinois jurisdictions a magnet for personal injury suit.
The American Tort Reform Foundation's latest report on unfavorable
locales for corporate defendants said that nearly one-third of all
asbestos litigation in the U.S. is filed in Madison County - and
most of those cases have no connection to the state of Illinois.

Interstate Warehouse and the asbestos defendants that backed the
company at the Illinois Supreme Court told the state justices that
it's time for Illinois trial courts to follow the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2014 directive in Daimler v. Bauman and limit general
jurisdiction to corporations that are at "at home" in Illinois -
those that are incorporated or headquartered in the state. Under
Daimler, the asbestos defendants argued, out-of-state plaintiffs
bear the burden of showing in their complaints that some
extraordinary circumstances exempt their suits from the general
rule that Illinois does not have general jurisdiction over out-of-
state corporations. Unless plaintiffs can make such a showing
without conducting discovery, defendants said, their suits must be
dismissed.

The trial lawyers' amicus brief, in an implicit acknowledgment of
the giant jurisdictional obstacle the U.S. Supreme Court erected
in Daimler, urged the Illinois Supreme Court to stick closely to
the facts in the Aspen case. The insurer established in its
complaint that Interstate has continually done business in
Illinois through the operation of a warehouse in Joliet.
Interstate did not provide a factual record to deny Aspen's
allegations. Based on those facts, the trial lawyers said, Aspen
made a prima facie case for Illinois jurisdiction.

The state Supreme Court's Sept. 21 decision gives defendants
everything they could have wanted. In a short opinion written by
Justice Anne Burke for a unanimous court, the Supreme Court agreed
that plaintiffs bear the burden "of establishing a prima facie
basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant." Under Daimler, the state court said, that means
plaintiffs must show corporate defendants are either headquartered
or incorporated in Illinois or else have, for some reason, set up
a surrogate home in the state. Plaintiffs cannot establish
jurisdiction, the court said, by arguing that the defendant has
business presence, like Interstate's Joliet warehouse, in the
state.

But that wasn't the only jurisdictional theory the state justices
rejected. Aspen also argued that Illinois' own long-arm statute
allows state courts to exercise jurisdiction over any defendant
doing business in the state. Not under Daimler, the justices said,
when "as here, there is no evidence that defendant's contacts with
Illinois have rendered it 'essentially at home' in this state."

What about Interstate's registration to do business in Illinois?
Aspen claimed Interstate effectively consented to the authority of
state courts as a condition of operating in Illinois (a common
argument by plaintiffs in the post-Daimler era). The state
justices said the registration process does not require out-of-
state corporations to submit to the jurisdiction of Illinois
courts. "Nor do they indicate that, by registering in Illinois or
appointing a registered agent, a corporation waives any due
process limitations on this state's exercise of general
jurisdiction," the opinion said. "Indeed, the act makes no mention
of personal jurisdiction at all."

The trial lawyers' brief warned of the high stakes of the Supreme
Court's decision, which it said "could have wide-ranging impact on
innumerable personal injury actions, ranging from strict product
liability claims to claims involving asbestos manufacturers (and)
claims arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act."

Given that the state justices did exactly what trial lawyers were
hoping they would not, issuing a broad prohibition on Illinois
courts grabbing for jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, I'm
expecting a wave of motions to dismiss state court suits with only
a tenuous connection to Illinois.

Interstate was represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson. The asbestos
defendants' amicus brief was by McDermott Will & Emery, Mayer
Brown and Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen. Aspen had outside counsel
from Swanson Martin & Bell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury Garage Worker Dies of Asbestos Condition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bury Free Press reported that a man who spent most of his working
life handling asbestos died from a condition associated with the
deadly material, an inquest has heard.

James Haskins, 76, of St Olaves Road, Bury St Edmunds, died on
September 2 and a post mortem examination showed died from
mesothelioma.

The inquest at Suffolk Coroners Court in Ipswich was told that
before his death, Mr. Haskins provided a statement in which he
detailed his working career.

In it, Mr. Haskins said he had for many years worked for a company
in Tottenham where he was involved in changing and cleaning
asbestos lined vehicle brakes.

The workshop atmosphere was a 'constant mist of dust' and no
protective masks or extractor fans were used. Similar conditions
existed when he worked at Barclay Motors in Bury St Edmunds,

Mr. Haskins said that he had suffered 'extensive' exposure to
asbestos dust.

Assistant Suffolk Coroner Dr. Daniel Sharpstone recorded that Mr.
Haskins died as a result of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Docs Show J&J Might Have Known Asbestos Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Parrish, writing for Manufacturing.net, reported that
Johnson & Johnson has already been targeted by lawsuits from
thousands of women who claim that the talc in the company's
signature Baby Power product gave them ovarian cancer.

Now, unsealed documents in one of the cases reveal that the
company could have been covering up another potentially hazardous
substance: asbestos.

According to a report in Bloomberg, a document from May 1974 shows
that an official from J&J urged workers at a talc mine in Vermont
to use citric acid to depress chrysotile asbestos from the site.

The mine's director of R&D reportedly wrote at the time: "The use
of these systems is strongly urged by this writer to provide
protection against what are currently considered to be materials
presenting a severe health hazard and are potentially present in
all talc ores in use at this time."

Talc and asbestos are minerals that often naturally occur close to
each other.

Until now, all of the claims against J&J that have gone to trial
have focused on the presence of talc in its baby powder. Most
research into the connection between talc and cancer have shown
that the link is weak or non-existent. But juries have often drawn
different conclusions. So far, five juries have ruled against J&J.
The company has also won one case while a few others have been
tossed out. About 5,000 suits are still pending around the
country.

The lawyers in this case allege that there could be a link between
a presences of asbestos in the powder and the plaintiff's cancer,
and that J&J tried to cover up the possibility that its product
was contaminated.

J&J claims that tests dating back to 1972 always showed that its
talc was free from asbestos.

"We are confident that our talc products are, and always have
been, free of asbestos, based on decades of monitoring, testing
and regulation," a company spokesperson said.

Yet, in a 1973 report from the Vermont mine, an official from the
company suggested that the company use corn starch instead of talc
due to concerns that asbestos could be tainting its products.

The company also reportedly tried to stop the circulation of a
booklet from an Italian mine in 1974 that claimed there were trace
amounts of asbestos in talc J&J bought from the site.

A doctor who testified for the plaintiff in the case said that
even trace amounts of asbestos in talc powders could increase the
likelihood of cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Checks Begin for Quake-Damaged Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alden Williams, writing for The Press, reported that asbestos
identification is about to start on quake-damaged buildings in the
Hurunui district.

The safe removal of asbestos from quake-damaged properties in the
Hurunui will begin with preliminary observations.

Starting in Waiau and Rotherham, a team of case workers from the
Hurunui District Council will contact red and yellow-stickered
homeowners to arrange a visit.

The case workers will perform preliminary observations to
determine whether properties require an asbestos survey before
demolition or renovation works.

If a property is identified as requiring a survey, consultants
will be contracted by Environment Canterbury (ECan), which will
ensure experts will be present for asbestos removal.

Hurunui District Council waste minimisation team leader Sally
Cracknell said asbestos-based products were mainstream in New
Zealand homes, offices, factories and other buildings from the
1920s to the mid-1980s.

It was, therefore, important to identify properties that required
the proper removal of asbestos.

"This process will ensure the avoidance of health risks associated
with exposure to asbestos, and will minimise the potential risk of
hazardous substances being managed inappropriately during the
demolition process."

The council was also offering to collect certain hazardous
substances from affected properties.  Substances identified as a
risk would be removed by a hazardous substances contractor to
ensure correct removal and disposal, Cracknell said.

Hurunui Mayor Winton Dalley said it was good to see that
homeowners of affected properties would get the advice and support
required in order to get qualified companies appointed to remove
and dispose of the material.

"The health of our communities is always a major priority for the
council and the safe removal of asbestos while renovation or
demolition of earthquake-affected properties takes place is
important for the protection of our communities' health."

The preliminary observations have been made possible by funding
from the Ministry for the Environment's Waste Minimisation Fund.

Any homeowner who suspects asbestos is present in their
earthquake-damaged properties should contact
emma.duncan@hurunui.govt.nz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State to Pay $2.9MM in Asbestos Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Payne, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that faculty
members and staff who worked in a Sonoma State University office
building that was the focus of a whistleblower trial over asbestos
mishandling will each get a piece of more than $2.9 million in
penalties handed down for violations of occupational health and
safety laws.

Those 231 who worked in Stevenson Hall during a two-year period
ending in 2015 will split about a quarter of the penalty -- or
about $3,100 each -- allotted by Judge Nancy Shaffer. State
workplace enforcement and training regulators will get the rest.

Shaffer's order comes on top of the $387,000 jury verdict awarded
earlier in March to Thomas Sargent, a 24-year university employee
who claimed he was forced from his job after raising concerns
about asbestos in Stevenson Hall and other buildings. The jury
found both Sargent's immediate superior, Craig Dawson, and the
California State University Board of Trustees liable in the case.

As part of Shaffer's order, Sargent will be reinstated to his
position as campus environmental health and safety specialist and
receive about two years' back pay.

"We are happy that between the judge and the jury, these
violations have been exposed," said Dustin Collier, an attorney
for Sargent. "The university can no longer deny their existence.
We are hopeful this will be a catalyst for change."

In addition to the penalty, the university spent about $3.5
million in legal fees to take the case to trial, said Collier and
his co-counsel, Joshua Socks.

"It was a colossal waste of taxpayer money to avoid cleaning
asbestos," Collier said.

President Judy Sakaki, appointed in 2016, did not return a call
seeking comment.

Toni Molle, a spokeswoman for the California State University
system expressed disappointment, saying penalties for some
violations were more than 100 times larger than fines that could
have been assessed by state workplace safety regulators.

Molle said the university system would appeal.

"This is an area of the law that is unsettled and there are many
unresolved issues that will need to be addressed by the Court of
Appeal and possibly, the California Supreme Court," Molle said in
an email. "We are optimistic that the appeal will be successful."

Sargent's claims shined a light on conditions in one of the
university's original buildings, named after 1960 presidential
candidate Adlai Stevenson. He raised concerns that worn or
crumbling floor and ceiling tiles in the three-story building were
releasing carcinogenic asbestos fibers. When he reported it to
superiors, they took insufficient steps to remedy the situation,
he claimed.

Instead, Sargent claimed, his boss retaliated against him,
subjecting him to a hostile working environment that left him with
no choice but to quit.

He sued, alleging harassment and violations of California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.

Jurors heard about two months of testimony before finding in
Sargent's favor and awarding him $387,895 for mental suffering,
emotional distress and lost compensation.

Shaffer ordered other penalties. About $725,000 was to be
dispersed among the 231 teachers, administrative assistants and
other university employees who worked in Stevenson Hall from May
2013 to March 2015.

Gina Voight, president of the CSU employees union at Sonoma State,
said she hoped the penalty would prompt schools throughout the 23-
campus system to reevaluate their handling of asbestos.

"We would like to see a better response from the university
instead of denial and shutting us out," Voight said. "They need to
open doors and welcome change in these old buildings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout Over Hotel IRA Bomb Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that two police forces have settled damages with
the family of an officer who died after being exposed to asbestos
when the IRA bombed Brighton's Grand Hotel during a Conservative
Party conference.

Sussex Police has confirmed to the BBC a claim involving a former
Met Police officer was settled in February.

Forensic officer Jonathan Woods was one of the first on the scene
in 1984.

A police spokesman said the claim amount, split between the Sussex
and London forces, had not been disclosed.

Last year, Sussex Police issued an alert to emergency workers who
went to the bombing that they could have been exposed to asbestos.
It followed the death of Mr. Woods months earlier.

'Sixth victim'

Conservative Party members were staying at the hotel during their
October 1984 conference -- five people died and 34 were injured in
the attack aimed at Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her
cabinet.

After the alert came from Sussex Police, lawyers for Mr. Woods
said he had spent 14 days sifting through dust and rubble by hand,
looking for evidence.

They described him as the "sixth victim" of the bombing, following
his death from mesothelioma.

Lawyers said Mr. Woods had been accompanied by 14 other officers
from the Met and 15 Sussex officers who would all, in theory, have
suffered the same exposure.

Sussex Police made contact with and sent letters to 154 people,
but said they have received no further legal claims.

Mr. Woods's family and his legal representatives have not
commented on the settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of MARDOC Plaintiffs' Claims Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned HENRY KALAMA; HERMAN COLLADO; ROY M.
JACKSON; FERMIN AGUILAR; JOHN J. LYNAM; JUNEST P. PONSON; HARRY G.
SHANNON; BILLIE JENKINS; LUIS CACERES; and JEREMIAH TODD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC.; OCEANIC
STEAMSHIP CO., INC.; AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD.; AMERICAN MAIL
LINES; KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO.; MARITIME TRANSPORT LINES, INC.;
AMICAN TRADING & PRODUCTION CORP.; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY; CENTRAL
GULF LINES STEAMSHIP; CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC.; CENTRAL GULF
STEAMSHIP CORP.; MYSTIC STEAMSHIP CORP.; ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY,
INC.; DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC.; MISSISSIPPI SHIPPING CO., INC.;
AMERADA HESS CORP.; AMERICAN TRADING TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.; and
CHAS, KURZ & CO., INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-3408 (6th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirms the decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that
the nineteen defendant-appellees did not waive or forfeit their
personal-jurisdiction defense in the twelve plaintiff-appellants'
suits.

This case arose in the late 1980s, when numerous merchant marine
plaintiffs -- these became known as the maritime docket ("MARDOC")
plaintiffs -- began suing various ship-owners and asbestos
manufacturers and suppliers in the Northern District of Ohio for
injuries related to asbestos exposure on commercial vessels. At
that time, Judge Thomas Lambros presided over their cases in the
N.D. of Ohio.

Under Judge Lambros' ruling, since it is undisputed that
defendant-appellees are among the group of defendants who had no
specific contacts with the state of Ohio, therefore defendant-
appellees were not subject to personal jurisdiction of the N.D. of
Ohio. Instead of granting the defendants' motions to dismiss,
however, Judge Lambros announced that the relevant cases should be
transferred to a venue with proper jurisdiction.

The MARDOC plaintiffs were unhappy with Judge Lambros's decision
to transfer their claims across the country and on February 13,
1990, filed a motion to transfer all defendants to a single forum.
All ship-owner defendants represented by Thompson Hine vehemently
opposed the motion to transfer in toto. Judge Lambros denied the
motion to transfer in toto.

Later in 1991, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated asbestos litigation from around the nation
into MDL No. 875, located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The ship-owner defendants represented by Thompson Hine in the
MARDOC litigation in the N.D. of Ohio strongly opposed the
consolidation and transfer. They argued to the JPML that, because
a litigation plan was already in place in the N.D. of Ohio, the
cases should remain there. The MARDOC cases were nevertheless
transferred to the MDL court in the E.D. of Pennsylvania, where
they were essentially inactive from 1996 to 2008.

In 2013, the E.D. of Pennsylvania granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. These motions to
dismiss required the E.D. of Pennsylvania to decide whether the
N.D. of Ohio -- the transferor court that would eventually oversee
trials in the MARDOC cases -- could exercise personal jurisdiction
over the ship-owner defendants.

While deciding the motions to dismiss, the MDL court first
recognized, as the N.D. of Ohio had in 1989, that the N.D. of Ohio
lacks personal jurisdiction over those defendants who did not
maintain any specific contacts with Ohio. The MDL court then
rejected the MARDOC plaintiffs' argument that the ship-owner
defendants had waived their personal-jurisdiction defense by
filing answers in the N.D. of Ohio.

The E.D. of Pennsylvania also denied the MARDOC plaintiffs'
request to transfer the claims against the defendants over which
there was no personal jurisdiction in Ohio to a venue with proper
jurisdiction. The E.D. of Pennsylvania accordingly dismissed
thousands of parties.

Now, twelve plaintiffs appeal the E.D. of Pennsylvania's decision
as it relates to nineteen defendants.

The Sixth Circuit finds that the MDL court did not abuse its
discretion when it decided that the Thompson Hine defendants,
including defendant-appellees, did not waive or forfeit their
personal-jurisdiction defense. Under the unusual circumstances of
this case, the court reasonably concluded that the MARDOC
plaintiffs failed to prove waiver or forfeiture, either through
the ship-owner defendants' filing answers in response to Judge
Lambros' directives, or through their conduct later in the
litigation.

The Sixth Circuit notes that the Plaintiff-appellants frame Judge
Lambros's order as an ultimatum -- waive personal jurisdiction in
the N.D. of Ohio by filing answers there, or be transferred out --
and argue that the only logical inference when the ship-owner
defendants filed answers in response is that the defendants were
consenting to personal jurisdiction.

However, the Sixth Circuit points out that the defendants' express
objection to personal jurisdiction in the N.D. of Ohio in their
master answers, along with the motion requesting leave to
immediately appeal Judge Lambros' transfer order, negates that
inference. The ship-owner defendants' intent could not have been
clearer from their assertion in Master Answer No. 2 that they were
filing answers "under protest" to "preserve the status quo" while
they continued to seek dismissal through an immediate appeal of
Orders 40 and 41.

Given the strength of the ship-owner defendants' statements in
their answers that they did not intend to forgo their personal-
jurisdiction defense, and in light of the full record at that
juncture, the Sixth Circuit maintains that it was within the MDL
court's discretion to take the answers at face value and reject
plaintiff-appellants' waiver argument.

Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit concludes that the ship-owner
defendants' objections against transfer of a group of forty-four
cases to the Eastern District of Michigan -- raised before Judge
Lambros at the January 8, 1991 hearing, in a motion for re-
transfer, and in a petition to the Sixth Circuit for a writ of
mandamus -- cannot prove forfeiture, because the forty-four
transferred cases did not include plaintiff-appellants' cases.
While the cases that were transferred to the E.D. of Michigan did
include several of the named defendant-appellees, it was only in
their capacity as defendants in lawsuits brought by MARDOC
plaintiffs that are not party to this appeal.

The Sixth Circuit maintains that it would be improper to impute
statements about waiver of personal jurisdiction made on behalf of
a defendant in one lawsuit to the same defendant in a separate
suit. Thus, this evidence does not govern whether the parties in
this appeal forfeited their personal-jurisdiction defense.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 13, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/5pwrQM from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Blossers' Bid to Compel Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington denies William and Marcia Blosser's
motion to compel Weir Valve & Controls USA, Inc., to respond fully
to discovery, motion to compel William Powell Company to respond
fully to discovery, and motion to compel Flowserve US, Inc., to
respond fully to discovery.

On March 31, 2017, the Blossers filed a complaint against numerous
defendants, including Weir, William Powell, and Flowserve,
alleging liability resulting from exposure to asbestos.

On July 26, 2017, the Blossers filed a motion to compel Weir to
comply with discovery requests. On August 7, 2017, Weir responded.

In this motion, the Court finds it unclear whether the Parties
conferred or attempted to confer to resolve this dispute without
Court action. While the Blossers' attorney certifies that he
called and emailed Weir's attorney, he declares that he threatened
a motion to compel regardless of Weir's attempt to comply with the
discovery requests. Similarly, Weir has submitted an email
exchange including the exact same threat to file a motion to
compel without any indication of a good faith attempt to resolve
this dispute. The Court finds this failure sufficient to deny the
motion to compel.

The Court observes that the Parties appear to be at an impasse
regarding Weir's search of its electronic database. The Court
agrees with the Blossers that the information it seeks seems
relevant and readily identifiable. For example, the Blossers seek
information on "any and all Atwood-Morrill valves on the Kitty
Hawk and the Peleliu at any time, as well as any of its valves and
replacement parts sent to PSNS in 1976 and 1977 when Mr. Blosser
was working there."

The Court finds Weir's contentions -- that its database is not
searchable by ship name or hull number and that doing a manual
review would be incomprehensible -- illusive, in that it asserts
there is only one possible way to electronically search its
database. The Court agrees with the the Blossers that "Weir offers
no legitimate reason why it cannot use [optical character
recognition] on its electronic database."

To the extent that Weir's database may be subject to alternative
search parameters, the Court directs the Parties to meet and
confer on this issue. The Court also suggests that Weir may need
to consult a third party vendor if necessary because, without
additional support, requiring the Blossers to submit specific part
numbers seems unacceptable.

On July 31, 2017, the Blossers filed motions to compel William
Powell and Flowserve to comply with discovery requests. On August
14, 2017, William Powell and Flowserve responded.

In this motion, the Blossers ask the Court for an order (1)
striking the boilerplate objections, (2) compelling William Powell
to fully produce relevant documents, and (3) produce a 30(b)(6)
deponent. Because the parties have resolved the 30(b)(6) issue,
the Court will deny this portion of the motion as moot.

Regarding the request to compel full production, however, William
Powell asserts that "it has no documents responsive to the
Blossers' requests." Accordingly, the Court cannot compel a party
to produce that which its attorney certifies it does not have in
its possession. The Court maintains that Stale testimony and
speculation based on website advertisements do not overcome an
attorney's certification to the Court.

The Court determines that the Blossers have failed to show that a
dispute exists that requires Court intervention. For instance, the
Blossers move the Court to compel Flowserve to provide a date for
a 30(b)(6) deposition. Yet, the Blossers' attorney declares that
"several dates have been proposed by both sides, but no agreement
has been reached yet." Thus, dates have already been provided by
Flowserve.

Moreover, Flowserve contends that it informed the Blossers that it
will "make responsive documents available at a mutually agreeable
time and location" and that the "invitation remains outstanding."
In light of these contentions, the Court denies without prejudice
the motion to compel Flowserve because the Blossers have failed to
show at this time a need for Court action.

The case is WILLIAM C. BLOSSER and MARCIA J. BLOSSER, Plaintiffs,
v. ASHCROFT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-5243 BHS,
(W.D. Wash.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/uj1Kdo from Leagle.com.

William C Blosser, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn S. Draper,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC.

William C Blosser, Plaintiff, represented by Anna D. Knudson,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H. Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Matthew Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC & Ruby K. Aliment, BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND.

Marcia J. Blosser, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn S. Draper,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Anna D. Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H. Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC,
Matthew Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Ruby K.
Aliment, BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES
LLP & G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alice
Coles Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP &
Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall
Carlton, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON &
REES.

Velan Valve Corp, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig, GORDON
REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dana
C. Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER & Ryan W. Vollans, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by James D.
Hicks, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Brian Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
Edward Horne, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Gibbs Dropped in "Rodriguez"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a Stipulation, Judge William H. Orrick of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
dismisses Defendant Gibbs & Cox, Inc., from the case styled
Dominga Rodriguez, as Successor-in-Interest to and as Wrongful
Death Heir of Pedro Rodriguez, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Marine
Engineering and Supply Company, et al., Defendants, No. 3:17-cv-
02733-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Orrick also remands the case to the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, Case. No. CGC-17-276558.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/BCazuh from Leagle.com.

Dominga Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

Dominga Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly Joy Wai Jun
Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Gibbs & Cox, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah Ann Smith,
Tucker Ellis LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Filipeks' Asbestos PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District
Minnesota has issued an order dismissing the case captioned Marlin
P. Filipek and Dorothy Filipek, Plaintiffs, v. The Boeing Company,
et al., Defendants, Civil No. 16-1998(DSD/BRT), (D. Minn.), with
prejudice.

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds filed by the Defendants The Boeing Company,
Navistar, Inc., Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, CBS Corporation, McNeil
Corporation, Northern States Power Company, and United
Technologies Corporation, and the motion for withdrawal of
admissions by Plaintiffs Marlin Filipek and Dorothy Filipek.

This products liability action arises out of Marlin Filipek's
decades-long exposure to asbestos from materials and products
containing asbestos that were allegedly manufactured, sold,
supplied, or distributed by defendants. Mr. Filipek was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in January 2016. He and his wife commenced this
suit on May 23, 2016, alleging that his illness was caused by that
asbestos exposure, and asserting claims of negligence, strict
liability, and breach of warranty.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that the
claims are time-barred due to Mr. Filipek's earlier diagnosis of
asbestosis -- an asbestos-related disease that can precede
mesothelioma -- in approximately 2006. According to Defendants,
the asbestosis diagnosis started the clock on the limitations
period, which then expired no later than 2012.

The Defendants rely on several notations in Mr. Filipek's medical
records to support its position that he was diagnosed with
asbestosis in 2006 and possibly earlier.

The Plaintiffs respond that the notations in the medical records
are insufficient to establish that Mr. Filipek had in fact been
previously diagnosed with asbestosis or, more important, that he
was aware of any such diagnosis. In his July 2016 deposition, Mr.
Filipek did not recall being diagnosed with asbestosis "about ten
years ago," although he did say that "it sounded familiar."

In addition to the medical records, however, the Defendants also
rely on Mr. Filipek's later discovery responses (dated March 6,
2017) in which he admitted that he was diagnosed with asbestosis
more than six years before commencing this suit. He likewise
stated that he was diagnosed with asbestosis in "roughly 2005" in
his interrogatory responses. The Plaintiffs now argue that the
Court should allow them to withdraw Mr. Filipek's admission
because it was made in error.

The Plaintiffs argue that withdrawing the admission will promote
the presentation of the case on the merits because the evidence in
the record contradicts the admission. The Court disagrees, Mr.
Filipek's medical records support a finding that he was diagnosed
with asbestosis in approximately 2006.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the medical records from 2006 do
not confirm the asbestosis diagnosis referenced in later records.
But the Plaintiffs have not provided those records to the Court.
As such, the Court must review the plain language of more recent
records, which consistently note that Mr. Filipek was diagnosed
with asbestosis in approximately 2006.

The Plaintiffs further argue that their expert witness, Dr. Edwin
Holstein, effectively casts doubt on Mr. Filipek's asbestosis
diagnosis. The Court finds Dr. Holstein's report insufficient to
undermine the plain reading of the medical records. Further, the
Court points out that the question presented is not whether Mr.
Filipek was correctly diagnosed with asbestosis, but rather
whether he was told he was diagnosed with asbestosis before May
23, 2010. Indeed, the medical records support a finding that Mr.
Filipek did know about the 2006 diagnosis and that he is very
likely the person who gave that information to his doctors in
later years.

The Court explains that reference to asbestos exposure in the
military must have come from Mr. Filipek, as the doctors would not
have known that information independently. The Court maintains
that Mr. Filipek's inability to later recall being diagnosed with
asbestosis during his deposition -- and while suffering from
mesothelioma -- does not supersede the clear statements in the
medical records.

The Court concludes that Mr. Filipek's under oath responses to
interrogatories confirm that he was knowingly diagnosed with
asbestosis long before May 23, 2010. The Court acknowledges that
the Defendants would be prejudiced if it were to permit the
Plaintiffs to withdraw the admission -- which is consistent with
the other evidence in the record and serves as Mr. Filipek's last
word on the issue given his death several months ago. That fact,
plus the lack of contemporaneous medical records and the close of
discovery several months ago, forecloses the Defendants from
pursuing the matter further. Under these circumstances, the Court
concludes that the Defendants rightly relied on the admission and
would be prejudiced if it were withdrawn.

Because the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that
Mr. Filipek was knowingly diagnosed with asbestosis in
approximately 2006, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' claim
accrued when he was diagnosed with asbestosis in approximately
2006.  As a result, the limitations period expired long before the
Filipeks filed this suit.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 21, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/ZGHSVj from Leagle.com.

Marlin P. Filipek, Plaintiff, represented by Chad C. Alexander,
Sieben Polk PA.

Marlin P. Filipek, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Martin Przybysz,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Michael S.
Polk, Sieben Polk Law Firm, Michael R. Strom, Sieben Polk Law Firm
& Taeri C. Oh, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac
vice.

Dorothy Filipek, Plaintiff, represented by Chad C. Alexander,
Sieben Polk PA, Eric Martin Przybysz, Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Michael S. Polk, Sieben Polk Law Firm,
Michael R. Strom, Sieben Polk Law Firm & Taeri C. Oh, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Brian David Gross,
Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, pro hac vice, David N. Lutz, Bowman &
Brooke LLP, Javier F. Flores, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, pro hac
vice & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, represented by David E.
Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Hansen,
Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Defendant, represented by David E.
Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Northern States Power Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier, Larson King,
LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Robert B. Bauer,
Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William M.
Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by David P. Graham,
Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett PLLC.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emily
L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher & Geer,
PLLP, Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice &
Lance Wilson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by David E. Scouton, Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP, Jennifer M. McKibben, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &
Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz, Bowman &
Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Jonathan P. Parrington, Pustorino Tilton Parrington & Lindquist.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyle B.
Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.

Goodrich Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Jonathan P.
Parrington, Pustorino Tilton Parrington & Lindquist.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyle B.
Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.

MW Custom Papers, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Jonathan P.
Parrington, Pustorino Tilton Parrington & Lindquist.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyle B.
Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
McKibben, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
McKibben, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.

Wyeth Holdings LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by C. Todd
Koebele, HKM Law Group, Peter W. Wanning, HKM Law Group & Roland
J. Wells, III, HKM, P.A..

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyle B.
Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
David N. Lutz, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman &
Brooke LLP.

Farrel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Dougherty, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Dorothy Filipek, Cross Defendant, represented by Chad C.
Alexander, Sieben Polk PA, Michael S. Polk, Sieben Polk Law Firm,
Michael R. Strom, Sieben Polk Law Firm & Taeri C. Oh, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

Marlin P. Filipek, Cross Defendant, represented by Chad C.
Alexander, Sieben Polk PA, Michael S. Polk, Sieben Polk Law Firm,
Michael R. Strom, Sieben Polk Law Firm & Taeri C. Oh, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan M.
Hansen, Meagher & Geer, PLLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

McNeil (Ohio) Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
E. Scouton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Joanna Salmen, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Kyle B. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield.

Navistar, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Northern States Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP, Margaret Jennings Meier,
Larson King, LLP & Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP.

Rihm Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert B.
Bauer, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. & William
M. Topka, Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer PA.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David P.
Graham, Dykema Gossett, PLLC & Kristina Kaluza, Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David N. Lutz,
Bowman & Brooke LLP & Jesse E. Sater, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, John C. Hughes, Meagher &
Geer, PLLP & Knight Stanford Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Fitzgerald Opinions Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District affirms
the Trial Court's finding that Plaintiff Elizabeth Alfaro was not
exposed to asbestos from Cashmere Bouquet, and concludes that the
Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the
challenged portions of Sean Fitzgerald's opinions.

Elizabeth Alfaro was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 38. She
claimed her disease was a result of exposure to asbestos contained
in talcum powder products she used as a child. Her claims for
negligence and strict product liability proceeded to trial against
defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company, the manufacturer of Cashmere
Bouquet talcum powder, and Imerys Talc America, Inc., the
successor-in-interest to the talc suppliers for Colgate during the
relevant time period.

Alfaro designated Sean Fitzgerald as an expert on geology and
asbestos testing. Alfaro sought to establish her exposure to
asbestos from Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder through Fitzgerald's
opinions offered at trial.

Fitzgerald sought to testify regarding findings of asbestos
contamination in 46 talc samples, the majority of which were
contained in previously-opened vintage Cashmere Bouquet containers
dating from the 1960s and 1970s. Fitzgerald only tested a handful
of these samples himself, but also relied upon the testing of
additional samples by two other experts.

Based at least in part on the vintage sample testing, Fitzgerald's
proposed testimony included the opinion that the Cashmere Bouquet
products used by Alfaro "included asbestos." Moreover, he opined,
"to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Ms. Alfaro
was repeatedly exposed throughout her childhood, by use of Colgate
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powders, to significant airborne
asbestos."

The Defendants argued that the vintage samples were unreliable
because of the significant gaps in the chain of custody between
their original sale and their collection and testing by Alfaro's
experts decades later. As such, the Defendants said that
Fitzgerald could not reasonably rely on the samples as
representative of Cashmere Bouquet used by Alfaro during her
youth.

The Defendants' experts also criticized Fitzgerald's methods and
findings, including the classification and level of countable
asbestos fibers, and the validity of the historical testing upon
which Fitzgerald relied.

The Defendants' experts opined that Alfaro's mesothelioma
originated in her abdomen, rather than her lungs, and given that
origination point, as well as her age and gender, her cancer
likely arose spontaneously, rather than from asbestos exposure.

The Trial Court allowed the testimony, but excluded two aspects of
Fitzgerald's proposed testimony: (1) his recent testing of talc
from vintage Cashmere Bouquet containers, as well as an article
authored by Fitzgerald and two others based on this testing; and
(2) his ultimate conclusion that Alfaro was exposed to
"substantial" asbestos from her use of Cashmere Bouquet.

The Trial Court excluded evidence of Fitzgerald's glovebox testing
because the tests were conducted using the vintage Cashmere
Bouquet samples. Because those samples were found to be an
unreliable measure of the historical presence of asbestos in
Cashmere Bouquet, the Court found Fitzgerald could not testify as
to the amount of asbestos released from those samples during his
glovebox testing. Accordingly, the jury found for the Defendants
on the issue of exposure.

On appeal, Alfaro contends that the trial court erred in excluding
two aspects of Fitzgerald's proposed testimony: (1) his reliance
on recent testing of vintage Cashmere Bouquet samples obtained
from various sources; and (2) his ultimate opinion that Alfaro was
likely exposed to "significant" asbestos levels through her use of
Cashmere Bouquet.

The Defendants argue the Trial Court was within its discretion to
find that these portions of Fitzgerald's opinions were
inadmissible as unreliable.

The Court of Appeals agrees with the Defendants that the Court of
Appeals finds that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in
finding these samples presented an unreliable basis for
Fitzgerald's opinions, and excluding Fitzgerald's proffered
testimony on that basis.

The Court of Appeals finds it clear from the record that the Trial
Court has determined the vintage samples could not be reasonably
relied upon by Fitzgerald as authentic, unaltered samples of
Cashmere Bouquet due to the substantial gaps in the chain of
custody. The Court points out that Fitzgerald could reasonably
rely on the vintage samples only if he had a logical basis to
conclude that those samples were what they purported to be -- but
all of the samples had been opened and used prior to their recent
testing.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals finds that Fitzgerald admitted he
could not account for the whereabouts of the majority of the
samples for several decades, including the manner in which they
were stored or how many hands they had passed through. Notably,
the Court rules that most of the samples had been displayed or
sold on the secondary market as vintage items; there was no
evidence that any had been maintained with the intent of properly
preserving their contents.

The Court of Appeals determines that the chain of custody issues
before the Trial Court did not require the Plaintiff to meet a
technical procedural requirement, but rather, the Trial Court
concluded they invalidated the very basis for Fitzgerald's
opinion. Given the significant foundational issues raised, the
Court of Appeals is not convinced that the trial court abused its
discretion in determining the vintage samples fell below the limit
of reliability.

Alfaro also points to "the fact that some of the tested samples
demonstrated an asbestos concentration of over 200 million
asbestos fibers per gram of powder" as a further indication of
reliability. The Court of Appeals is not persuaded considering
that the Trial Court's role as gatekeeper was to determine whether
the materials Fitzgerald relied on could provide a reasonable
basis for his opinion -- that analysis does not include "choosing
between competing expert opinions" on asbestos levels as a basis
for a finding of reliability. Therefore, the Court of Appeals
maintains that it could not assume the truth of the results
claimed by Plaintiff as a basis upon which to show that the tests
were reliable.

In addition, the Court of Appeals determines that the Trial Court
carefully considered the competing factors, as it rejected
Defendants' challenges to Fitzgerald's reliance on the historical
testing and on his own testing methodologies, recognizing that
there was a sufficient basis to allow presentation of both sides
of those issues to the jury. The Court also determines that there
were no indications that the trial court improperly focused on the
relative persuasiveness of Fitzgerald's opinion or substituted its
own opinion for Fitzgerald's. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that the vintage samples were not sufficiently reliable to support
Fitzgerald's opinions.

The case is DELGADINA ALFARO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IMERYS
TALC AMERICA INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No.
B277284, (Cal. App. 2nd).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 25, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/QkFAKD from Leagle.com.

The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; The Lanier Law Firm, Mark Asa
Linder, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, William B. Adams, Morgan Tovey
and Adam Abensohn for Defendant and Respondent Colgate-Palmolive
Company.

Dentons US, Brad DeJardin, Jules S. Zeman and Caren Dawson
Dombrowski for Defendant and Respondent Imerys Talc America, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Frank Testimony Preclusion
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms
the District Court's decision precluding Charles Krik from
offering Dr. Arthur Frank or any expert testimony espousing "each
and every exposure theory" at trial.

Charles Krik has lung cancer. He smoked a pack and a half of
cigarettes every day for thirty years from 1954 until 1960.
Charles Krik also worked aboard navy vessels removing insulation
produced by Owens-Illinois, Inc., which he claimed exposed him to
asbestos fibers. And for two weeks, he worked as an independent
contractor at Exxon Mobil's Joliet refinery replacing heaters that
Krik claimed were insulated with asbestos.

Mobil presented counter-evidence that the insulation at its
refinery did not contain asbestos. The defendants maintained that
cigarettes and not asbestos exposure caused Krik's lung cancer.

Nevertheless, Krik's position was that Owens-Illinois and Mobil
exposed him to asbestos which was a substantial cause of his lung
cancer. The jury, however, found that cigarettes were the sole
cause of Krik's cancer.

Krik now claims that that the District Court erred by excluding
testimony about medical causation from his expert, Dr. Arthur
Frank, and that he was denied a fair trial when Mobil, with the
knowledge of Owens-Illinois, hired a private investigator to
secretly conduct an interview of a sitting juror's acquaintance,
to verify and investigate information revealed by the juror.

Prior to trial, the Defendants filed motions seeking to exclude
Dr. Arthur Frank and other witnesses from testifying about a
theory of causation often referred to as "each and every exposure
theory," "any exposure theory," "the single fiber theory," or "no
safe level of exposure theory" among others. These theories posit
that any exposure to asbestos fibers whatsoever, regardless of the
amount of fibers or length of exposure constitutes an underlying
cause of injury to the exposed individual.

At the conclusion of the presentation of these pre-trial motions,
the District Court concluded that Krik had not established that
the "any exposure" theory was sufficiently reliable to warrant
admission. As such, the Court precluded Krik from offering any
expert testimony espousing such a theory at trial. The Court noted
that asbestos induced lung cancer is dosage dependent -- that is,
the risk of contracting lung cancer from asbestos depends on the
length of time of exposure and the amount of exposure.

The District Court explained that Dr. Frank's theory was based on
a premise that each and every exposure to asbestos, including the
first exposure, no matter how de minimis, "is a substantial
contribution to the cumulative total." The Court described that
the experts had not presented any individualized analysis of the
level of asbestos exposure, had provided only generalized
citations to scientific literature with no indication that they
were authorities upon which the experts would rely, did not
identify any peer-reviewed scientific journal adopting this
theory, did not cite any medical studies or discuss an error rate.

Consequently, the District Court concluded that Krik had not
established that the "any exposure" theory was sufficiently
reliable to warrant admission under Rule 702 and the Supreme
Court's seminal case on the admissibility of expert witness
testimony, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993). Accordingly, the Court precluded Krik from offering
any expert testimony espousing such a theory at trial. Krik does
not challenge that ruling through this appeal.

The Seventh Circuit concludes that it was not an abuse of
discretion to exclude the testimony or to deny the motion for a
new trial. The Seventh Circuit agrees with the District Court that
Dr. Frank's cumulative exposure theory was no different from the
"each and every exposure" theory in all relevant ways.

The Seventh Circuit explains that the principle behind the "each
and every exposure" theory and the cumulative exposure theory is
the same -- that it is impossible to determine which particular
exposure to carcinogens, if any, caused an illness. In other
words, just like "each and every exposure," the cumulative
exposure theory does not rely upon any particular dose or exposure
to asbestos, but rather all exposures contribute to a cumulative
dose. The ultimate burden of proof on the element of causation,
however, remains with the Plaintiff.

The case is CHARLES KRIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-3112, (7th
Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 31, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/JVaDFt from Leagle.com.

Robert H. Riley, for Defendant-Appellee.

Howard Patrick Morris, for Defendant-Appellee.

Robert G. McCoy, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew J. Fischer, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael P. Cascino, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward Casmere, for Defendant-Appellee.

Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., for Defendant-Appellee.

Joshua Douglas Lee, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brian O'Connor Watson, for Defendant-Appellee.

David Francis Fanning, for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Validity of NSRC Release
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN BARRY COLE, as Executor of the ESTATE
OF AARON JETHRO COLE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Record
No. 161163, (Va. Sup. Ct.), the Supreme Court of Virginia
considers whether a release of liability is void under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act.

For more than 35 years, Aaron J. Cole worked as a machinist for
Norfolk Southern Railway Company. 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 Norfolk
Southern Railway's negligence.

In his complaint, Cole 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 alleged that
because of his occupational pneumoconiosis, he has now 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 Norfolk Southern Railway's
negligence. On the other hand, Norfolk Southern Railway 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.

FELA renders common carrier railroads liable in damages to any
person suffering injury while employed by the carrier if the
injury resulted in whole or in part from the carrier's negligence.
Congress also "prohibited employers from exempting themselves from
FELA through contract."

In this case, the Circuit Court found as fact that when Cole
signed the release "he had contemplated his injuries -- he knew of
the possible future effects of his injuries [including the risk of
developing cancer] and he was ready and willing to release Norfolk
Southern Railway from those claims."

Next, and most significantly, the release's language is similar to
much of the wording contained in Cole's 1996 asbestosis complaint.
There, Cole specifically put at issue his "fear of contracting. .
. lung cancer and/or other cancers" and "increased risk of
contracting mesothelioma, lung cancer, and/or other cancers,"
demonstrating that he was aware of these risks. He then settled
this claim with a release that specifically absolved Norfolk
Southern Railway from "any" liability related to Cole's "increased
risk of cancer . . . fear of cancer . . . [and] any and all forms
of cancer." Given this similar wording, it was reasonable for the
Circuit Court to conclude that when the parties executed the
release they knew, and intended to resolve, all the issues raised
in Cole's complaint, including any future cancer claims arising
from his exposure to asbestos.

The Supreme Court notes that the Circuit Court's factual
conclusion that Cole intended to release all future cancer claims
when he executed the release, including the present lung cancer
claim, is not plainly wrong or without evidentiary support. Thus,
applying the risk of harm test, the Supreme Court finds the
release of Cole's claim did not violate Section 5 of FELA.

Under the risk of harm test, the Supreme Court explains that a
release does not violate Section 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 Supreme Court finds that 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. Accordingly, Supreme Court affirms
the Circuit Court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Opinion 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.






                             *********


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  * * *