CAR_Public/171013.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, October 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 203



                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM: "Knipe" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
AMERICAN GOLF: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Garcia" Suit Says
AT&T SERVICES: Training Managers Ink $2.75M Class Action Wage Deal
BLOOMBERG LP: Court Grants Class Certification in NYLL Suit
BMW BANK: 3rd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling

BROTHER'S BAKERY: Ramirez Rojas Sues Over Inappropriate Wages
C.A.A.I.R.: Faces "Copeland" Suit in N. Dist. Okla.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
CENTRAL AMUSEMENT: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. of New York
CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Adopts Conditional Class Certification

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Sansone" Suit Moved to S.D. California
COMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Banks, Business Groups File Lawsuits
CYPRESS SECURITY: Reese Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Jail Overdetentions

DJI TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Howard"
DOMETIC CORPORATION: Faces "Zimmer" Suit in C.D. California
ECLIPSE FINANCIAL: Faces "Best" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
ELMCROFT SENIOR: "Gallegos" Suit Moved to S.D. California
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Spilski Sues over Debt Collection Practices

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Thomson" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Meyers" Suit over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martin" Sues over Consumer Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Ramsay" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Flores" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Protect Class Members' PII, Melrath Alleges
EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Sues for Failure to Protect Personal Info
EQUIFAX INC: Maryland Only Class Action Suit Filed After Breach
FC BACKGROUND: Faces RTR Suit over Workforce Screening Services
GALE/TRIANGLE INC: Court OK's $650K Class Action Settlement

GAMESTOP CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach
GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces "Lorenti" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
GEO GROUP: Faces "Olmos" Suit in Arizona
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ellis" Suit over Gender Pay Gap
GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York

GULF WORLD: Faces "Vallee" over Credit Card Receipts
HERBALIFE LTD: Accused by Rodgers of Negligent Misrepresentation
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: "Arguelles" Suit Moved to S.D. California
J. R. CARLSON: Faces "Kramarz" Suit over L-Glutamine Product
JLN CONSTRUCTION: Lee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

KITE PHARMA: "Morrissey" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gilead
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Fan Injuries at Games
MARRIOT OWNERSHIP: Faces Labor Class Action in California
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Ehrlich Sues over Benefit Payments
MASTERCARD INC: Consumer's GBP14-Bil. Class Action Appeal Denied

MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of "Mojsiej" Appeal
MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of "Rehn" Appeal
MEDICAL REHABILITATION: Faces "Bungy" Suit in Del. Super. Ct.
MICHIGAN: Class Action Over Flint Schools Gets Green Light
MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Show Cause Why "Tripp" Must Not Be Remanded

MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Ritchie" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Ayres" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Expert Issues Opinion, Concussion Suits Pending
NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Stallworth" Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Home Care Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime

NEW ZEALAND: Class Action Mulled v. Councils Over Leaky Buildings
NORTHWEST CASCADE: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Odors
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Lawsuits Over Windshield Wiper Fluid
OASIS LEGAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Shomer" Suit in E.D. New York

ORACLE: Former Employees Sue Over Pay Discrimination
OREGON: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over DHS In-Home Services
PARKING SOLUTIONS: Ct. Adopts Final Approval of Class Settlement
PENSKE LOGISTICS: "Stuck" Suit Moved to N.D. California
PFIZER INC: Faces "Al Haj" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois

PHILLIPS STEEL: Son Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Terminated as Defendant in "Mathein"
PIERATT'S INC: "Henderson" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
R&R EXPRESS: "Rood" Suit Wants Damages for Non-Payment of Wages
R.T.G. FURNITURE: "Bulgajewski" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida

RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: "Tovar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Hit with CA Over Hurricane Harvey Cancellation
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Judge OKs Illinois CA Over Home Inspections
SATELLITE COUNTRY: "Prejean" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bitcoin Fraud

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Wright Petitioners Oppose Sale to Platinum
SHINE CORPORATE: Quinn Emanuel Files Class Action
SINGING RIVER: Steven Simpson Removed as Pension Plan Overseer
SNOWPLOW LH: Faces "Yu" Suit over Downpayment for Condo Purchase
SOR TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dickson" Suit in C.D. California

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Denies Move to Dismiss FAC in "Smith"
STATE COLLECTION: Faces "Simpson" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ruling Could Up Suits Over Wage Disputes
TENNESSEE: Sued Over License Suspensions Due to Unpaid Fines
TERANET: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal in Class Action

TRANS UNION: Faces "Jakob" Suit over Fair Credit Reporting Act
UNITED STAFFING: "Byers" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
UNITED STATES: 10th Cir. Affirms Settlement in Prisoner's Suit
UNITED STATES: Ct. Adopts Prelim Approval of "Moss" Settlement
URBAN SETTLEMENT: Court Denies Move to Strike Class Allegations

VERASTIQUE ENTERPRISES: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Merkel's Party Rejects Call for Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Alters" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
WELLS FARGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Window and Door Financing
WENDY'S COMPANY: Banczak and Jastrzebska Sue over Beverage Tax

WESTPORT RECOVERY: Accused by "McElveen" Suit of Violating FDCPA
WS ENERGY: "Mansilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
ZILLOW GROUP: "Shotwell" Securities Suit Cites CFPB Probe

* California Helps Workers Sue Their Bosses
* NCEO Analyzes Recent Trends in Employer Stock Plan Litigation


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 278 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 508 Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metlife Unit Had 1,896 New Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 309 Asbestos Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former College Technician Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Continue Asbestos Libby Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Close Jersey Shore District
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BART to Remove Asbestos from Powell St. Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Case vs J&J Being Heard in Pasadena

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Asbestos Talc Caused Illness, Jury Told
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uphill Battle to Ban Use of Asbestos in Vietnam
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Fears Halts Sydney Opera House Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tipper Caught Dumping Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Asbestos Cancer Victim Seeks Answers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Probes Into Aberdeen Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Costs Jump to $3.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Probes Complaint of Asbestos at Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mistrial in Johnson & Johnson Asbestos Talc Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarries Closed Over Fertilizer Asbestos Scare

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Filings Allege Secondhand Exposure to Son
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms $9MM Award in "Miller"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties "Richey" Directed to Re-File Filings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holzer" Remanded to Missouri State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Sustaining Bare-Metal Defense Affirmed






                            *********


AMAZON.COM: "Knipe" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Persis Knipe, an individual, on
behalf of herself, on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., a Corporation; Amazon
Logistics, Inc., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
Case No. 37-02017-00029426-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on Sep. 14, 2017
from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01889-
WQH-JMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William Q. Hayes.

Amazon.com, doing business as Amazon, is an American electronic
commerce and cloud computing company based in Seattle, Washington
that was founded by Jeff Bezos on July 5, 1994.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theresa Mak, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS
          1 Market, Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1354
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: theresa.mak@morganlewis.com


AMERICAN GOLF: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Garcia" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, a
California corporation; AGC FIELD OPERATIONS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC675985 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and all
wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time
worked.

The Defendants operate and manage golf courses in California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile (310) 553-3603


AT&T SERVICES: Training Managers Ink $2.75M Class Action Wage Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a class of corporate
training managers asked a California federal judge on September 29
to approve a $2.75 million settlement with AT&T, which would end
its suit alleging the telecom giant misclassified them as
independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a motion for preliminary approval, the class asked U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria to approve a deal with what it
admitted was "a somewhat unusual structure." The proposal includes
a hybrid fund that is both a common fund for California class
members and FLSA opt-ins and a claims-made fund for out-of-staters
who could but have not yet asserted a claim under the FLSA.
Attorneys said that while the settlement's implementation would be
complex, it was a good result for the class and collective of
employees.

"Settlement now saves class members significant risk of no
recovery, the cost of individual litigation, and the delay
inherent in further litigation and possible appeals. The
litigation is highly complex, both procedurally and
substantively," the complaint said. "Further litigation could
easily last several more years and investment of hundreds of
thousands of dollars more in costs, and a million dollars or more
of attorney time."

Named plaintiffs Wendell Walton and Michael Mantonya filed the
wage and hour suit in 2015, saying training managers who teach
AT&T employees about the company's vendors and policies were
misclassified as being independent contractors who were overtime
exempt.

In September 2016, Judge Chhabria conditionally certified a
nationwide FLSA collective, and 91 members have opted in. On
September 29th's complaint seeks conditional class certification
for settlement purposes as well.

The complaint says that soon after the judge denied AT&T's motions
for summary judgment against the named plaintiffs, settlement
discussions began.

The settlement would be available to a class of 47 managers who
did not sign an arbitration clause in their employment agreement
and who worked in California since May 18, 2011. It also applies
to 68 workers who worked outside California after May 2012 and
opted into the suit as well as 189 who worked outside California
since 2014 but have not yet opted in. The 189 California employees
who worked at the company after May 2014 can still be represented
by the Private Attorneys General Act claim even if they signed the
arbitration agreement.

The $2.75 million settlement would set aside $80,000 for PAGA
payments, $20,000 for each class representation as well as seven
$5,000 witness service awards. Attorneys' fees and costs would be
capped at $1.2 million, and the settlement administration costs
are estimated to total $40,000.

The remaining amount would be split up, with 85 percent going to
existing members and 15 percent set aside for future opt-ins.
Claims will be calculated based on number of workweeks, location
and job title. All class members must sign an agreement promising
to arbitrate any future claims in order to get their settlement,
according to court filings.

AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said in an email on September 30 that
the company admitted to no wrongdoing by agreeing to the
settlement.

"We're committed to full compliance with all federal and state
laws, including the wage and hour laws, and have received numerous
awards for being an employer of choice," he said. "Rather than
engage in drawn-out litigation we have entered this settlement,
which we believe reflects a fair resolution."

Attorneys and representatives for the class were not immediately
available for comment on September 29.

The class is represented by Jahan Sagafi, Esq. Relic Sun, Esq. --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- and Michael Litrownik, Esq. --
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com -- of Outten & Golden LLP.

AT&T is represented by Thomas Kaufman, Esq. --
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz, Esq. --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- and Michael Campbell, Esq. --
mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

The case is Wendell Walton et al. v. AT&T Services Inc., case
number 3:15-cv-03653, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


BLOOMBERG LP: Court Grants Class Certification in NYLL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an opinion and order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN,
ALEXANDER LEE, and WILLIAM VAN VLEET, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMBERG L.P.,
Defendant, No. 14cv2657 (DLC). (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs bring this collective and putative class action against
Bloomberg L.P., asserting that it failed to compensate Analytics
Representatives for overtime work as required by federal and state
laws, including the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Plaintiffs seek certification of the following NYLL class: all
representatives in the Analytics department in New York who were
not paid time and one-half for hours over 40 worked in one or more
weeks at any time within the six years preceding the filing of
this Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter.

Numerosity

Courts presume numerosity such that joinder is impracticable where
the class exceeds 40 members.  The parties agree that this element
is easily met. It is uncontested that more than 1,000 current and
former Bloomberg employees are putative class members.

Commonality

Plaintiffs' claims must depend upon a common contention. That
common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is
capable of class-wide resolution  which means that determination
of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to
the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

Bloomberg acknowledges that there are many common questions of
fact and law that apply to the class, but argues that the
plaintiffs must show that the central issue in the case is
susceptible to class-wide resolution. Bloomberg contends that the
central issue which it identifies as the availability of an
exemption to NYLL's overtime rules for administrative employees is
not susceptible to class-wide resolution because of the
significant variation in the class members' experiences and
duties.

Even if it were not sufficient for the plaintiffs to demonstrate,
as they have here, that there are a host of common questions that
must be answered as to each class member, they have shown as well
that the issue of whether the administrative exemption applies to
Analytics Representatives is both an issue that must be answered
for each class member and that it is an issue capable of class-
wide resolution. The resolution of this critical issue will affect
all or a significant number of the class members.

Typicality

Other Analytics Representatives testified to having more complex
duties and exercising their discretion while working. This one
employee's reaction to his work does not render his claims
atypical. His boredom is not inconsistent with the allegation that
he worked overtime and was denied overtime pay, nor does it speak
to his actual duties on the job.

Adequacy

Bloomberg challenges the ability of the named plaintiff to
adequately represent the class because, as just described, he
found his job boring. But that employee's critique of his job --
as one that a monkey can do does not undermine his interest in
vigorously pursuing the claims of the class. While other class
members testified that the job is more complicated than Lee
described, that difference does not alter Lee's underlying claim
that the class is entitled to overtime pay and does not impede his
ability to represent the class. The named plaintiff's interests
are directly aligned with those of the absent class members: they
have all experienced the same identified injury as a result of the
uniform application of the same pay policy of the defendant.

Predominance

Bloomberg contends that individual issues will outweigh
generalized proof in this case because class-wide damages are not
susceptible to generalized proof. Bloomberg asserts that the trier
of fact will have to inquire into the daily routine of each
employee to sort out how much time they spent working. The Court
finds this argument unconvincing for two reasons:

   (1) First, the plaintiffs argue that Bloomberg's electronic
data will reveal most, if not all, of the overtime liability. This
data through electronic time stamps will show when Analytics
Representatives were logged on to their computers, either on site
or remotely. It will also indicate if Representatives worked
outside of regular shift hours.

   (2) Second, even if the plaintiffs must supplement this data
with some individual testimony that will not defeat the
plaintiffs' showing of predominance. Common issues may predominate
when liability can be determined on a class-wide basis, even when
there are some individualized damage issues.  Here, the plaintiffs
have shown that they can prove through common evidence that all
members of the proposed class were injured by the same action.
Plaintiffs do not need to prove that common evidence will offer
the precise amount of damages incurred by each class member.

Superiority

Here, a class action is a superior method to individually
litigating the NYLL claims. Given that common issues predominate
over individual ones, a class action preserves judicial resources
and is far less burdensome for the parties.

The plaintiff's motion for certification of a NYLL class for
Analytics Representatives is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybmsgzqmfrom
Leagle.com.

Eric Michael Roseman, Plaintiff, represented by Artemio Guerra,
Catholic Migration Office, 260 Fair St., Kingston, NY 12401
Eric Michael Roseman, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Charles
Getman, Law Office of Dan Getman, 9 Paradies Lane, New Paltz, NY
12561-4017

Alexander Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Artemio Guerra, Catholic
Migration Office & Dan Charles Getman, Law Office of Dan Getman.
William Van Vleet, Plaintiff, represented by Artemio Guerra,
Catholic Migration Office & Dan Charles Getman, Law Office of Dan
Getman.

Bloomberg, L.P., Defendant, represented by Deirdre Norton Hyka --
dhykal@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Matthew Willis
Lampe -- mwlampe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Kristina
Ann Yost -- kyost@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Michael Anthony
Casertano -- mcasertano@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Terri L. Chas
-- tlchase@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


BMW BANK: 3rd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Athie Livas, writing for Yale Law Journal, reports that City
Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. BMW Bank of North America, 867 F.3d 434
(3d Cir. 2017), involved a putative class action brought by a car
dealership against the consumer financing division of an
automobile manufacturer and its contractor.  The dealership
alleged that the financing division sent junk faxes in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied class
certification.  It determined that there was no reliable and
administratively feasible way to determine whether putative class
members fell within the class definition.  The Third Circuit held
that the district court erred in its application of the
ascertainability standard to the motion for class certification.

The Third Circuit held that the district court erred in applying
the ascertainability standard for two reasons.  First, the
circuit's ascertainability precedents do not bar affidavits from
potential class members, in combination with a database, from
meeting the standard. Id. at 440.  Second, because the database
was not produced in discovery, plaintiff was unable to show
whether the database contained a reliable, administratively
feasible method of ascertaining the class. Id. at 440-41.

Finally, the court identified two principal policy rationales for
the ascertainability standard -- facilitating opt-outs and
identifying persons bound by the final judgment -- neither of
which was implicated in this case. Id. at 441.

Judge Fuentes concurred in the judgment, citing Geoffrey C. Shaw's
note, Class Ascertainability, 124 Yale L.J. 2354 (2015).  Judge
Fuentes agreed that based on precedent, plaintiffs must be given a
chance to show whether the database and affidavits could produce a
reliable and administratively feasible means to determine whether
putative class members fall within the class definition. 867 F.3d.
at 443 (Fuentes, J., concurring).  But he wrote separately to
"highlight[] the unnecessary burden on low-value consumer class
actions created by [the] circuit's adoption of a second
ascertainability requirement." Id.  He noted a split among the
circuits, with the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all
having rejected an additional requirement, and argued that the
Third Circuit should follow suit. Id.

The concurrence cited Geoffrey Shaw's note for the proposition
that only a fraction of class members will ever file claims. Id.
at 444 n.9.  The concurrence also cited Briseno v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017), which likewise cited Shaw's
note earlier this year.  [GN]


BROTHER'S BAKERY: Ramirez Rojas Sues Over Inappropriate Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS RAMIREZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BROTHER'S BAKERY CAFE CORP. (d/b/a BROTHER'S
BAKERY & CAFE), ANTONIO SALINAS and OSCAR SALINAS, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07091 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2017), alleges that the
Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week without appropriate minimum wage or overtime
compensation for any of the hours that he worked.

Brother's Bakery Cafe Corp. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, managers, principals or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.  The Defendants own, operate or control a
cafe/bakery located at 2155 2nd Avenue in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


C.A.A.I.R.: Faces "Copeland" Suit in N. Dist. Okla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.A.A.I.R., a
domestic not for profit corporation. The case is styled as Arthur
Copeland, Brandon Spurgin and Brad McGahey, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C.A.A.I.R.
a domestic not for profit corporation and Simmons Foods, Inc., a
foreign for profit business corporation, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00564-TCK-JFJ (N.D. Okla., October 10, 2017).

Simmons Foods is a supplier of poultry, pet, and ingredient
products based in Siloam Springs, AR. The company's official name
is Simmons Foods, Inc. & Affiliates.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel E Smolen, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com

      - and -

   David Arthur Warta, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: davidwarta@ssrok.com


CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
MARIA CASTRO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, a California non-
profit corporation; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a California non-
profit corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC675795 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017),
seeks to unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide her and
all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed
to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay premium wages for
missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them for all hours
worked; failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate; failed
to pay double time wages at the correct rate; failed to provide
them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to timely
pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


CENTRAL AMUSEMENT: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Amusement
International LLC doing business as: Luna Park. The case is styled
as Jose Del-Orden on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Central Amusement International LLC doing
business as: Luna Park, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07756 (S.D.
N.Y., October 10, 2017).

Central Amusement International, LLC is an international amusement
park planner, developer, and operator whose management team has
more than 150 years of combined amusement industry experience.[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


CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Court Adopts Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation Approving Conditional Class Certification in the
case captioned GREGORY PHIPPS and BRIAN MENSING, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CHARIOTS OF HIRE, INC., and JOHN MARK PARSONS, Defendants, No.
3:17-cv-97-TAV-HBG. (E.D. Tenn.).

In the R&R, Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton recommends that the
Court grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs' Expedited Motion
for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice.
Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends that the parties' agreement on
conditional certification and the notice form, as reflected in
defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion, be adopted.  The R&R
also recommends that this agreement be amended to require that
defendants provide the e-mail addresses of potential opt-in class
members, that the agreed-upon notice and consent forms be sent to
potential opt-in class members by first-class mail and email, and
that the notice emails blind-copy defense counsel and use PDF
forms.

Defendants have filed a notice of no objections to the R&R.
Plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the R&R, and enough
time has now passed to treat any objections as having been waived.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yaqf78gtfrom Leagle.com.

Gregory Phipps, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Street, The
Higgins Firm, 504 East E Street, Elizabethton, TN 37643

Gregory Phipps, Plaintiff, represented by G. Brandon Hall, The
Employment & Consumer Law Group,525 4th Ave South, Nashville, TN
37210, pro hac vice.

Brian Mensing, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Street, The
Higgins Firm & G. Brandon Hall, The Employment & Consumer Law
Group, pro hac vice.

Chariots of Hire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Russ Swafford--
swafford@londonamburn.com -- London & Amburn, P.C., Andrew R.
Tillman -- atillman@londonamburn.com --  London & Amburn, P.C. &
Jennifer P. Taylor -- jpearson.taylor@londonamburn.com -- London &
Amburn, P.C..

John Mark Parsons, Defendant, represented by Russ Swafford, London
& Amburn, P.C., Andrew R. Tillman, London & Amburn, P.C. &
Jennifer P. Taylor, London & Amburn, P.C..


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Sansone" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jennifer M. Sansone and Baldemar
Orduno., Jr., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the
Public Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Charter
Communications, Inc. and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 37-02017-00029558-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on Sep. 14, 2017
from the Superior Court, County of San Diego, State of CA, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01880-
WQH-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William Q. Hayes.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications company,
which offers its services to consumers and businesses under the
branding of Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          London D. Meservy, Esq.
          MESERVY LAW, P.C.
          401 West A Street, Suite 1712
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 779 1276
          Facsimile: (866) 231 8132
          E-mail: london@meservylawpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 36th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 493 3980
          Facsimile: (404) 400 7333
          E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com


COMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC676 078 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover all owed wages under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
failed to pay overtime and failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.[BN]

Commercial Protective Services, Inc., doing business as Eagle
Security, provides security services. The Company offers armed and
unarmed guards, investigation, uniform security guards, and patrol
vehicle services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          Brandon Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone (213) 473 1900
          Facsimile (213) 473 1919


CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Banks, Business Groups File Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Renae Merle, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that more than
a dozen U.S. banks and business groups sued the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau on September 29 in a last-ditch effort to block
a new rule allowing consumers to band together and sue their
credit card companies and other financial institutions.

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Dallas, calls the
structure of the CFPB -- a watchdog agency established in response
to the 2008 financial crisis -- "unconstitutional" and argues that
the rule it wants to impose on U.S. businesses will not help
consumers.

The industry's complaints center on a new CFPB rule addressing the
fine print in many of the agreements that consumers sign when they
apply for credit cards or bank accounts. These agreements
typically requires them to settle any disputes they have with the
company through arbitration, in which a third party rules on the
matter, rather than going to court or joining a class-action
lawsuit.

The rule would weaken a company's ability to make arbitration
mandatory, allowing more people to file or join a lawsuit to press
their complaints.

But September 29th's lawsuit -- filed on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Assn., among other
groups -- says the change would actually hurt consumers.
"Arbitration gives consumers the ability to bring claims that they
could not realistically assert in court, including the small and
individualized claims that they care the most about," the lawsuit
says. "In contrast, class-action litigation is significantly less
effective than arbitration in addressing consumer claims."

The CFPB, which declined to comment on the lawsuit, has repeatedly
defended the rule as a necessary protection for consumers. By
blocking group lawsuits, arbitration clauses eliminate a "powerful
means to get justice when a little harm happens to a lot of
people," CFPB Director Richard Cordray wrote in a recent opinion
piece in the New York Times. The rule may cost banks $1 billion a
year, but the industry made a record $171 billion in profit last
year, he said.

"It is the height of hypocrisy for companies to say they're
helping consumers by closing off the very same legal option they
use when they've been wronged," Cordray wrote.

Wall Street had hoped Congress would squash the rule before it
went into effect later this year. Republicans in the House passed
legislation to block the rule this summer, but the Senate has
struggled to take up a similar bill. With tax-overhaul proposals
now taking up much of lawmakers' attention, opportunities to push
through the measure in time are dwindling, industry officials have
said.

"This baseless legal challenge is a desperate move after their
Senate repeal effort ran into massive resistance this week,"
Amanda Werner, arbitration campaign manager for Americans for
Financial Reform and Public Citizen, said in a statement.

If businesses are forced to comply with the rule, they "will incur
substantial, long-lasting, and largely unrecoverable costs," the
lawsuit says. There are currently "hundreds of millions of
consumers of financial products and services who are parties to
agreements containing arbitration clauses," and changing them
would be costly. Just notifying people with credit cards that the
terms of their contracts have changed would cost "millions of
dollars," according to the lawsuit.

The CFPB is also taking fire from another regulator, the Office of
Comptroller of the Currency. The CFPB arbitration rule could cause
the interest rates on credit cards to rise significantly -- as
much as 25%, according to the OCC, which oversees the banking
sector. "That's a 25% increase in credit costs for people who may
live week to week. There's a real, tangible economic effect that
it may have on consumers," Keith Noreika, acting head of the
agency, said at a Philadelphia conference this week. [GN]


CYPRESS SECURITY: Reese Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMIERA REESE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYPRESS SECURITY, LLC, a California
limited liability company d/b/a CYPRESS PRIVATE SECURITY, and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17875725 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages and other penalties under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant has had a consistent policy
of unlawfully denying Plaintiff and Class Members statutorily-
mandated meal and rest periods, (2) willfully failing to provide
Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate semimonthly itemized
wage statements reflecting the total number of hours each worked,
the applicable deductions, and applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period, and (3) willfully failing to pay
compensation in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and those
Class Members.

Cypress Security provides a full range of private security in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Teresa D. Allen, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          www.scalaw.com
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, California 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  tallen@scalaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Jail Overdetentions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing for Washington Post, reports that a
28-year-old journeyman roofer was mistakenly held at the D.C. jail
for more than two months after a misdemeanor charge against him
was dismissed and was freed only after another inmate flagged his
own lawyer to the problem.

After being arrested following a dispute at his home, Carlton O.
Harris was trapped in a jail bureaucracy that since 2005 has cost
D.C. taxpayers more than $18 million paid to settle lawsuits on
behalf of thousands of inmates held past their release dates or
wrongly strip-searched.

Mr. Harris, a father of two in Southeast Washington, was arrested
March 28.  Prosecutors dropped the case the next day but
Mr. Harris was jailed for 77 days without a chance to see a judge
or be granted a defense attorney.

He finally went before a court June 15 only after the other
inmate's lawyer alerted federal defenders, who then brought Harris
to the attention of court officials, according to lawyers familiar
with the case and a review by U.S. marshals.

The D.C. Department of Corrections and its legal counsel declined
several interview requests about the events.  "Due to safety and
security reasons, the Department of Corrections declines to
comment," spokeswoman Keena Blackmon said in a one-sentence
statement, declining to elaborate.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which transports prisoners to and from
the D.C. Superior and U.S. District courts in the District,
investigated the handling of Mr. Harris after The Washington Post
asked court officials about his extended jail stay.

Findings and documents from the review read to The Post show that
marshals were told Harris was being held on a pending D.C. case
even though the matter had been dropped.

"It was a clerical error by the D.C. Department of Corrections,"
said a law enforcement official familiar with the review who
summarized its findings on the condition of anonymity because he
was not authorized to speak for the department.

Just a few weeks before Mr. Harris's arrest, the District's
lawyers admitted in a long-running federal lawsuit that the jail
had detained Gregory Smith for 23 days longer that it should have
on his sentence from 2014.

The corrections department had claimed for nearly three years that
it had never received Mr. Smith's release order from a judge.  But
in February, city officials in court filings acknowledged that the
jail received a time-stamped release order for Mr. Smith the day
it was issued on March 18, 2014, and that it had been in Mr.
Smith's institutional file all along.

The city this fall is set to start paying $6 million awarded in
the latest, 2013 overdetention settlement, reached after then-U.
S. District Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington blasted
the city's failure to deliver on promised reforms as "conscience-
shocking."

A new class-action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners alleges the
government is hiding the extent of errors, citing recent
overdetentions such as Harris's.

In responses to some of those pending claims, lawyers representing
the District say the system has heeded past calls for improvements
and dramatically cut down on mistakes.

'It's out of your control'

The government review and records from an attorney representing
Harris show that after he was released March 29 from D.C. Superior
Court on the dropped misdemeanor, he was returned to the jail
because he had an outstanding federal warrant in Maryland.

That warrant was in place because of a traffic citation from 2013.

Mr. Harris had been cited for allegedly driving with a revoked
license on the grounds of the National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda, where, Mr. Harris recalled recently, he was working with
a roofing crew, and had not followed up in court to resolve the
traffic case.

A day after his dropped D.C. misdemeanor case, March 30, federal
marshals called the jail to bring Mr. Harris to the District's
federal court to start his transfer to Maryland federal court over
the warrant because of the ticket.

D.C. corrections officials told marshals that Harris still had a
pending D.C. criminal charge and could not be released to them,
according to the review of the incident read to The Post.

The marshals on March 31 filed a formal request known as a
detainer for the jail to turn over Harris when his local case
allowed for the handoff, the review read to The Post found.

That left Mr. Harris sitting in D.C. jail for another 10 weeks
until a fellow inmate spoke up.

"They spent $20,000 to house this person for 77 days because
nobody called to fetch him. Really?" said William C.C. "Chas"
Claiborne III, who represents Harris and helped represent the two
previous jail class-action cases dealing with overdetentions.
Claiborne said: "If you put stuff in a locker at an airport,
they're not going to hold it indefinitely until you come get it.
But they'll hold a person in jail?"

Other inmates told Harris he was not supposed to be locked up for
more than a couple of days without seeing a judge, Mr. Harris said
in a recent interview, but he thought guards would ignore or
punish him if he complained.

"You're just going to make it worse, that's what I figured," said
Harris, a Washington native and father of two who attended
parochial schools including Archbishop Carroll High until the
ninth grade.

A jail database entry for March 29 -- after Harris's D.C. case had
been dropped but he was returned to the jail -- does not mention
the dropped case that could have released him or any criminal
charge that would have kept him, and shows he was being held "in
transit" on a federal detention warrant, according to the record
that Claiborne obtained and shared.

Mr. Claiborne said jails should regularly double-check an inmate's
status or keep a court order in each one's file showing whether
the inmate should be held or released.  "This is not rocket
science," he said.

Rather than either of those procedures, Mr. Claiborne said, the
D.C. jail's process is to hold a prisoner until another agency
asks for him, "with predictable results."

In a statement, Lamont J. Ruffin, acting chief deputy U.S. marshal
of the U.S. District Court, said, "This was an unfortunate set of
circumstances for Mr. Harris, but after a thorough review of our
processes specific to this situation, the U.S. Marshals Service
was not negligent and did not cause this apparent overdetention."

Under its national policy, marshals are required to check the
status of warrants only every six months, said a spokesman for the
service.

"I know I had a right to a lawyer," Mr. Harris said recently, "but
when you're in their custody, it's out of your control.  You kind
of got to sit back and let them do their job.  You speak up, they
can go real bad.  They can put you in a room, cuff you and beat
you down. You can speak up, but it turns out you're going to have
to shut up."

Mr. Harris said he had never been held in D.C. Jail.  Court
records in other cases show he pleaded guilty in D.C. Superior
Court to driving under the influence in 2012 and with a revoked
license in 2014, and was fined and given a 30-day suspended
sentence in each case.

Unsure who to blame
By May, many weeks after his D.C. case had been dropped and he was
still behind bars, Mr. Harris said, "I started to lose hope, and
then I was very worried."

He said that when he had explained his plight to his Department of
Corrections caseworker, she told him she had no further
information.

He was visited about twice a week by the mother of his boys, a
5-year-old and 6-month-old, and his own mother, a D.C. Public
Schools teacher aide -- who found a record of the Maryland warrant
online, but was told when she inquired that U.S. officials there
would not bring him from an out-of state jail for such a
relatively minor offense.

Mr. Harris called from jail to the D.C. Public Defender Service
for Superior Court -- which provides attorneys for defendants who
cannot afford to hire one -- and that office told him it had not
been assigned to his case, and eventually advised him to call its
federal counterpart for U.S District Court in Washington.

Mr. Harris said he was about to do that when, unknown to him, the
federal defender's office contacted the marshals on June 14, who
checked on Mr. Harris's status and arranged to bring him to
federal court, two officials familiar with his case confirmed.

He was called out of his D.C. jail cell early June 15 and told he
was finally going to court. U.S. Magistrate Robin M. Meriweather
ordered his release in Washington that day, and Harris reported to
the federal court in Maryland the next day about the years-old
ticket.

Asked why he never paid or showed up in Maryland federal court on
the first ticket, Mr. Harris said in an interview: "I have no
excuses why I didn't pay it.  I just wasn't focused on that
ticket. I mean it had been years, I was 24, I was still trying to
get my direction and keep my job."

However, after reporting in with the Maryland federal court right
after his D.C. jail release, Harris failed to show for a July
court hearing and faced a new bench warrant.

Messrs. Harris and Claiborne declined to comment on that
proceeding.

Mr. Harris said he isn't sure who or what is to blame for his
10-week detention in D.C. Jail.  He knows the impact, however.  "I
had a good job, and that's gone right now."

Mr. Harris said he kept his union card and works on call with a
temporary construction and industrial labor staffing agency, but
is struggling to provide for his children and pay for food, car
insurance and a phone.

"You've got to be patient, otherwise you're going to work yourself
into a worse position than you're in," Mr. Harris said.  "The work
will come." [GN]


DJI TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Howard"
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the
case captioned TYSON HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC., aka
SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-02292 LEK
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff purchased a DJI Phantom III Standard drone from
Defendant's website for approximately $800. Later that month, he
purchased a DJI Phantom III Pro drone from Defendant's website for
approximately $1,300. According to Plaintiff, Defendant advertised
through written representations that Plaintiff would receive [the
Drones] with high definition recording capabilities.

After he purchased the Drones, Plaintiff learned that they were
not capable of recording at the definition level advertised, and
they "recorded video at inferior qualities significantly below
2.7K and 4K."  According to Plaintiff, the prices of the Drones
were higher than they would have been without the advertised
recording capabilities, as evidenced by the fact that the DJI III
Pro which advertised a significantly improved 4K camera was more
expensive than the DJI III Standard.

The Amended Complaint alleges violation of the California False
Advertising Law (FAL) and violation of the Unfair Competition Law
(UCL).

Count I alleges that Defendant made misrepresentations about the
Drones' recording capabilities. The claim is also based on
Defendant's omissions, but Plaintiff does not clearly identify
what information was omitted. The Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendant omitted what the Drones' actual recording capabilities
were. Had Defendant properly marketed, advertised, and represented
the Drones as lacking high definition recording, Plaintiff would
not have purchased the product.

Under California law, there are four circumstances in which
nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1)
when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the
plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of
material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant
actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when
the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses
some material facts.

The Amended Complaint's factual allegations about the when are
insufficient. Plaintiff does allege that he bought the Drone.
Amended Complaint at and that he was drawn to the Drones because
of Defendant's representations, which he relied upon when he
decided to purchase the Drones. These allegations, taken to be
true for purposes of the Motion, are sufficient to support a
reasonable inference that Plaintiff viewed Defendant's
representations about the Drones' recording capabilities.

The allegations, however, do not satisfy the heightened pleading
standard because they do not sufficiently allege when Plaintiff
was exposed to Defendant's alleged misrepresentations. The portion
of Count I based on the alleged misrepresentations about the
Drones' recording capabilities must be dismissed.

Defendant argues that the First Motion to Dismiss raised the same
issues raised in the instant Motion, and Plaintiff failed to cure
the defects when he filed the Amended Complaint. Defendant
contends that this shows that it would not be possible for
Plaintiff to cure any defects in a second amended complaint. This
Court disagrees. The only identified defect in this portion of
Count I is the failure to allege when Plaintiff viewed Defendant's
alleged misrepresentations, and it is possible for Plaintiff to
cure this defect by amendment. The dismissal of the portion of
Count I based on Defendant's alleged misrepresentations about the
Drones' recording capabilities is without prejudice.

The portion of Count I based on Defendant's alleged omission,
however, fails to state a plausible claim for the same reason as
the portion based on Defendant's alleged misrepresentation.
Plaintiff has not alleged when he viewed Defendant's materials
which he alleges omitted information about the Drones' actual
recording capabilities. For the same reasons set forth as to the
portion of Count I based on Defendant's alleged misrepresentation,
the portion of Count I based on Defendant's alleged omission is
also dismissed without prejudice.

Under Section 17200, unfair competition includes any unlawful,
unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.

An unfair practice under section 17200 is one whose harm to the
victim outweighs its benefits.  Finally, a fraudulent act or
practice under Section 17200 is one which is likely to deceive the
public, and may be based on misrepresentations  which are untrue,
and also those which may be accurate on some level, but will
nonetheless tend to mislead or deceive.

Significantly, as with a False Advertising Law claim, a plaintiff
may demonstrate a violation of the fraudulent prong of the UCL by
showing that reasonable members of the public are likely to be
deceived.

Count II alleges unfair business practices based the first two
definitions. As to the second definition, Plaintiff merely
alleges, in conclusory fashion, that Defendant's acts, omissions,
misrepresentations, and practices are substantially injurious
offend public policy, and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and
unscrupulous as the gravity of the conduct outweighs any alleged
benefits attributable to such conduct. However, Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged unfair business practices based on the first
definition.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has suffered a
substantial injury because he paid valuable consideration for the
Drones, which had higher prices because of the advertised HD
recording features, but which did not have advertised features.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's practice of falsely
advertising and representing that the Drones were capable of HD
recording in order to induce consumers to purchase them did not
provide any benefit to Plaintiff or any other consumer. Thus, the
injury that Plaintiff suffered is not outweighed by any
countervailing benefits to consumers.  Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that the injury he suffered is not one that consumers could have
avoided because, based on the information Defendant made available
about the Drones, consumers would not have realized that
Defendant's representations about the Drones' ability to record HD
video were false.

With respect to the unfair prong, Plaintiff has pled sufficient
facts to state a Section 17200 claim against Defendant.

The fraudulent prong of the UCL is governed by the reasonable
consumer test: a plaintiff may demonstrate a violation by showing
that reasonable members of the public are likely to be deceived.
Reading the Amended Complaint as a whole, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant falsely represented that the Drones had HD recording
capabilities and failed to disclose what the Drones' actual
recording capabilities were. Plaintiff also alleges that the
public is likely to be deceived by Defendant's practices because,
as evidenced by Plaintiff's reasonable reliance on Defendant's
statements.

Defendant had unequal bargaining power over the public and the
information Defendant made available about the Drones prevented
Plaintiff and other consumers from learning until after purchase
that the representations about the HD recording capabilities were
false. Although Plaintiff alleges that he was actually deceived
because actual deception is not required, he is not required to
allege when he was exposed to Defendant's representations, as he
is in his Section 17500 claim.

Thus, his failure to plead the "when" with particularity that was
fatal to Count I is not fatal to this portion of Count II. With
respect to the fraudulent prong, Plaintiff has pled sufficient
facts to state a Section 17200 claim against Defendant.

As to the unlawful practices prong, a plaintiff must show a
violation of some independent law.

Plaintiff bases his claim under the unlawful prong on the alleged
violation of Section 17500.  However, because Count I fails to
state a claim, Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim as to
the portion of his Section 17200 claim based on the unlawful
prong, and must be dismissed. The dismissal of this portion of
Count II is without prejudice because it is possible for Plaintiff
to cure the defects in Count I by amendment.

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is
granted insofar as Count I and the portion of Count II based on
the unlawful prong of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 are
dismissed.  The Motion is denied as to the portion of Count II
based on the unfair and fraudulent prongs of Section 17200 and
insofar as the dismissal of Count I and the portion of Count II
based on the unlawful prong is without prejudice.

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9a9ush8from Leagle.com.

Tyson Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
todd.friedman@kirkland.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C..

DJI Technology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J.
Weibell, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., 650 Page Mill Rd,
Palo  Alto, CA 94304, Peter Cornelius Holm -- pholm@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C. & Sumeng Chen, DJI
Technology Inc., 435 Portage Ave, Palo Alto, CA, 94306-2213


DOMETIC CORPORATION: Faces "Zimmer" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dometic Corporation.
The case is styled as James Zimmer, Melvin Rich, Ernie Arnold,
Sandra Greene, James Mitchell, Kurt Shoemaker, Sr., Randall
Ortego, Steven Horner, Sr., James Jackson, Debra Sadler, and
Richard Haisch, the Plaintiffs, v. Dometic Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06913 (C.D. Cal., Sep. 19, 2017).

Dometic Group is a Swedish manufacturer whose core business is
climate, hygiene, sanitation, food and beverage applications
within the RV, marine, and automotive industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com


ECLIPSE FINANCIAL: Faces "Best" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eclipse Financial,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Brandon Best, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eclipse
Financial, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04526-JD (E.D.
Penn., October 10, 2017).

Eclipse Financial Consulting LLC provides insurance information
and consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARI MARCUS, Esq.
   MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
   1500 ALLAIRE AVE SUITE 101
   OCEAN, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


ELMCROFT SENIOR: "Gallegos" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Misael Gallegos, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Elmcroft Senior Living, Inc., a
Delaware Coporation; Las Villas Del Norte Operations, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; as Villas De Carlsbad
Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Grossmont
Gardens Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
Mountview Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
Rancho Vista Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Point Loma Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; La Mesa Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; HCG Las Villas Del Norte Operations, LP, a Delaware
limited partnership; HCG Las Villas De Carlsbad Operations, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; HCG Grossmont Gardens Operations,
LP, a Delaware limited partnership; HCG Mountview Operations, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership; HCG Rancho Vista Operations, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; HCG Point Loma Operations, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; HCG La Mesa Operations, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00026828-CU-OE-NC, was removed
on Sep. 18, 2017 from the Superior Court of CA, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-01899-BAS-JMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant.

Elmcroft provides exceptional Assisted Living, Independent Living,
Alzheimer's and Dementia Care facilities and communities for
seniors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan Emily Walker, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597 9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597 9601
          E-mail: mewalker@laborlawyers.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Spilski Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SPILSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC.; a
Kansas Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25,
the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01249 (E.D. Wisc.,
Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney fees,
costs, and all other relief, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Encore used false, deceptive, and
misleading practices, and other illegal practices, in connection
with its attempts to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Wisconsin consumers.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. provides collections management
solutions. It offers pre charge-off account management and primary
post charge-off management services. The company serves wireline,
wireless, and cable communications service providers; banks;
credit card, auto, and installment lenders; and companies who
service their private label cards in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  heather@sternthomasson.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Thomson" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLINT THOMSON, JUSTIN WILLIAMS, and DEREK SELDERS individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02468-M (N.D.
Tex., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to compensation from Equifax in an
amount which will ensure that all consumers who are victims of a
theft shall receive the benefit of independent third-party credit
repair and monitoring services and other monetary compensation for
damages resulting from such theft.

The Plaintiffs file this complaint on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of millions of consumers in the Texas as a class action
against Equifax for failing to protect and maintain the
confidentiality of those consumers' personal identification and
credit information which Equifax collected in connection its
business as a consumer credit reporting agency and for failing to
provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to those consumers
that their information had been stolen and the details of the
theft.

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2017, Equifax issued a
press release, publicly revealing for the first time that criminal
third parties had gained access to consumer data maintained by
Equifax. It is estimated that approximately 12 million Texas
consumers will be affected by the breach.  Personal identification
and credit information is often misused by cybercriminals to
engage in identity theft and financial fraud. Cybercriminals also
sell such information on the Dark Web to other criminals who then
use the information to engage in identify theft and financial
fraud. The stolen information can be used by to obtain fake
identification cards and driver's licenses, to open fraudulent
financial accounts such as credit cards or loans, to obtain
medical care under false pretenses, to poach health insurance
coverage, to file for fraudulent tax refunds, to file for
fraudulent unemployment or Social Security benefits, and to gain
access to online accounts. Equifax has identified each of the
Plaintiffs as victims who were affected by the data breach.

Equifax is a consumer credit-reporting company. It collects and
aggregates information on hundreds of millions of individual
consumers and businesses in the United States and worldwide.
Equifax maintains databases containing personal identification
information and the financial history of U.S. consumers and
businesses. Equifax obtains consumer data about names and aliases,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, birthdates,
current and former addresses, credit dispute information, credit
card numbers and usage, loans and loan payments child support,
credit limits, rent, utilities, and employer history. Equifax
obtains its data from credit card companies, banks, retailers, and
lenders who report on the credit activity of individuals to credit
reporting agencies and by purchasing public records.[BN]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          Christopher M. Joe, Esq.
          Eric W. Buether, Esq.
          Brian A. Carpenter, Esq.
          BUETHER JOE &CARPENTER, LLC
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4750
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466 1272
          Facsimile: (214) 635 1828
          E-mail: Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com
                  Eric.Buether@BJCIPLaw.com
                  Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPLaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Meyers" Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MEYERS, JUDY MEYERS, and KARL GORDON EIKOST, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06652 (N.D. Ill., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover actual
damages as a result of Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Equifax has disclosed that one or more
of its servers, which contained Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
sensitive personal information including names, full Social
Security members, birth dates, and addresses, had been breached or
hacked. In early August 2017, before the fact of the Breach was
made public, multiple Equifax executives sold shares of Equifax
stock, worth at least $1.8 million. Equifax immediately began an
internal investigation and contracted with an unidentified third-
party cybersecurity firm to conduct review to determine the scope
of the hack, including identifying the specific data impacted.

Equifax is a consumer credit-reporting company. It collects and
aggregates information on hundreds of millions of individual
consumers and businesses in the United States and worldwide.
Equifax maintains databases containing personal identification
information and the financial history of U.S. consumers and
businesses. Equifax obtains consumer data about names and aliases,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, birthdates,
current and former addresses, credit dispute information, credit
card numbers and usage, loans and loan payments child support,
credit limits, rent, utilities, and employer history. Equifax
obtains its data from credit card companies, banks, retailers, and
lenders who report on the credit activity of individuals to credit
reporting agencies and by purchasing public records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Demetrio, Esq.
          Kenneth T. Lump, Esq.
          CORBOY & DEMETRIO, PC
          33 North Dearborn Street, 21st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346 3191


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martin" Sues over Consumer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
DREW MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARY
SITUATED PLAINTIFF, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., & EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00744-
CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover remedy the
harms Plaintiff has suffered on behalf of himself and similarly
situated consumers whose personal identifying information was
stolen as a result of the Equifax data breach.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Equifax
for its failures to protect and secure consumers' PII, including
full names, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses and
some driver's license numbers of Plaintiff and some 143 million
similarly situated consumers in the United States. Additionally,
Equifax has acknowledged that credit card numbers for
approximately 209,000 United States consumers, and dispute
information, containing additional PII, for approximately 182,000
United States consumers, have been accessed as part of its data
breach.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly acknowledged the
cybersecurity incident that has potentially impacted approximately
half of all U.S. consumers who have credit histories. Equifax
admitted that it discovered this data breach on July 29, 2017, and
that the unauthorized access to its files, including Plaintiff's
and the class members' PII, started in mid-May 2017.

Rather than timely disclose its data breach, Equifax waited almost
six weeks to publicly disclose the occurrence. In the interim,
three Equifax executives sold some $1.8 million of Equifax stock.
These executives include Chief Financial Officer John Gamble, who
sold approximately $946,000 worth of Equifax stock on August 1;
President of United States Information Solutions Joseph Loughran,
who sold approximately $584,000 of Equifax stock, also on August
1; and President of Workforce Solutions Rodolfo Ploder, who sold
approximately $250,000 of Equifax stock on August 2.

Equifax compromised Plaintiff's and the consumer classes' PII due
to its failure to properly protect and secure PII. Equifax knew or
certainly should have known it was vulnerable to potential data
breaches as Equifax experienced several data breaches between 2013
and 2016. Additionally, Experian, a competing consumer reporting
agency, has previously been breached, which should have put
Equifax on high alert. Equifax had inadequate data security and
failed in its duty to protect the PII that it collected during the
course of its business from unauthorized disclosure. Equifax
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failed to
take reasonable, adequate measures to ensure the security of its
data systems and to protect Plaintiff's and class members' PII
Equifax further disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to disclose to its customers the material fact that it did
not have adequate computer systems and security practices to
safeguard PII, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop
the breach from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect
the breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Equifax Data
Breach, Plaintiff's PII and the Class members' PII has been
exposed to criminals for misuse. The injuries suffered by
Plaintiff and Class members, or likely to be suffered by Plaintiff
and Class members as a direct result of the Equifax Data Breach.

Equifax is a consumer credit-reporting company. It collects and
aggregates information on hundreds of millions of individual
consumers and businesses in the United States and worldwide.
Equifax maintains databases containing personal identification
information and the financial history of U.S. consumers and
businesses. Equifax obtains consumer data about names and aliases,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, birthdates,
current and former addresses, credit dispute information, credit
card numbers and usage, loans and loan payments child support,
credit limits, rent, utilities, and employer history. Equifax
obtains its data from credit card companies, banks, retailers, and
lenders who report on the credit activity of individuals to credit
reporting agencies and by purchasing public records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane F. Langston, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Langston, Esq.
          Greta L. Kemp, Esq.
          Jason L. Nabors, Esq.
          LANGSTON AND LANGSTON, PLLC
          210 East Capitol Street, Suite 1205
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 969 1356
          Facsimile: (601) 968 3866


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Ramsay" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK E. RAMSAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC. the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-02783 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, as applicable, in favor of
Plaintiffs and the other class members against Equifax for all
damages sustained as a result of their wrongdoing, in an amount to
be proven at trial, by a jury, including interest and attorney's
fees.

The Plaintiffs file this complaint as a Texas class action on
behalf of consumers across the State of Texas harmed by Equifax's
failure to adequately protect the consumers' credit and personal
information. The Plaintiffs want Equifax to provide fair
compensation in an amount that will ensure every consumer harmed
by its data breach will not be out-of-pocket for the costs of
independent third-party credit repair and monitoring services.
These allegations are based on personal knowledge as to Equifax's
conduct and made on information, belief, and investigation as to
the acts of others.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed in a shareholder
prospectus report that, from May 2017 through July 2017, its data
security was breached via the Apache Struts Flaw. This flaw was
disclosed to industry users of the program in March 2017. Equifax
failed to update its open source web based software allowing the
data to become exposed to unauthorized third parties.

The Plaintiffs contend that Equifax owes a legal duty (not to
mention a moral obligation) to all Texas consumers to use
reasonable care to protect their credit and personal information
from unauthorized access by third parties. Equifax knew that its
failure to protect millions of Texas Consumers' credit and
personal information from unauthorized access would cause serious
risks of credit harm and identity theft for years to come.

According to the lawsuit, in an attempt to increase profits,
Equifax negligently failed to maintain adequate technological
safeguards to protect private information from unauthorized access
by hackers. Equifax knew or should have known that failure to
maintain adequate technological safeguards could and would
eventually result in a massive data breach. Equifax knew or should
have known that its database program and safeguards were
compromised and therefore could and should have properly
implemented data protection measures. Equifax could and should
have substantially increased the amount of money it spent to
protect against cyber-attacks but chose not to. Innocent consumers
should not have to bear the expense caused by Equifax's negligent
failure to safeguard their credit and personal information from
cyber-attackers.

The lawsuit says that, as a direct result of Equifax's negligence
as alleged in this complaint, each Plaintiff incurred damages of
at least $10.00 a month to pay for third-party credit monitoring
services (from a service provider not affiliated with and/or
otherwise beholden to Equifax) they otherwise would not have
incurred. Additionally, Plaintiffs suffered and/or will suffer
actual damages from the substantially increased risk of future
identity theft, fraud, and misuse of their personal information.
Plaintiffs face years of increased monitoring obligations
regarding their financial and personal records.

Equifax is a consumer credit-reporting company. It collects and
aggregates information on hundreds of millions of individual
consumers and businesses in the United States and worldwide.
Equifax maintains databases containing personal identification
information and the financial history of U.S. consumers and
businesses. Equifax obtains consumer data about names and aliases,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, birthdates,
current and former addresses, credit dispute information, credit
card numbers and usage, loans and loan payments child support,
credit limits, rent, utilities, and employer history. Equifax
obtains its data from credit card companies, banks, retailers, and
lenders who report on the credit activity of individuals to credit
reporting agencies and by purchasing public records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George H. Lugrin IV, Esq.
          Reece Rondon, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Bentch, Esq.
          Samuel J. Dolan, Esq.
          HALL MAINES LUGRIN, P.C.
          Williams Tower, Suite 6400
          2800 Post Oak Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77056-6125
          Telephone: (713) 871-9000
          Facsimile: (713) 871-8962


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Flores" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is captioned as Shervon Flores and Elio Guzman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-07088-VB (S.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 18, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti.

Equifax, Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shelly L Friedland, Esq.
          TRIEF AND OLK
          150 East 58 Street
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 486 6060
          Facsimile: (212) 317 2946
          E-mail: sfriedland@triefandolk.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Protect Class Members' PII, Melrath Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MELRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., and EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01324-UNA (D. Del., September 18,
2017), alleges that Equifax disregarded the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' privacy rights by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take the necessary
precautions required to safeguard and protect their personally
identifiable information from unauthorized disclosure.

According to Equifax's report dated September 7, 2017, a breach
was discovered on July 29, 2017 (the "Breach").  The perpetrators
gained access by "[exploiting] a [. . .] website application
vulnerability" on one of the company's U.S.-based servers.  The
hackers were then able to retrieve "certain files."

Equifax, Inc., and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., are
Georgia corporations with their principal place of business
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of three nationwide
credit-reporting companies that tracks and rates the financial
history of consumers in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse N. Silverman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wolson, Esq.
          Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market St., Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7000
          Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
          E-mail: jsilverman@dilworthlaw.com
                  jwolson@dilworthlaw.com
                  JDeSiderato@dilworthlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Sues for Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE C. MURPHY, MOLLIE MARCIA ROBERTS, and THOMAS LESLIE COOGLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03613-ELR (N.D. Ga., September 18,
2017), is brought on behalf of residents of the United States,
whose personally identifiable information was compromised as a
result of the data breach first disclosed by Equifax in September
2017.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax released a statement to the public
announcing that there had been a breach of consumers' personally
identifiable information by hackers, and that Equifax had been
made aware of the breach on July 29, 2017.

Equifax is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is a consumer
credit reporting agency, which collects consumers' personally
identifiable information from various sources.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin B. Connell, Esq.
          Stanford G. Wilson, Esq.
          ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP
          229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          800 International Tower
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 659-6700
          Facsimile: (404) 222-9718
          E-mail: connell@elarbeethompson.com
                  swilson@elabeethompson.com

               - and -

          J. Shane Hudson, Esq.
          HUDSON KING
          615 Virginia Avenue North, Suite A
          Tifton, GA 31794
          Telephone: (229) 515-8585
          E-mail: jshudson@hudsonkinglaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Maryland Only Class Action Suit Filed After Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMAR reports that on September 29, multiple agencies filed a
Maryland only class action lawsuit against Equifax after its
massive data breach.

Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC and Joseph, and Greenwald & Laake, PA
filed the first lawsuit at the Baltimore County Circuit Court.

The Equifax data breach affected up to 143,000,000 accounts, and
millions of those people live in Maryland.

"We are working on behalf of all Marylanders who have been
affected by this incredible breach of security, and we have filed
this class action suit in Maryland to ensure that the harms of
this data breach are properly addressed by the Maryland Court
system," said Michael Paul Smith, a partner with Smith, Gildea &
Schmidt who filed the suit along with Timothy Maloney of Joseph,
Greenwald & Laake.

According to Equifax, the breach lasted from mid-May through July.
During that time people's names, Social Security numbers, birth
dates, addresses, and in some cases, driver's licenses numbers
were compromised. Hackers also stole credit card numbers from
209,000 people.

"The number of people who have been affected by this breach is
astounding," said Maloney. "We feel that it is imperative to focus
our efforts on Maryland residents who are now at risk of identity
theft and other harms because of the sensitive personal
information that was exposed at Equifax."

Equifax is facing multiple class action lawsuits nationwide, but
this is the first to be filed in Maryland State Court for only
Maryland residents.  [GN]


FC BACKGROUND: Faces RTR Suit over Workforce Screening Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of a
class, the Plaintiffs, v. FC BACKGROUND, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. DC-17-12147 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks monetary
damages and restitution from Defendant arising out of its unfair,
deceptive, and unconscionable practice of advertising and selling
workforce screening services that it knew, or should have known,
were being delivered in an unlawful and/or non-compliant manner.

RTR is engaged in mortgage servicing, collection services, and
business process outsourcing activities. As a part of its
business, RTR maintains multiple call centers. RTR relies on
vendors, such as Defendant, to run lawful and fully compliant
background checks on the applicants presented by the staffing
agency. Consumers, including RTR, reasonably rely on Defendant to
ensure that workforce screening services are conducted lawfully
and in compliance with all federal laws, including the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).  In fact, Defendant holds itself out as an
experienced and highly competent workforce screening company that
conducts background checks in a lawful and compliant manner.

According to the complaint, Defendant contracted with RTR and
agreed to provide employment screening and background check
services to RTR. Contrary to its advertising and the language of
its agreement with RTR, the truth of the matter, according to the
complaint, was that Defendant's workforce screening services were
not lawful or compliant with specific government mandates. Among
other things, it was using authorization forms that violated the
FCRA, as the forms contained liability waivers and other
extraneous information that cannot be included within the form.
Defendant should have known that the manner in which it was
conducting its business operations was unlawful and non-compliant
with the FCRA prior to Hargrove I. RTR has reason to believe that
Defendant continued engaging in the activities that it knew, or
should have known, were unlawful under the FCRA after it resolved
Hargrove. Defendant refused to help RTR resolve the lawsuit and
denied any responsibility or liability for the damages suffered by
RTR. RTR and Mr. Hargrove ultimately settled Hargrove.

Fc Background, LLC was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes providing various business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Sparks, Esq.
          Leslie Greathouse, Esq.
          Brian Peterson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          10100 North Central Expressway, Suite 225
          Dallas, TX 752314456
          Telephone: (214) 750 3610
          Facsimile: (214) 750 3612
          E-mail: jsparks@spencerfane.com
                  lgreathouse@spencerfane.com
                  bpeterson@spencerfane.com


GALE/TRIANGLE INC: Court OK's $650K Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Parties' Joint
Final Approval of Settlement in the case captioned STEVE TURK,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GALE/TRIANGLE, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and
PERFORMANCE TEAM FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-00783-
MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.).

Defendants are engaged in the transportation industry and employed
Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members as truck drivers and/or
yard goats.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class
for hours worked during rest periods and non-productive time,
failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to issue
accurate wage statements, and failing to pay wages due at
termination.  Plaintiff additionally alleges a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  Defendants deny these
claims.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants have
agreed to pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $650,000, which funds
will be distributed with no reversion to Defendants.  Attorneys'
fees ($195,000), litigation costs ($17,925), the enhancement to
Plaintiff Turk as the class representative ($10,000), settlement
administration costs ($9,499), and California Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (PAGA) allocation to California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) ($7,500) will be deducted from
the GSA, resulting in a Net Settlement Value (NSV) of $410,076.

Each Settlement Class Members' share of the NSV is based on the
number of weeks worked, which number has not been disputed by any
of the Class Members. The average Settlement Class Member is
estimated to receive over $1,100, and the highest individual
settlement is estimated at $9,817.02. The parties have executed
the Court-approved plan for providing notice to the class, and the
response of the Settlement Class Members was positive, with zero
Class Members objecting to the terms of the Settlement and only
four opting out.

Here, as to class certification, the Court has already determined
that certification of the Settlement Class solely for purposes of
settlement is appropriate in that: (1) the Class Members are so
numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable; (2)
there are questions of law and fact common to the Class which
predominate over any individual questions; (3) Plaintiff's claims
are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (4) Plaintiff
and his counsel have fairly and adequately represented and
protected the interests of the Class; and (5) a class action, and
class-wide resolution of the action via class settlement
procedures is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.

No party or class member has objected to certification of the
Settlement Class, and there is nothing before the Court to suggest
that these prior findings should not be affirmed. The Court
therefore affirms its prior certification of the Class for
settlement purposes inasmuch as the requirements of Rule
Based on the facts described above and the Court's weighing of the
strength of the case, the risks of litigation, and the costs of
continued litigation -- and especially in light of the fact that
(1) the proposed Settlement Agreement emerged after extensive
discovery and a day long arms-length mediation, and (2) no Class
Member has filed objections and only four have opted out the Court
finds the terms of the Settlement Agreement to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Moreover, With regard to class action
settlements, the opinions of counsel should be given considerable
weight both because of counsel's familiarity with this litigation
and previous experience with cases.

Class Counsel has represented that the instant Settlement
Agreement is in the best interest of the Settlement Class Members,
and the Court has no reason to believe otherwise.

Likewise, the Court finds the proposed payment of $9,499 to the
Settlement Administrator and $7,500 of the PAGA allocation to LWDA
to be fair, reasonable, and in line with similar awards in other
cases.

Plaintiff's counsel seeks an award of $195,000, which amounts to
30% of the GSA. Based on the Court's review of the case, the
positive results received after three years of litigation that
included extensive discovery and mediation, the risks taken on by
counsel (and specifically, by accepting the case on contingency),
and the experience and skill of counsel, the Court finds this
award to be fair and reasonable.  Though 30% represents the higher
end of what is typically deemed acceptable in other cases applying
the percent-of-recovery method, the Court finds a 5% increase from
the standard 25% benchmark is warranted under the circumstances.
Moreover, a comparison to awards typically made in common fund
cases suggests that an award of 30% is appropriate here.

For these reasons, 30% of the common fund, or $195,000, is a fair
and reasonable attorneys' fees award in this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y85r285o
from Leagle.com.

Steve Turk, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.
Steve Turk, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC & Joseph
Vidal Macias -- joseph.macias@maximintegrated.com --  Sutton Hague
Law Corporation, PC.

Gale/Triangle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark David Kemple -
- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.

Performance Team Freight Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Mark David Kemple, Greenberg Traurig.


GAMESTOP CORP: Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class
action suit filed on September 29 against video game retailer
GameStop alleges inadequate cybersecurity led to the theft of an
unknown number of customers' credit and debit card numbers during
a six-month-long data breach.

Crystal Bray and Samuel Cook claimed they and an unknown number of
other customers at GameStop Corp.'s online store had their credit
and debit card numbers stolen in a data breach between August 2016
and February 2017 because of the company's substandard
cybersecurity practices.

"The data breach was the inevitable result of GameStop's
inadequate data security measures and cavalier approach to data
security," they said.

According to the complaint, in April GameStop confirmed to media
outlets that it was investigating a possible security breach that
would have compromised customers' card information between August
2016 and February.

The complaint notes an undated statement on GameStop's website
says the company was made aware of the breach when a third party
reported that customer card data was being offered for sale
online.

Bray and Cook claimed they made online purchases from GameStop
during this period and were first notified of the breach in
letters dated June 2.

"The letter also stated that GameStop determined on April 18,
2017, that there was the potential for a data breach of
defendant's system. That date is nearly 10 days after media
outlets began reporting that GameStop was aware of the potential
for a data breach," they said.

The plaintiffs said between them they had more than $7,600 in
fraudulent withdrawals and charges due to the theft of their card
numbers. While the funds were recovered and the charges cancelled,
both plaintiffs spent several hours addressing the problem, the
complaint said

The complaint claimed the breach occurred because GameStop's
security measures "are in stark contrast and directly conflict"
with industry standards and violate Federal Trade Commission
guidelines. It also said the company's response to the affected
customers was inadequate.

"In contrast to what is and has been frequently made available to
consumers in recent data breaches, GameStop has not offered or
provided any monitoring service or fraud insurance to date," they
said.

The plaintiffs said they did not know how many customers were
affected as of the time of filing, but that the breach took place
during the heaviest retail sales seasons of the year.

Counsel for the plaintiffs and representatives of GameStop did not
immediately respond to requests for comment late on September 29.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert J. Kriner Jr., Esq.  --
rk@chimicles.com -- Vera G. Belger, Esq. -- vb@chimicles.com --
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- bj@chimicles.com --  Andrew W. Ferich,
Esq. -- af@chimicles.com --and Jessica L. Titler, Esq. --
jt@chimicles.com --  of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Cornelius P.
Dukelow, Esq. -- cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com -- of Abington Cole &
Ellery.

Counsel information for GameStop was not immediately available.

The case is Crystal Bray et. al. v. GameStop Corp., case number
not immediately available, in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. [GN]


GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces "Lorenti" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Anthony Lorenti, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Geico
Indemnity Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01755-GKS-DCI (M.D.
Fla., October 10, 2017).

GEICO Indemnity Company offers auto, life, and home insurance
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq.
   Avolio & Hanlon, PC
   2800 N. Fifth St Ste 302
   St Augustine, FL 32084
   Tel: (904) 794-7005
   Fax: (904) 794-7007
   Email: tlmarkhamlaw@gmail.com


GEO GROUP: Faces "Olmos" Suit in Arizona
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEO Group
Incorporated. The case is styled as Timothy Paul Olmos, named as
Timothy Olmos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Charles L Ryan, Richard Pratt, Mark
Shipman, Jeffery Wrigley, Correct Care Solutions, Unknown Foster
Dr., Crystal Bitz, GEO Group Incorporated named as The Geo Group
Incorporated and Lori A Linn, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03665-
GMS--JFM (D. Ariz., October 10, 2017).

The GEO Group Inc. is a Florida-based company specializing in
corrections, detention and mental health treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ellis" Suit over Gender Pay Gap
--------------------------------------------------
KELLY ELLIS, HOLLY PEASE, and KELLI WISURI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GOOGLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-561299 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover wages due, interest, liquidated
damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining Google
from continuing to pay women less than men for substantially
similar work, including by segregating women into lesser
compensated jobs than men with similar skills and experience.

According to the complaint, Google has discriminated and continues
to discriminate against its female employees by systematically
paying them lower compensation than Google pays to male employees
performing substantially similar work under similar working
conditions, in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Labor
Code. Google's failure to pay women and men equal compensation for
substantially similar work is not justified by any lawful reason.
Google has discriminated and continues to discriminate against its
female employees by paying female employees less than male
employees with similar skills, experience, and duties; by
assigning and keeping women in job ladders and levels with lower
compensation ceilings and advancement opportunities than those to
which men with similar skills, experience, and duties are assigned
and kept; and by
20 promoting fewer women and promoting women more slowly than it
has promoted similarly-qualified men. The net result of this
systemic discrimination is that Google pays women less than men
for comparable work. Google has known or should have known of the
pay disparity between its female and male employees, yet Google
has failed to equalize men's and women's pay for substantially
similar work. Google's failure to pay female employees the same
compensation paid to male employees for substantially similar work
has been and is willful. As a result of Google's discriminatory
and unlawful pay, job assignment, and promotion policies and/or
practices, Plaintiffs and class members have been denied
opportunities and fair wages during the Class Period, and they are
entitled to wages due, interest, and liquidated damages.  In
addition to damages, Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and
injunctive relief enjoining Google from continuing to pay women
less than men for substantially similar work, including by
segregating women into lesser compensated jobs than men with
similar skills and experience; and from failing to promote women
at the same rate or pace as men.

Google Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products. These
include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing,
software, and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Finberg, Esq.
          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Corinne F. Johnson, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com
                  ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
                  cjohnson@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          Michelle Lamy, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco. CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: kdermodv@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  mlamy@lchb.com


GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Wolf Resorts
Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Great Wolf Lodge. The case is
styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc.
doing business as: Great Wolf Lodge, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05924 (E.D. N.Y., October 10, 2017).

Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc. owns, operates, and/or manages
hotel resort properties specializing in in-door water parks.[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


GULF WORLD: Faces "Vallee" over Credit Card Receipts
----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW VALLEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GULF WORLD MARINE PARK, INC. (d/b/a
Gulf World); and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00236-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney
fees, all of which are expressly made available by statute, as a
result of Defendants' unlawful practice of violating Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act's provisions intended to
safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud.

According to the compliant, many of Defendants' business peers and
competitors brought their credit and debit card receipt printing
processes in compliance with FACTA's requirements by, for example,
programming their card machines and devices to prevent them from
printing more than the last five digits of the card number and or
the expiration date upon the receipts provided to the cardholders.
Defendants could have readily done the same. Instead, Defendants
knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and recklessly disregarded
FACTA's requirements and used cash registers and or other machines
or devices that printed receipts in violation of FACTA. Defendant
knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and recklessly violated FACTA
in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and the
Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
          12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: 850 837 6020
          Facsimile: 850 837 4093
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: 877 574 7100
          Facsimile: 877 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

               - and -

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          HERRINGTON LAW, PA
          1520 N. State Street
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 208 0013
          Facsimile: (601) 235 9947
          E-mail: brian@herringtonlawpa.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Accused by Rodgers of Negligent Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF RODGERS, PATRICIA RODGERS, MICHAEL LAVIGNE, JENNIFER LAVIGNE,
CODY PYLE, JENNIFER RIBALTA, IZAAR VALDEZ, FELIX VALDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HERBALIFE, LTD.; HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HERBALIFE
INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., MARK ADDY, JILLIAN ADDY, DENNIS
DOWDELL, GARRAIN S. JONES, CODY MORROW, CHRISTOPHER REESE, GABRIEL
SANDOVAL, EMMA SANDOVAL, JOHN TARTOL, LESLIE R. STANFORD, FERNANDO
RANCEL, LORI BAKER, MANUEL COSTA, MARK DAVIS, JENNY DAVIS,
DANIELLE EDWARDS, GRAEME EDWARDS, THOMAS P. GIOIOSA, SANDRA
GIOIOSA, ALCIDES MEJIA, MIRIAM MEJIA, PAULINA RIVEROS, RON
ROSENAU, CAROL ROSENAU, AMBER WICK, JASON WICK, JORGE DE LA
CONCEPCION, DISNEY DE LA CONCEPCION, JENNIFER MICHELI, GUILLERMO
RASCH, CLAUDIA RASCH, SAMUEL HENDRICKS, AMY HENDRICKS, BRADLEY
HARRIS, PAYMI ROMERO, ARQUIMEDES G. VALENCIA, RYAN BAKER,
KRISTOPHER BICKERSTAFF, MARK MATIKA, ENRIQUE CARILLO, DANIEL J.
WALDRON, SUSAN PETERSON, MICHAEL KATZ, and DEBI KATZ, Case No.
1:17-cv-23429-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2017), seeks relief
under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
for unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the
alleged corrupt organization of individuals and entities, who
sell, operate, and compel participation in the Circle of Success.
The Defendants market their event system as some variation of the
"Wheel of Success," the "Cycle of Success," or the "Circle of
Success" (the "Circle of Success").  The Circle of Success is
graphically represented to participants in dozens of different
forms, but all are intended to express the same core theme:
attendance at events equals financial success.

Herbalife is a global nutrition company that sells weight
management, healthy meals and snacks, sports and fitness, energy
and targeted nutritional products, as well as personal care
products.  The Company distributes and sells its products through
a network of independent distributors, using the direct selling
channel.

Herbalife, Ltd., is a Cayman Island corporation with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles, California.  Herbalife
International, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles.  Herbalife International, Inc.,
is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Herbalife, Ltd.

Herbalife International of America, Inc., is a Nevada corporation
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.  Herbalife
International of America, Inc., was a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Herbalife International, Inc. and an indirect, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Herbalife, Ltd.  The Individual Defendants are among
Herbalife's top earning distributors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Etan Mark, Esq.
          Donald J. Hayden, Esq.
          Lara O'Donnell Grillo, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
                  don@markmigdal.com
                  lara@markmigdal.com

               - and -

          Jason Jones, Esq.
          JASON JONES @ LAW
          Telephone: (312) 237-0275
          E-mail: jason@jonesatlaw.com


HOSPITALITY STAFFING: "Arguelles" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brenda Arguelles, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Hospitality Staffing
Solutions, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. Case No. 37-02017-00029158-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on Sep.
14, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01885-BEN-BGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC provides hospitality staffing
services to hotels, resorts, casinos, and diamond properties in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
          Torrance, CA 90501
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lisa Mireille Bowman, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1002
          Telephone: (415) 442 4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: lisa.bowman@ogletree.com


J. R. CARLSON: Faces "Kramarz" Suit over L-Glutamine Product
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN KRAMARZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J. R. CARLSON LABORATORIES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-12609 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Sep. 18, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Defendant's ongoing deceptive practices relating
to its claims on the labels and advertising of its L-Glutamine
dietary supplement products.

This case is a consumer class action brought on behalf of
consumers who purchased Life Time Fitness L-Glutamine dietary
supplement. The Defendant engaged in unfair and/or deceptive
business practices by misrepresenting the nature and quality of
the Product on the Product's label, and were unjustly enriched.

According to the lawsuit, Defendant J. R. Carlson Laboratories,
Inc. advertises, markets, sells and distributes the Product
throughout the United States, including in the State of Illinois.
The Defendant, like many companies in the sports supplement
industry, totally ignores competent and reliable scientific data
regarding its products and ingredients. L-Glutamine is a
naturally-occurring, nonessential, neutral amino acid. It is
important as a constituent of proteins and as a means of nitrogen
transport between tissues. It is "nonessential" because the human
body produces its own glutamine. Glutamine is the most abundant
free amino acid in human skeletal muscle and plasma. The effects
of acute exercise on plasma glutamine appear to be largely
dependent on the duration and intensity of exercise.

The lawsuit notes that many healthy people are under the
impression, perpetuated by the likes of the Defendant, that a
supplemented intake of glutamine has beneficial effects. This is
frequently the case among athletes and bodybuilders, who commonly
consume glutamine one to three times daily. Glutamine
supplementation doses range from 2 to 40 grams per day, which
represents 3% to 60% of the recommended intake of amino nitrogen.
Simply because a substance, such as glutamine, is a nutrient, does
not necessarily mean that its enhanced use is beneficial.
Glutamine naturally found within the body does play a role in
certain mechanisms supporting muscle growth and recovery. However,
as noted in the numerous scientific citations contained herein,
glutamine supplementation has been found to be completely
ineffective at mimicking these physiological responses. Simply
put, the ingestion of Defendant's Product does absolutely nothing
for the recovery from exercise or energy for muscle growth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
          Patrick Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368 1500
          Facsimile: 847 368 1501
          E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com
                  psolberg@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Barbat, Mansour & Suciu
          1644 Bracken Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303 3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


JLN CONSTRUCTION: Lee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEE and LADRIAN TAYLOR, Individually and on Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Employees v. JLN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC
and NNAMDI C. IWUOHA, Case No. 1:17-cv-02765-RDB (D. Md.,
September 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

JLN Construction Services, LLC, is an incorporated for-profit
business with a principal office in Baltimore County, Maryland.
JLN specializes in general construction and design-build projects.
The Company performs masonry, finishing, demolition and
installation work.  Nnamdi C. Iwuoha is the owner of JLN.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


KITE PHARMA: "Morrissey" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gilead
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MORRISSEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KITE PHARMA, INC., ARIE
BELLDEGRUN, DAVID BONDERMAN, FARAH CHAMPSI, IAN CLARK, ROY
DOUMANI, FRANZ HUMER, JOSHUA A. KAZAM, RAN NUSSBAUM, JON PEACOCK,
STEVEN B. RUCHEFSKY, and OWEN N. WITTE, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-06771 (C.D. Cal., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from closing a tender offer or taking any steps to
consummate a proposed transaction, unless and until the material
information discussed below is disclosed to Kite stockholders or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

According to the complaint, on August 27, 2017, Kite entered into
a definitive agreement and plan of merger with Gilead, pursuant to
which each Kite stock holder stands to receive $180.00 for each
share of Kite common stock they own. On September 5, in order to
convince Kite stockholders to tender their shares, the Company's
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the
Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning Kite's financial projections and
the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Centerview Partners LLC. The Tender Offer is scheduled to
expire on October 2, 2017. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Recommendation
Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the
forthcoming Expiration Date so they can properly determine whether
to tender their shares.

Kite Pharma is a publicly held, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company engaged in the development of novel cancer immunotherapy
products with a primary focus on engineered autologous T cell
therapy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446 6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880


MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Fan Injuries at Games
-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, Fred Lief, Ben Walker, Ronald Blum,
Howie Rumberg, Joe Kay, Bernie Wilson and Donna Cassata, writing
for Associated Press, report that it might be the shot heard
around the baseball world: the rocket-like foul ball that hit a
young girl at a New York Yankees game.

In the hours after the girl was struck in the face by the 105-mph
screamer, the game's commissioner vowed to push harder for all
teams to extend protective netting to the end of the dugouts and
the Cincinnati Reds and San Diego Padres committed to do just that
by next year.  A U.S. senator urged the commissioner to "put the
safety of your fans first" and extend nets at all ballparks.

Several legal observers of baseball, which has long been shielded
from lawsuits over fan injuries, saw it as a potential game
changer.

"America's pastime is breaking America's heart.  That little girl,
that's everyone's daughter," said lawyer Bob Hilliard, who
represents fans in a California lawsuit that seeks class action
status to sue on behalf of 1,750 fans hit by balls and bats at
games each year.

The line drive off the bat of Yankees slugger Todd Frazier on
Sept. 20 hit the girl in the face in less than a second, and the
game came to a halt as she was treated in the stands.
Mr. Frazier and other players from the Yankees and Minnesota Twins
kneeled in prayer, and many fans were in stunned silence or in
tears.

The toddler remained hospitalized on Sept. 21.  Her father said
soon after she was hit, "She's doing all right.  Just keep her in
your thoughts."

In a statement on Sept. 21, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob
Manfred called the events "extremely upsetting."

"Over the past few seasons MLB has worked with our clubs to expand
the amount of netting in our ballparks," Mr. Manfred said.  "In
light of the event, we will redouble our efforts on this important
issue."

About a third of the 30 major league teams, the Yankees not among
them, have at the commissioner's urging extended the netting to at
least the far end of the dugout.  The Reds have promised to do it
by next season's opening day.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, told Mr. Manfred in a
letter to push to extend safety netting from 10 to all 30
ballparks.

On a visit to the Padres, Mr. Manfred said he was encouraged by
the number of conversations MLB had with clubs on Sept. 21 about
adding additional netting for 2018.

Among them were the Padres, who said they will extend netting to
the end of each dugout by opening day.

"I think by redoubling I mean continuing to focus and
conversations with the clubs to get them to make decisions that
make sense in their local markets and given the configurations of
their ballparks," Mr. Manfred said.  "I think probably the best
concrete evidence of redoubling is the number of conversations
that took place between my office and individual clubs on this
topic."

Mr. Hilliard's lawsuit seeks to go further, to force clubs to
extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole.  But like
other lawsuits over decades, it was tossed out.  An appeal will be
heard in San Francisco in December.

"A day at the ballpark should not be a game of Russian Roulette,
especially for children injured by projectiles in disturbingly
disproportionate numbers," lawyers wrote in court papers seeking
the lawsuit's reinstatement.

Most of the fans struck by balls and bats at games each year
suffer minor injuries, but a few have been critically injured or
killed.  The more tragic results include a 14-year-old boy who
died four days after he was hit on the left side of his head at
Dodger Stadium in May 1970 and a 39-year-old woman who died a day
after she was struck in the temple by a foul ball at a San Angelo
Colts game in 2010.

But fans may be unaware of the stark legal reality of baseball:
Successfully suing teams over such cases is nearly impossible. The
fine print on every baseball ticket comes with a disclaimer that
the bearer "assumes all risk and danger incidental to the game."

For the last century or so, baseball has been virtually immune
from such lawsuits because of what has become known as the
Baseball Rule.

Ed Edmonds, a retired professor of law at Notre Dame Law School
who co-authored "Baseball Meets the Law," said at least two
states, Idaho and Indiana, have turned away from automatic
application of the Baseball Rule.  But four other states, Arizona,
Colorado, Illinois and New Jersey, passed legislation protecting
teams from lawsuits.

New York real estate executive Andy Zlotnick, who unsuccessfully
sued the Yankees after he was hit in the face by a ball at a game
six years ago, said he required major reconstructive surgery and
still has throbbing pain in his cheek, numbness in his lips and
gums, double vision and retina damage.  He said he has not gone to
a game since.

"Nobody should go to a ballpark and come out without an eye or
disabled," he said.  "Enough is enough."

Dina Simpson, a Chardon, Ohio, mother of three young children,
said she permanently lost one eye sight after she was struck by a
baseball in May at a minor league game in Eastlake, Ohio.

"They have the Baseball Rule.  They think this happens, you can't
sue us, have a nice day.  It's sickening.  It's absolutely
sickening," she said.  "I'm praying for that little girl . . .
It's heartbreaking and it's preventable." [GN]


MARRIOT OWNERSHIP: Faces Labor Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
California labor lawsuit against a subsidiary of hotelier Marriott
has been put forward as a class action by a former sales executive
who claims she was not properly compensated for hourly work.
Stacy McComack also asserts that consent forms associated with
background checks included a liability waiver that is alleged to
be in violation of regulatory authority.

California Class Action Labor Lawsuit Filed Against Marriott
Subsidiary

The defendant in the proposed California labor law class action is
Marriott Ownership Resorts Inc., a division of Marriott that
specializes in the development and vending of time-shares.

The California labor employment law class action asserts
commission sales executives and associates were unable to take
meal breaks and rest periods, and were not compensated for them.
Ms. McComack, who is identified as the lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit, states in Court documents that an overly busy work day
often did not allow sales executives the freedom, or opportunity
to pause for meal breaks and rest periods as mandated by
California labor laws.

To that end, according to Law360 (08/21/17), California state
labor laws hold that meal breaks and rest periods can only be
forfeited if the employee is paid for the missed breaks, and / or
meal period.  The lawsuit asserts that Marriott failed to properly
compensate Ms. McComack and representative class members for those
missed breaks.  The resulting missed pay, the lawsuit states, also
affects overtime pay and creates a situation where the sales
executives were essentially working off the clock.

"Defendant required plaintiff and California class members to work
off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under
defendant's control performing post-shift duties, specifically by
failing to provide enough labor hours to accomplish all the job
tasks that defendant expected plaintiff and California class
members to complete," the complaint alleges. "The plaintiff and
other California class members forfeited time worked by working
without their time being accurately recorded and without
compensation at the applicable rates."

The California labor lawsuit asserts pay records lack any
reference to rest breaks or meal periods.

Ms. McComack also alleges that sales reps undertook additional
tasks from home, including fielding calls for which the plaintiffs
saw no compensation.  Plaintiffs further allege Marriott failed to
reimburse employees for using their personal mobile phones for
work-related purposes.

Ms. McComack's California labor lawsuit is Stacy McComack et al.
v. Marriott Ownership Resorts Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01663, in the
US District Court for the Southern District of California. The
lawsuit seeks to represent a class of California sales executives
who were paid on commission since August 2013.

Ms. McComack also seeks damages for a nationwide class of people
who have applied to work for Marriott Ownership Resorts since
August 2012 -- and this relates to a background check release that
included a liability waiver.  Ms. McComack alleges the release
form in question violates guidance under the Federal Trade
Commission, together with alleged violations against the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (The Act), which states background checks are
not to seek information or include terms beyond what are deemed as
standard disclosures under The Act.  For this,
Ms. McComack seeks statutory damages of $1,000 per applicant, as
well as punitive damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees.
[GN]


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Ehrlich Sues over Benefit Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN EHRLICH, for himself and for all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, V. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-2982F (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2017),
asks the Court to compel the Defendant to restore the cost of
living benefit payments going forward to the plaintiff and to all
of the members of the class.

According to the complaint, in August 1988, the plaintiff
purchased a disability insurance policy from Connecticut Mutual.
The policy consists, inter alia, of a basic policy, which provides
certain payments for periods during which the insured is disabled
through the policy anniversary date following the insured's 65th
birthday; a lifetime rider, so called, which extends the payment
of benefits beyond the cut-off date for so long as the insured
remains disabled and is alive; and a cost-of-living rider which
provides for annual increases in the amount of benefits paid under
the policy. The policy remains in full force and effect, and the
plaintiff remains totally disabled. The basic monthly payment
under the policy is $1,500.  By virtue of the cost of living
rider, that amount has increased substantially during the term of
the plaintiffs disability, and in the last month (July, 2017) for
which the defendant has paid to the plaintiff the full amount due
under the policy, his total monthly benefit stood at $4,837.50.
The plaintiff was born on July 1, 1952. His 65th birthday occurred
on July 1, 2017. The anniversary of the policy next after his 65th
birthday occurred on August 5, 2017. The defendant takes the
position that the cost of living rider is not extended beyond this
cut-off date by the lifetime rider, and that the plaintiffs
benefit, as of August 5, 2017, reverted back to his basic benefit
of $1,500 per month. In September 2015, the defendant sent the
plaintiff a letter outlining its contention that the cost of
living adjustments to the basic policy would end in August 2017
and that his payments would revert to the base amount. In July,
2017, the defendant wrote the plaintiff again to the same effect.
On August 18, 2017, the defendant sent the plaintiff an
"Explanation of Benefits" stating that the defendant would deposit
in the plaintiffs designated bank account the sum of $1,500, and
that this was the total amount of his monthly benefit going
forward.

The defendant is collaterally estopped from maintaining that the
policy at issue has the meaning that it attempts to give it. The
defendant has continued to deny cost of living benefits to all of
its policy holders similarly situated to the plaintiff
notwithstanding its knowledge that it cannot lawfully do so.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company operates as a mutual
life insurance company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Z. Eigerman, Esq.
          60 Reservoir St.
          Cambridge MA 02138
          Telephone: (617) 547 7166


MASTERCARD INC: Consumer's GBP14-Bil. Class Action Appeal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Crump, writing for Law360, reports that a U.K. competition
appeal court on September 28 denied a consumer's attempts to
appeal a decision preventing him from bringing a GBP14 billion
($18.7 billion) antitrust suit against Mastercard Inc. over credit
card swipe fees.

Former chief financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks had
moved to appeal a U.K. competition court's decision that the case
couldn't proceed as a collective action, which has been dismissed
by a panel of English judges.

The U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, or CAT, unanimously ruled on
July 21 that the claim, filed by Merricks on behalf of millions of
consumers, had failed several tests necessary for it to be granted
a collective proceedings order.

Merrick appealed the decision, claiming the tribunal was wrong in
its analysis and in the legal test that it applied. He said that
had it properly applied relevant legal principles, and considered
the clear policy intent behind the introduction of the new
collective action regime, the claim against Mastercard would have
been allowed to proceed.

"There is no potential error of law in the tribunal finding that
the claims were not "suitable to be brought in collective
proceedings. The application for permission to appeal is therefore
refused," the panel of judges led by Judge Peter Roth wrote in
judgment.

"If we had considered that there was jurisdiction for an appeal,
we would have refused permission in this case since we do not
consider that the appeal would have any real prospect of success,"
the judgment stated.

The CAT's decision marks another major win for Mastercard in its
long-running battles with consumers and retailers over the bank-
to-bank fees it sets. The credit card firm notched up a
significant High Court victory earlier this year in an interchange
fees case brought by a group of retailers.

The consumer suit, lodged by Merricks in September, is one of the
first to be filed using the U.K.'s new class action regime created
in 2015.

"We believe that the Competition Appeal Tribunal's judgment to
refuse certification for the proposed collective action, and in
turn its refusal to appeal the judgment, were the correct
decisions, and that any appeal or review of this claim is without
merit. Mastercard maintains that this claim is completely
unsuitable to be brought under the collective actions regime," a
Mastercard spokesman said.

Legal representatives for Merricks had not responded to request
for comment at the time of publication.

Mastercard still faces more than a dozen suits after the company
lost its appeal in 2014 against a European Commission ruling that
it broke EU competition law by setting a minimum price for cross-
border interchange fees. These bank-to-bank charges are paid from
a merchant's bank to a card-issuing bank when a purchase is
processed.

Merricks is represented by Paul Harris QC of Monckton Chambers and
Marie Demetriou QC and Victoria Wakefield of Brick Court Chambers
and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

MasterCard is represented by Mark Hoskins QC and Tony Singla of
Brick Court Chambers, Ben Williams QC of 4 New Square and Matthew
Cook of One Essex Court and Freshfields.

The judgment was handed down by Judge Peter Roth, Colin Mayer and
Clare Potter.

The case is Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. MasterCard Inc.,
MasterCard International Inc. and MasterCard Europe S.P.R.L., case
number 1266/7/7/16, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. [GN]


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of "Mojsiej" Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Imprelis Arborist
Panel's Decision denying of John and Sharon Mojsiej's appeal in
the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS. Case No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP. (E.D. Pa.)

John and Sharon Mojsiej appeal the decision of the Imprelis
Arborist Panel, claiming that several trees should receive higher
ratings and/or adjusted tree height assessments, and that other
trees should have been included in their claims resolution
agreement.

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.

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  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. 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.

The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action
relating to the Settlement.

The Mojsiejs' Appeal

DuPont offered removal and replacement value for 21 trees and tree
care for 9 trees. The Mojsiejs objected to the offer, claiming
additional damage and differences in tree heights, as well as
seeking additional tree care compensation and an additional
payment of greater than 15%. DuPont sent another inspector to
review the Mojsiejs' property. Based on that inspection, some
trees had improved and others had worsened, resulting in a new
offer providing removal and replacement compensation for 21 trees,
tree care for 12 trees, and removal payment rather than service at
Mr. Mojsiej's request.

The Mojsiejs objected again, arguing that certain trees had not
been inspected for damage and that the heights for other trees
were inaccurate. DuPont denied the objection, and the Mojsiejs
appealed to the Arborist Panel. In that appeal, they claimed that
DuPont's arborist ignored certain trees in performing his
inspection, and they submitted photographs and an arborist report
from their own expert. While the appeal was pending, DuPont
reviewed the claim again on its own based on the photographs
provided and increased its offer to the Mojsiejs.

The Mojsiejs chose to proceed with their appeal anyway. After
reviewing the information submitted by the Mojsiejs, as well as
the multiple claims resolution agreements, the Arborist Panel
denied the Mojsiejs' appeal.

Taking this middle course, the Court will apply an arbitrary and
capricious standard of review. That is, factual findings and
conclusions drawn by the Arborist Panel will be set aside only if
they are without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or
erroneous as a matter of law Such a standard gives effect to the
parties' clear intent that the Arborist Panel's role be more than
merely advisory and recognizes their expertise and neutrality,
while still giving class members an opportunity for a more
meaningful review of the Panel's decisions.

The tree rating table for the Settlement Agreement, however,
provides that a 3 rating should be assigned to trees showing 40-
70% damage. This discrepancy alone could explain at least some of
the inconsistency between Ms. Applequist's evaluations and
DuPont's. After reviewing the photographic evidence and expert
evaluations submitted by both the Mojsiejs and DuPont, the
Arborist Panel concluded that the ratings and heights assigned by
DuPont claims resolution agreement should stand, and the Court
does not find this conclusion to be arbitrary or capricious.
The Mojsiejs' final objection is that there are 3 trees that
DuPont has failed to ever acknowledge. For those trees, however,
the photographic evidence submitted is not sufficient to
demonstrate the cause of damage, and therefore the Arborist
Panel's failure to recommend reimbursement for those trees was not
arbitrary or capricious.

The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny the
Mojsiejs' appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yalzqje3from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of "Rehn" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Imperlis Arborist
Panel's Decision denying Richard Rehm's appeal in the case
captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL
ACTIONS. Case No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP. (E.D. Pa.).

Richard Rehm appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont should have rated 18 trees for removal and
replacement after he made a warranty claim.

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.

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 (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  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. 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.

The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action
relating to the Settlement.

Richard Rehm's Appeal

Dr. Rehm reported Imprelis damage to several trees on his property
and accepted a claims resolution agreement providing for the
removal and replacement of 16 trees and tree care for an
additional 18. He later filed a warranty claim, asserting that the
18 trees marked for care had deteriorated to the point where they
qualified for removal and replacement. A DuPont arborist inspected
Dr. Rehm's property in September 2014 and concluded that the trees
had not significantly worsened in condition. DuPont then denied
the warranty claim. Dr. Rehm objected to the denial, but he did
not provide additional evidence in support of his objection.
DuPont denied the objection, and Dr. Rehm appealed to the Arborist
Panel. With his appeal, he submitted 9 photographs and a letter
from his lawn care operator discussing the condition of some of
the 18 trees at issue. The Arborist Panel denied the appeal.

Taking this middle course, the Court will apply an arbitrary and
capricious standard of review. That is, factual findings and
conclusions drawn by the Arborist Panel will be set aside only if
they are "without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or
erroneous as a matter of law Such a standard gives effect to the
parties' clear intent that the Arborist Panel's role be more than
merely advisory and recognizes their expertise and neutrality,
while still giving class members an opportunity for a more
meaningful review of the Panel's decisions.

Dr. Rehm contends that 18 of his Imprelis-damaged trees have
significantly worsened, such that they should be removed and
replaced. However, the evidence he submitted in support of his
claim gave the Arborist Panel virtually no reason to overturn
DuPont's warranty decision. The pictures do not show the trees in
sufficient detail to determine a cause of damage, and Dr. Rehm's
lawn care operator's letter, which states that certain trees are
dead and/or hazards, does not include any evidence or reasoning to
support those conclusions. The Court, therefore, cannot conclude
that the Panel's decision was arbitrary or capricious and will
therefore deny the appeal.

The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny the Dr.
Rehm's appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yalzqje3from
Leagle.com.


MEDICAL REHABILITATION: Faces "Bungy" Suit in Del. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical
Rehabilitation Centers, LLC.  The case is styled as Fay Bungy, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Medical Rehabilitation Centers, LLC d/b/a
Exceptional Living Centers, the Defendant, Case No. N17C-09-191
EMD (Del. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2017).

Medical Rehabilitation Centers, LLC operates and manages long-term
care nursing facilities. The Company conducts financial,
marketing, and property management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelley M. Huff, Esq.
          Murphy & Landon
          1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 472-8100
          Facsimile: (302) 472 8135
          E-Mail: khuff@msllaw.com


MICHIGAN: Class Action Over Flint Schools Gets Green Light
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a Michigan federal
judge refused on September 29 to scrap a proposed class action
against the state Department of Education and local schools
alleging they systematically failed to provide proper services to
Flint children with disabilities, students whose health was
further jeopardized by longtime exposure to lead in the public
water supply.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow denied the Michigan
Department of Education's motion to dismiss and the Genesee
Intermediate School District's motion for judgment, which asked
for the claims against it to be tossed. The judge agreed to trim
one claim against Flint Community Schools that sought universal
preschool after finding that there is no showing the court had the
power to order the creation of public universal preschool.

The judge wrote that the complaint is clear that the plaintiffs
are seeking is a systematic change of the way that the defendants
identify and educate children in the Flint School District.

"The relief they are seeking is plainly not individual and could
not be remedied by individual exhaustion since plaintiffs are
challenging the very efficacy of the system employed within the
Flint District," the judge wrote. "Further, the representative
plaintiffs have emphatically illustrated that the alleged
violations are widespread across the Flint schools and repetitive
in nature."

The proposed class consists of about 30,000 school-age children in
Flint who are at risk of developing disabilities because of high
levels of lead in the drinking water, the judge noted. The suit
was filed in October 2016, and alleged that officials did not act
to prevent schoolchildren from being exposed to high levels of
lead in the municipal supply of drinking water for a period of 18
months.

Now, the needs of children who have been affected by the lead
crisis require immediate action from state and local authorities,
the complaint said, detailing a lack of resources to help them.

The complaint said special education students in Flint are
punished with suspensions and expulsions at a higher rate than
elsewhere and drop out of school at a higher rate than their peers
in other districts. The lead poisoning crisis only exacerbates
their situation, the suit said.

"Today, the court has given Flint children a chance by ruling that
they deserve, at the very least, an opportunity to show that they
have not yet received the services to which they are entitled
under federal law and how they can and should be helped with
sufficient state and local intervention," Kary Moss, the executive
director of ACLU of Michigan and an attorney for the plaintiffs,
said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the Flint Community Schools said in a statement
that it couldn't comment on the case, but added, "The well-being
of Flint Community Schools students is our number one priority."

The Michigan Department of Education declined to comment, citing
the pending litigation.

Representatives for the Genesee Intermediate School District did
not immediately respond to requests for comment on September 29.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory M. Starner, Esq. Lindsay
M. Heck, Esq. Walter A. Ciacci, Esq. --  Dominique N. Forrest,
Esq. --  dforrest@whitecase.com -- and Laura A. Grai, Esq. --
lgarr@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP, by Kary L. Moss, Esq.
Kristine L. Totten, Daniel S. Korobkin and Michael J. Steinberg of
the ACLU Fund of Michigan and by David G. Sciarra, Esq. Gregory G.
Little, Esq. and Jessica Levin of the Education Law Center.

The Michigan Department of Education is represented by Timothy J.
Haynes, Travis M. Comstock and Katherine J. Bennett of the
Michigan Department of Attorney General.

The Genesee Intermediate School District is represented by Timothy
J. Mullins and John L. Miller of Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton PC.

Flint Community Schools is represented by Donald B. Miller,
Frederick A. Berg Jr. and Brett J. Miller of Butzel Long.

The case is DR et al. v. Michigan Department of Education et al.,
case number 2:16-cv-13694, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Show Cause Why "Tripp" Must Not Be Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an order to show cause why the action captioned BETHANY
TRIPP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 16-12588-GAO (D. Mass.), should not be remanded to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The defendant removed the putative class action from Suffolk
County Superior Court, invoking the Court's diversity-of-
citizenship jurisdiction.  Although the Notice of Removal
sufficiently pleads diversity among the parties, the defendant
relies entirely on the plaintiff's claim of $1,000,000 of damages
in her state Civil Cover Sheet to demonstrate the minimum amount
in controversy of $75,000 has been met.

However, as another judge in this district recently explained,
civil cover sheets are inherently imprecise, and the extent of a
civil cover sheet's role in determining the amount in controversy
is not settled in this Circuit.  Courts in this district and
elsewhere have held that although a civil cover sheet may provide
evidence of the amount in controversy, it is not in itself
dispositive.  Other courts have reasoned that a civil cover sheet
is simply too imprecise to make the requisite demonstration of the
amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's complaint itself does not allege damages in any
specific dollar amount and, based on the allegations and requested
relief, the figure included in the Civil Cover Sheet appears to be
entirely arbitrary. No justification for that figure appears
anywhere in the record.

In these circumstances, there is substantial reason to doubt that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for
invoking diversity jurisdiction.

The defendant, who bears the burden of demonstrating that the
amount in controversy is satisfied, is ordered to show cause why
the action should not be remanded to the state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydyucd73from Leagle.com.

Bethany Tripp, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg
Law, L.L.C., 43 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
M. Schneiderman -- aschneider@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Justin M. Fabella -- jfabella@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Ritchie" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RITCHIE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02428 (E.D. Mo., Sep. 18,
2017), seeks compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use
of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer,
specifically NHL.  According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff suffered
severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in
nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished
enjoyment of life.

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

Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an
elevated risk of developing cancer, Defendants' promotional
campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile."
Defendants' failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (1)
Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead of using
another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted weeds
and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn and
instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including NHL, and
other injuries associated with Roundup exposure. Defendants failed
to seek modification of the labeling of Roundup to include
relevant information regarding the risks and dangers associated
with Roundup exposure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          ERIC D. HOLLAND, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241 8111
          Facsimile: 314-241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Ayres" Suit over Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID AYRES, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00169-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

Roundup (TM) refers to all formulation of Defendant's Roundup
products, including but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison
Ivy and Tough Brush Killer, and Roundup Custom Herbicide.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Brooks, Esq.
          BROOKS LAW FIRM
          313 West York Street
          Savannah, Georgia 31401
          Telephone: (912) 233 9696
          E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Expert Issues Opinion, Concussion Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Farwell, writing for Dallas News, reports that concussions
have become a routine part of football at every level, and new
research suggests repeated head trauma may lead to a debilitating
brain disease.

But a Dallas-based expert says that researchers have yet to prove
that link definitively -- a stance he shares with the NFL and the
owner of America's Team.

This spring, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said it was "absurd"
to think there's enough data to show a link between playing
professional football and developing chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease.

The research, he said, isn't there.

But a pair of recent studies by researchers at Boston University -
- one that found CTE in 110 of 111 brains donated by NFL players,
and another that discovered a marker of the disease in spinal
fluid -- offer increasing evidence that over time, the game's
high-speed, often head-first, collisions can cause lasting damage.

"What more can we show?" said Jonathan Cherry, a neurologist who
authored one of the studies.  "People who play football have a
much higher risk for CTE.  We've shown this many times now."
A spokesman for the Cowboys said Jones was unavailable to comment
for this story, but his remarks in March seemed to contradict
congressional testimony by Jeff Miller, the NFL's senior vice
president for health and safety policy.

When asked that month whether playing football is linked to an
increased risk for degenerative brain diseases such as CTE, he
replied, "The answer to that is certainly, yes."

Mr. Jones later said his comments were not out of step with the
league.

"The thing that I don't want to get caught up in is semantics, the
semantics of it," he said, according to The Washington Post.  "We
as a league, we have not in any way changed our desire to do
everything we can to make it safe, make it safe as to head injury.
We hope and will support any data that would give us more insight
into any short- and long-term consequences.  We would support
that."

Mr. Jones said he and Mr. Miller agree -- scientists haven't
established a clear link between football and brain disorders
diagnosed later in players' lives.

"That has to have a lot of research, just as the heart did 50
years ago. And certainly, everybody that had heart issues 50 years
ago didn't live a normal life," Mr. Jones said.  "Nature takes
care of that.  So no, I didn't think at all that his statements
altered anything. . . . It didn't alter anything about where we
are."

Provocative, but not proof
The NFL recently finalized settlement of a six-year, billion-
dollar class-action lawsuit brought by more than 20,000 former
players and their family members.  Other lawsuits are pending,
including $20 million being sought by the family of former New
England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez, who committed suicide
while being tried for murder.

But Munro Cullum, a neuropsychologist with the O'Donnell Brain
Institute at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said the
league's legal problems shouldn't be interpreted as evidence that
football causes CTE.

So far, he says, Mr. Jones is right -- studies have not proved
that head trauma leads to the disease.

He called the Boston University study that discovered CTE in 110
of 111 former NFL players "provocative," but as science, its
usefulness was limited.  Here's why:  The brains evaluated were
not randomly selected.  They were provided by family members or
medical examiners who suspected the deceased were suffering from a
brain disorder like CTE.

"We call it a 'convenience sample,'" he said.  "It's like going to
a health club and seeing people in yoga pants and shirts and then
deciding that's what everybody wears. But if you went out to
dinner at a nice restaurant and did the same thing, you'd come to
a very different conclusion."

Mr. Cherry, the researcher from Boston University, said his team
was transparent about the limitations of the subset of brains they
studied, but it doesn't invalidate the work.

"We never said 99 percent of NFL football players are going to
develop it," he said.  "But if you look at all 1,300 football
players who've died [since research began], we showed 110 of them
have CTE.  So, at the lowest, 9 to 10 percent of NFL players have
CTE. And it's most likely much higher than that."

Many scientists believe there is a relationship between head
trauma and CTE, but a definitive cause-and-effect association has
not been proved.

"It appears that multiple biological mechanisms and environmental
or lifestyle factors could also produce the brain abnormalities
found in CTE," according to a fact sheet published by the Sports
Neuropsychology Society, an organization of experts studying the
disorder.

Barring a breakthrough, researchers say the debate over CTE --
what causes it, how to diagnose it, how to treat and prevent it
-- could continue for as long as a decade.  Scientists first saw
evidence of the disease in boxers in the 1920s, when it was called
"punch drunk syndrome" or dementia pugilistica.

Alzheimer's disease was once nearly impossible to diagnose. Like
CTE, symptoms like memory loss, depression and mild cognitive
decline were shared by many other disorders.  But today, with
brain scans, blood samples and psychological screening, doctors
get the diagnosis right between 85 and 90 percent of the time.
Mr. Cullum, the UT Southwestern researcher, predicts a similar
track for CTE.  He said awareness of concussions is a good thing,
especially for young athletes.  Like ankle sprains and other
sports injuries, fewer of them over a lifetime is almost certainly
better.

"But I just want to caution people not to overreact to news of
brain injuries, either," he said.  "The No. 1 cause of concussions
in people under the age of 20 is bicycle accidents. And I never
hear anyone saying we should keep kids off bicycles."
Did you miss these stories? [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Stallworth" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of New York.
The case is titled as Anthony Stallworth, Parichay Barman, Noor
Tani, and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Meera
Joshi, Chris Wilson Stas Skarbo, and City of New York, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07119-UA (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2017).

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Lee Ackman, Esq.
          222 Broadway 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 282 8178
          Facsimile: (917) 591 8300
          E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com


NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Home Care Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Lewis, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports
that Lai Yee Chan worked piece-rate in the city's textile
factories for more than a decade to support her three children
after she emigrated from China in the late 1980s.  She sometimes
labored until 2 a.m. for such brands as DKNY and saw co-workers
faint from the stifling summer heat in a Midtown warehouse.

Chan's current workplace, the apartment of an elderly man with
Alzheimer's who was partially paralyzed by a stroke, looks nothing
like the factory floor.  But during the seven years when she cared
for him in 24-hour shifts, it felt like a sweatshop just the same.

Chan is part of a cohort of New York home care workers that has
filed more than a dozen class-action lawsuits against employers to
challenge an industrywide practice known as the 13-hour rule, a
state-sanctioned policy in which home care workers are paid for
just 12 or 13 hours of a 24-hour shift.

"Getting paid for 12 or 13 hours is exploitation," said Chan, 62.
"This should never have happened in a civilized society."

Last month a panel of state appellate court judges agreed. After
reviewing two of the lawsuits, the judges ruled that the 13-hour
policy was illegal.  Although the agencies named as defendants,
New York Health Care and Future Care Health Services, want to
appeal the decisions, Chan is hoping the rulings will be upheld
and serve as legal precedent in her own case.

As Chan and her colleagues celebrated last month, owners of the
state's 1,500 or so registered home care agencies were frantically
contacting their trade associations for guidance on what to do
next.  They had followed the lawsuits for years through multiple
appeals and delays, and now their worst fears were materializing.

Eliminating the 13-hour rule would effectively double the cost of
providing the round-the-clock assistance many elderly and disabled
New Yorkers rely on to remain at home.  The rulings also could put
agencies on the hook for back wages for any employee who worked a
24-hour shift in the past six years, according to the statute of
limitations in New York.  That alone could amount to billions of
dollars, one trade group estimated. Many of the agencies are
nonprofits operating on tight margins and say they could be forced
to shutter.

"As far as potential costs, it will destroy the industry," said
Matthew Hetterich, director of corporate business development at
Utopia Home Care, based in Kings Park, Long Island, and president
of the Long Island Chapter of the New York State Association of
Health Care Providers.

How the state's court cases are resolved could determine the
future health of home care agencies, the well-being of workers and
the choices that families make about the care of their loved ones.

The cost of caring

Home care is one of the fastest-growing areas of employment in the
country, driven by demand from an aging population and a seismic
shift in the health system away from costly institutions such as
hospitals and nursing homes.  In New York home care employed
nearly 200,000 as of July, an 8% increase over July 2016.  The
lion's share, about 149,000, work in New York City, where the home
care workforce grew by 12% during that period.

That growth has put a lot of pressure on the industry.  New York's
Medicaid program, which insures low-income residents, is the
largest source of revenue for many home care employers.  Some
agencies rely on it for more than 90% of their income.  Medicaid
spent $7.2 billion on home care in fiscal 2017, with the state and
federal governments splitting the tab.

But state officials have stubbornly clung to the 13-hour rule to
help keep costs down.

"As an industry we can only pay our workers what we're getting
paid," said Hetterich.  "This is not the case of an evil business
that wants to make more and more money."

The home care agencies named in the class-action suits have
pointed to a 2010 opinion letter from the state Department of
Labor asserting that aides can be paid for 13 hours of a 24-hour
shift. (Workers are also supposed to get three hours for meals and
eight hours of sleep during each shift, at least five of which are
uninterrupted -- something aides say is far from guaranteed.) The
department based its guidance on a minimum-wage exemption for
workers who live full time with their clients.

But the September state appellate court decisions ruled that the
Labor Department erred in its interpretation of the law. Employees
who don't live with their clients full time must be paid for all
the hours they are at work, regardless of whether they are
sleeping or eating on the job, the judges said.

Asked about next steps, the Health Department said it is currently
reviewing the rulings.  The state Department of Labor did not
return Crain's requests for comment.

24-hour shifts

While working 24-hour shifts in Chinatown between 2007 and 2014,
Chan's workday did not really start or end.  She would wake up in
a bed catty-corner to the one her client slept in, make him
oatmeal for breakfast, bathe him, clothe him, clean the apartment
and launder his clothes.  When her client had the energy, she
would lift him into his wheelchair and take him to church or to
hear music in nearby Columbus Park.  His lunch and dinner were
meals that she cooked, blended into the consistency of baby food,
and fed to him.

At night, while he slept, she monitored his breathing,
periodically helped him shift positions and changed his diaper
every two hours, the same as in the daytime.

As his Alzheimer's progressed, he often woke up yelling.  Chan
would try whatever she could think of to get him back to sleep.
"Hear that siren?" she would ask in Cantonese, their shared
language, if an ambulance went by outside.  "If you don't go back
to sleep, they'll take you away."

That line rarely worked, Chan said with a chuckle.  On a summer
afternoon a few weeks before the rulings were handed down, Chan
chatted with other home health aides as they shared a box of sweet
buns at the Chinese Staff and Workers' Association, a grassroots
labor organization in Chinatown.

The women, current or former employees of the Chinese-American
Planning Council Home Attendant Program, are plaintiffs in two
class-action lawsuits pending against the nonprofit home care
agency.  Speaking through a translator, the women agreed that
their profession can be incredibly isolating.

"In home care you face the same person every day," said Chan. "The
patient doesn't speak much. In the garment factory, you can talk
among the workers. You can chat."

Home health aides who had worked for various agencies told Crain's
they suffered from depression as well as physical injuries from
lifting patients while working 24-hour shifts.

One such worker, Leticia Panama Rivas, a 40-year-old Queens
resident from Ecuador, said working as a home attendant 24 hours a
day, five days a week for four years left her with a back injury
and a failed marriage.  "I never saw my husband," said Rivas, who
is involved in a class-action suit against her former employer,
First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corp.

For her part Chan cobbled together part-time hours from different
agencies for about seven years before she was assigned to her 24-
hour case.  The job kept her away from her husband in Brooklyn for
three to five days at a stretch.  But working longer hours did not
substantially improve her family's finances.  Only during the
period when Chan was at her client's home five days a week, 24
hours a day, did her income surpass $30,000 per year.

Chan accepted the 24-hour assignment, fearing, like many home
health aides, that if she didn't, her agency would slash her hours
or make her wait months for another job.

It was not until she got a mysterious check for about $250, which
the Chinese-American Planning Council said was compensation for
all of the overtime she was owed between 2007 and 2013, that she
started to question the legality of the 13-hour rule. "The check
kind of opened my mind," she said.

Chan and two colleagues filed suit against the Chinese-American
Planning Council in March 2015, with a petition for class-action
status.  She was encouraged by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge's
decision in September of that year not to grant her employer's
request to dismiss the case.

She never guessed it would be her union, 1199SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East, that would prevent the trial from
proceeding in court.

Growing pains

Demand for home care is expected to accelerate as the baby-boom
generation ages. But a labor shortage is already underway.

"We have a very challenging environment with respect to
recruitment and retention of staff," said Al Cardillo, executive
vice president of policy and program services at the Home Care
Association of New York State.  "Dealing with turnover is a major
expense."

Home care agencies in New York turn away an average of 37 cases
per month because they are short-staffed, according to a recent
survey by the Home Care Association.  At least three agencies
reported having to decline more than 100 cases each month.

Recruitment has gotten tougher in part because minimum-wage
increases in the state mean workers can now earn just as much in
fast food and retail, industry leaders say.

A decade ago, the state minimum wage was $7.15 per hour, and home
care workers typically earned about $10 per hour.  That was a
blessing for attorney Thomas Small, a 52-year-old Brooklynite with
spinal muscular atrophy. Small participates in the state's
Consumer-Directed Personal Assistance Program, which allows people
to use their Medicaid benefits to recruit and hire aides directly.

"It wasn't uncommon to get 40 or 50 people to respond to a
Craigslist post, and I could weed through applicants and find
people who were really good," said Small, who is policy and
outreach director at Concepts of Independence, a nonprofit that
helps administer the state's personal assistance program.  "Now I
run an ad and get five or six responses."

While some are demanding a greater investment in the home care
workforce, the Cuomo administration is helping employers cope with
the gains their employees have already made in recent years,
including the minimum-wage increase.  The state is investing $6
billion in new funds in the home care workforce between fiscal
years 2015 and 2021, the Health Department said. Yet some in the
industry say it is still not enough.

A feeling of betrayal

In late June 2016, Chan marched to the front desk of her union's
headquarters and delivered a petition with 70 signatures demanding
that 1199 "make a serious effort to investigate whether there was
any wrongdoing, illegal activity or corruption conducted by the
union staff in dealing with workers' pursuit of their back wages."

In December 2015, months after Chan's case had been filed and the
motion to dismiss it had been denied, 1199 finalized an agreement
with the Chinese-American Planning Council amending their
contract.  It added a section requiring that all claims asserting
that the Chinese-American Planning Council violated state or
federal labor laws must be resolved through private mediation and
arbitration.  The provision, which has become increasingly common
in home care contracts, was voted on by union members and
ultimately added to all the labor agreements 1199 had negotiated
with 50 home care employers, said Helen Schaub, state policy and
legislative director for 1199.

A judge decided the provision could apply to Chan's case
retroactively and ordered Chan and her employer into arbitration.

The union said it added the arbitration clause because it is more
expedient than going through the courts and would benefit workers.
Chan disagreed.

She was further disappointed by her union's decision not to pursue
the claim that the 13-hour rule violated state and federal
regulations.  The union opted to represent only the workers'
claims that they did not get the requisite sleep and meal breaks.

By 1199's estimate, just 8% of the state's home care workers are
assigned to 24-hour cases.  "From our perspective, in terms of how
to best represent our members, we spent a lot of time and energy
winning the $15 minimum wage, which affects 100% of members,
versus a smaller portion working on live-in cases," Schaub said.

Chan's case is now in mediation.  But the feeling that her
powerful union abandoned her persists.  As she and others lost
faith in 1199, their relationship with two independent labor
organizations, the Chinese Staff and Workers' Association and the
National Mobilization Against Sweatshops, deepened.

Home care workers spread awareness of their campaign to end the
13-hour rule via word of mouth, while labor organizers drew up
fliers asking in multiple languages, "Do you work long hours? Are
you paid for all the hours you work of your 24-hour shift? And
overtime pay?"

The fliers further implored, "Join us!"

Home care workers who showed up at the labor groups' narrow,
adjacent offices on Grand Street were connected with lawyers at
the Urban Justice Center, Virginia & Ambinder, and other firms.
Chan and fellow home health aides celebrated last month's court
decisions alongside organizers and labor lawyers.  They said their
fight is just beginning.

"Often you win this judgment in court and it ends up just being a
piece of paper because it's so easy for employers to move money
around and essentially plead bankruptcy and not pay," said
Sophie DeBenedetto, an organizer with National Mobilization
Against Sweatshops.

The Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program has
already insisted it doesn't have the money to pay, said Chan.

Making it work

The director of the Chinese-American Planning Council Home
Attendant Program and several other home care executives declined
to speak to Crain's about the 13-hour rule.

One firm that did comment was Hometeam, a venture-backed startup
that serves a mix of private-pay and Medicaid patients and has
built its brand on creating well-paying careers for home health
aides.

But Hometeam too has taken advantage of the 13-hour rule.  A
classified ad that the company posted online in August for sleep-
in positions in New York City offered $154 for a single 24-hour
shift -- the equivalent of $6.42 per hour.  Only aides working at
least four 24-hour shifts in a week would earn overtime, upping
their hourly wage to the equivalent of $7.14.

"I don't think it's unreasonable to want an aide to be paid [for
all 24 hours].  I want aides to be paid that," said Josh Bruno,
founder and chief executive of Hometeam, in an interview at his
company's Chelsea headquarters in May.  "But it's true to say we
would have sweeping changes and change a lot of people's lives if
that happens."

In the private-pay market, Bruno said, families will likely find
alternatives to home care if it becomes too expensive.

It has already become harder for Medicaid patients to be approved
for 24-hour home care, thanks in large part to the Cuomo
administration's Medicaid-reform efforts, said David Goldfarb, a
Manhattan attorney specializing in elder law.

Rather than being reimbursed directly from the government, home
care agencies typically contract with managed-care organizations
in order to get paid.  The state pays the plans a set amount up-
front to cover the needs of each Medicaid beneficiary, which
incentivizes them to control the cost of care.

Moving forward, Goldfarb said, "I think the state is going to have
to recognize that the funds have to be made available to cover
whatever the law says you have to pay people for continuous care."

But changes intended to benefit workers could lead to unintended
consequences, said Allison Cook, New York policy manager at PHI, a
national advocacy and training organization for home care workers
that is affiliated with a home care agency in the Bronx.

In 2015, for example, the Obama administration extended to home
care workers the minimum wage and overtime protections that have
been afforded to other workers for decades under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Agencies then began splitting up individual cases
among workers in order to avoid paying overtime, Cook said.  As a
result more aides now divide their time between multiple agencies
to survive.

Despite rate increases from the state, insurers still are not
paying enough to cover overtime, said Hetterich of Utopia Home
Care. Ultimately, he said, patients pay the price.

"When the Fair Labor Standards Act changed and new overtime rules
were implemented, we had a lot of comments from families about
having two or three different caregivers," he said.  "The biggest
concern from the industry standpoint is, we do a lot of work with
elderly patients who suffer from Alzheimer's and dementia.  People
with those diseases don't handle change or strangers very well."

Another wage mandate could push more of the home care industry
into the informal economy, at least for those who can afford to
pay out of pocket, warned Bruno.

"Instead of aides choosing to work through agencies, they will
increasingly choose to work independently," Bruno said.  "Families
and aides will meet in the middle somewhere, but it will be in the
gray market."

Some success

Chan is not waiting on the courts to improve her working
conditions.  In 2014 she consulted with her client's wife about
splitting each 24-hour shift in two.  There was already another
aide working the days that Chan was off, and at first her client's
wife was concerned about the prospect of having four aides instead
of two, Chan said.

Eventually the wife agreed.  After her client's insurance plan
sent an inspector to his home, the patient was approved for what
is known as a split-shift case in December 2014, Chan said.

Medicaid plans can authorize split-shift care if a patient
requires assistance with such tasks as going to the bathroom and
changing positions with "such frequency that a live-in 24-hour
personal care aide would be unlikely to obtain, on a regular
basis, five hours daily of uninterrupted sleep during the aide's
eight-hour period of sleep," according to the Health Department's
website.

But insurance plans are reluctant to approve the arrangement
because of the cost, elder law attorney Goldfarb said.

Healthfirst, the Medicaid plan that insures Chan's client,
declined to discuss its policies on split-shift cases, as did the
Health Department.

Some consumer advocates raise concerns about splitting up cases.
"Patients grow attached," said Maria Alvarez, executive director
of the Statewide Senior Action Council.  "It's a very personal
thing."

But Chan said the change has made a big difference.  "It's better
for our jobs and improves our health, and it also allows the
patient to get better service," she said.

Now that she is not exhausted all the time, Chan has the energy to
engage her patient more.  He has even begun talking a little.

"I ask him, 'Who am I?'" Chan said.  He cheekily answers, "Chan Gu
Niang," using the Chinese honorific usually reserved for younger
women.

"I ask him, 'Who is your friend?'" Chan said. "And he says,
'You.'"

The demands of workers and organizers go beyond full compensation,
said DeBenedetto of the National Mobilization Against Sweatshops.
Her organization will continue to encourage workers to sue their
employers for back wages, but it also is seeking to work with
legislators, consumer-advocacy organizations and other groups to
draft legislation ending mandatory 24-hour shifts.

If the decisions striking down the 13-hour rule are upheld, the
state could re-evaluate everyone approved for 24-hour care and
convert the more demanding cases into split-shifts, said Bryan
O'Malley, executive director of the Consumer Directed Personal
Assistance Association of New York State.

"Some people would be able to switch from live- in to 13-hour
care, and people would leave at the end of the day," he said. "But
many people would still need 24/7 care, and it would certainly
drive up the cost of providing services.  There's already
increased pressure on Medicaid, and this would certainly
exacerbate that."

Denying aides full pay for all the hours they are on call poses
its own threat to the system, said Carmela Huang, Chan's attorney
from the Urban Justice Center.

"If these workers are denied their full rights," Huang warned,
"we're creating a permanent underclass of workers who are engaged
in some of the most difficult and important work." [GN]


NEW ZEALAND: Class Action Mulled v. Councils Over Leaky Buildings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adina Thorn on Oct. 2 disclosed that a planned new funded class
action will be putting Councils in the firing line for leaky and
failed buildings that they have been approved or inspected within
the last 10 years.  The action, which is intended to be funded by
a UK-based litigation funder, means that owners can join the
action without the fear of legal and expert fees and the risk of
an uncertain outcome.

Auckland law firm Adina Thorn Lawyers has secured funding from a
UK based litigation funder.  She says the action aims at helping
those owners who have found themselves saddled with council-
approved work that now leaks or has failed in other ways.

Broadly anyone can register interest to join the action who has
some involvement of Council within 10 years, or has "stopped the
clock" by registering with the Weathertight Homes Resolution
Service or is part of an existing claim.

"Our firm's extensive work in the area of defective buildings has
uncovered case after case of people, through no fault of his/her
own, have found themselves financially compromised by poor quality
design or workmanship and have good claims against Council.  They
just cannot pursue those claims because of legal and expert costs.
This action removes that obstacle.

"We have come across owners and Body Corporates with major
problems.  Many have good claims.  They just can't afford to
pursue them".

"Joining this action means you have access to a large legal and
expert team without incurring any of the costs this would usually
involve".

Adina says the costs of the class action have been underwritten by
a UK based litigation funder who will take a share of any damages
secured after costs are reimbursed, which means that those joining
the action will face no out of pocket expenses.

Building surveyor John Dalton says the issue of finding building
work that is not up to the required standard is an everyday
occurrence in his line of work, be that a matter of workmanship or
non-compliant materials.

"Many owners are reluctant to get involved because they see the
value of their property being discounted, but the reality is that
these problems won't fix themselves and will generally get worse
over time.

"It's a particularly tricky issue where buildings have multiple
owners because people have different expectations, resources and
views on how issues should be addressed and how they should be
paid for.  There are always the issues of who 2 should be held
accountable for the problems and what it will cost to have them
held legally liable?

"Clearly the scale of the problem runs to hundreds of millions if
not billions of dollars with many property owners naturally asking
what value really attaches to a council consent, which is
something that takes good money and often considerable effort to
secure."

Anyone who interested in the action can register at
www.adinathorn.co.nz - Council Class Action. Each application will
be evaluated on its merits.

Facts on the action:

   -- The proposed action is against Councils (not only Auckland
Council) who have carried out any inspections or certification
within the last 10 years.

   -- If you have registered in the WHRS you may be eligible to
join this action, even if the Council's acts were before September
2007.

   -- People in current claims against Council, will be considered
to join.

   -- The class action will be fully funded which means those
joining it will face no out of pocket expenses.

   -- If the action is successful the funder will be reimbursed
for the costs of taking the action plus a share of the damages
awarded after all costs are met.

   -- Body corporates and commercial owners can join.

   -- There is no cost to register interest at
www.adinathorn.co.nz.

   -- Adina Thorn Lawyers is currently undertaking a number of
class actions including a $250 million funded class action against
James Hardie Group companies for the alleged manufacture and
marketing of faulty cladding materials and a $40 million plus
funded class action against Carter Holt Harvey for the manufacture
of Shadowclad cladding. [GN]


NORTHWEST CASCADE: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Odors
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has certified a lawsuit
against Honey Bucket as a class action, allowing residents in
Pacific who have complained of odors to join the case.

The Seattle Times reports that initially, four neighbors filed a
lawsuit against Northwest Cascade and its Honey Bucket and
FloHawks divisions, stating that odors, gases and fumes
exacerbated their asthma, caused headaches and devalued their
properties. [GN]


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Lawsuits Over Windshield Wiper Fluid
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that one
St. Louis man appears to have gone from product-to-product trying
to find a windshield wiper fluid he can trust when it's warmer
than negative-20 degrees outside -- but, unsatisfied, he recently
filed eight class action lawsuits in one day.

On July 24, Paul Weishaar and his attorney, asbestos lawyer
Benjamin Schmickle, filed a round of lawsuits alleging the makers
of various windshield wiper fluids lied on their packaging.  They
freeze before the advertised temperature of negative-20, the
lawsuits say.

"(W)hile a reasonable consumer might try a second or third brand
of windshield wiper fluid, it is not plausible that a reasonable
consumer would continue to purchase a product he viewed as
defective on seven or eight different occasions," attorneys for
O'Reilly Automotive Stores wrote on Sept. 15.

"The allegations directed at O'Reilly are not plausible in light
of the other identical lawsuits . . ."

O'Reilly submitted those comments while asking a federal judge to
dismiss Mr. Weishaar's lawsuit on several grounds.  Three days
later, Mr. Weishaar notified the court that he was voluntarily
dismissing his lawsuit.

He did so "without prejudice," indicating a possible intent to
refile the claims later.

The O'Reilly case was the first to be removed by a defendant to
federal court.  Five lawsuits are still pending in St. Louis City
Circuit Court, a jurisdiction that last year was ranked as the
country's most unfair to businesses by a national civil justice
reform group. Massive verdicts there in talcum powder litigation
have drawn national headlines. [GN]


OASIS LEGAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Heather Smith, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Oasis
Legal Finance, LLC, doing business as: Oasis Finance, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-CA-7873, was removed on Sep. 19, 2017 from
Hillsborough County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-02163-VMC-JSS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington.

Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, doing business as Oasis Financial,
provides non-recourse consumer legal funding to individuals
involved in personal injury litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, PA
          320 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251 8800
          Facsimile: (813) 251 5042
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John F. Meyers, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          3475 Piedmont Rd NE., Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30305-2954
          Telephone: (404) 264 4017
          Facsimile: (404) 264 4033
          E-mail: john.meyers@btlaw.com


ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Shomer" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Information
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Edward Shomer, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Online Information Services, Inc., d/b/a Online Collections, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05502 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2017).

Online Information Services, Inc. is the nation's leading
developer of credit risk assessment and debt recovery solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
          337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


ORACLE: Former Employees Sue Over Pay Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------
Megan Rose Dickey, writing for Tech Crunch, reports three female,
former Oracle employees, Rong Jewett, Sophy Wang and Xian Murray,
are suing Oracle for allegedly paying women less than men in
similar jobs. The lawsuit, filed August 28, seeks a class-action
status to represent all other women who have worked at Oracle.

The lawsuit, first reported by The Information, alleges that
Oracle discriminated against women by "systematically paying them
lower wage rates than Oracle pays to male employees performing
substantially equal or similar work under similar working
conditions," the filing states. The time period the lawsuit
references is four years prior to the filing and through the date
of the trial in California.

Referencing how the U.S. Department of Labor sued Oracle in
January based on its compliance review that found "systemic
discrimination against women" and "gross disparities in pay," the
lawsuit states Oracle had known or should have known about the pay
disparity between its male and female employees.

"Oracle is required to maintain records of the wages and wage
rates, job classifications, and other terms and conditions of
employment of all of its employees throughout California," the
lawsuit states. "Oracle therefore knew or should have known that
it paid female employees in Covered Positions less than it paid
their male counterparts for performing substantially equal or
similar work, yet Oracle took no steps to eliminate its unlawful
and discriminatory pay practices at any time during the Class
Period."

The plaintiffs are seeking wages due, interest and liquidated
damages plus interest. They also want Oracle to guarantee they
won't pay women less than men for similar work in the future.

Oracle is not the only tech company facing lawsuits and
allegations around gender discrimination. Google is under fire
following an internal memo leaked, suggesting that women are
inferior to men. That memo came shortly after a judge sided with
Google and said the company didn't have to hand over pay data as
it relates to gender.

Oracle declined to comment. [GN]


OREGON: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over DHS In-Home Services
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Eugene Division, issued an Opinion and Order dismissing
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned SD, and ex
rel. D.D. and Next Friend of M.D Plaintiff, v. CLIDE SAIKI, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00770-JR (D. Ore.).

Pro se plaintiff, S.D., moves the Court for a preliminary
injunction against the Oregon Department of Human Services
enjoining it from making any reductions of in-home services funded
by the agency and restoring full benefits to any consumer whose
benefits have been reduced.

Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of
herself, her husband (D.D.), and her minor child (M.D.),
individually-named defendants. In conjunction with her amended
complaint, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction that,
among other things, requested that the Court enter an order
halting further reductions in in-home services by DHS and
restoring full benefits of any consumer whose benefits DHS
reduced. In seeking a preliminary injunction, plaintiff attaches
many of the same state court documents previously submitted in
regard to her Motion for Reconsideration.

Initially, plaintiffs' claims contain very few underlying factual
allegations.  Importantly, plaintiff does not delineate which of
the 21 individually-named defendants her claims are asserted
against.  For this reason alone, plaintiff fails to satisfy Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a) and dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e) is warranted.

Although plaintiff names D.D. and S.D. in her amended complaint
and seeks class certification, she has not identified any injury
outside of that already articulated in C.S. v. Saiki, except to
the extent that she seeks to challenge state court proceedings
related to the reduction of D.D.'s benefits and, by extension, her
compensation as an in-home care provider; however,, the Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over these allegations. For this
additional reason, her amended complaint fails.

Finally, plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of
D.D. or M.D. Regarding M.D., it is well-established that a
guardian or parent may not bring suit in federal court on behalf
of a minor without first retaining an attorney.

Because plaintiffs complaint has failed to survive initial sua
sponte screenings, the United States Marshal has not yet been
directed to effect service on her behalf. The named defendants do
not have actual notice of either the complaint or the motion for
preliminary injunction. Thus, the Court has no personal
jurisdiction over any named defendants.

In conducting a sua sponte screening of plaintiffs amended
complaint, this Court has found that it does not state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and dismissed it, without
prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). Therefore,
plaintiff has necessarily failed to show, for purposes of
justifying preliminary injective relief, any likelihood of success
on the merits of her claims at this time.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded
as of right. Given the status of plaintiffs pleadings and the lack
of notice to the named defendants, a preliminary injunction shall
not be ordered at this time. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is denied. Plaintiffs amended complaint is dismissed,
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yaddbhrkfrom
Leagle.com.

S.D., Plaintiff, Pro Se.


PARKING SOLUTIONS: Ct. Adopts Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Order adopting Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Granting Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned Chad Crumbaker, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Parking Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-2446
(S.D. Ohio).

In this Fair Labor Standards Act suit, the magistrate judge
conducted a fairness hearing regarding the proposed collective and
class action settlement.  The magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation finding that:

   1. Final class certification is appropriate, class counsel is
adequate, and Plaintiff Crumbaker is an appropriate class
representative.

   2. The proposed settlement of the class members' state-law
claims is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all participants and
qualifies for approval pursuant.

   3. The settlement of the class members' FLSA resolves a clear
and actual dispute resolved in an arm's-length negotiation.

   4. The service award of $4,000 to Plaintiff Crumbaker is
reasonable.

   5. The attorneys' fees and expenses award of $111,105, which
amounts to 21% of the gross potential settlement value, is fair
and reasonable.

   6. The class notice was reasonable and appropriate.

No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.

The District Court, accordingly, adopts the Report and
Recommendation grants the motion for final approval of the
settlement certifies for settlement purposes the settlement class
under the FLSA and Ohio law, finally approves the form, content
and distribution of the class notice and claim form, approves the
service award to plaintiff and approves class counsel's request
for fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9wvafydfrom Leagle.com.

Chad Crumbaker, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller --
abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC.
Chad Crumbaker, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Kimble,
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC.

Parking Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by D. Patrick
Kasson -- pkasson@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., LPA & Tyler
Tarney.

Aaron Shocket, Defendant, represented by D. Patrick Kasson,
Reminger Co., LPA & Tyler Tarney.

Robert Rees, Defendant, represented by D. Patrick Kasson, Reminger
Co., LPA & Tyler Tarney.


PENSKE LOGISTICS: "Stuck" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Fowler, an individual; Arthur
Stuck, an individual; Javier Carbajal, an individual; Eliseo
Bedoy, an individual; and James Mueller, an individual on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated and the general
public, the Plaintiffs, v. Penske Logistics, LLC, and Does 1-100,
the Defendants, Case No. RG16831421, was removed on Sep. 18, 2017
from the Alameda Superior Court, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05397-MEJ to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James.

Penske Logistics provides supply chain management and logistics
services. It offers supply chain management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394 0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394 0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790
          E-mail: mross@scopelitis.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Al Haj" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc. The case
is entitled as Karmel Al Haj and Timothy A. Woodhams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-06730 (N.D. Ill., Sep. 18, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman.

Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
          NBC Tower-Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628 4960
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com


PHILLIPS STEEL: Son Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
RALLY S. SON, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS STEEL COMPANY, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC675988 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' failure to
provide meal and rest periods, unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
as well as waiting time penalties, and penalties or damages for
failure to keep accurate records, penalties under California Labor
Code statutes, and for restitution and injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly required
Plaintiff to work hours in excess of 8 hours in a work-day or 40
hours in a work week without the payment of proper minimum and
overtime wages due to its time rounding policies, in violation of
California Labor Code. Such a pattern, practice and uniform
administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee
compensation is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by
Plaintiff in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full
amount of minimum and overtime wages owing, including interest
thereon, waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code, attorneys'
fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California
Labor Code.

Phillips Steel offers a comprehensive line of products for all
metal-working needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard L. Magee, Esq.
          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

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


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Terminated as Defendant in "Mathein"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order directing the Clerk of Court to
terminate Pier 1 Imports, Inc., from the action in the case
captioned LAUREN MATHEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PIER 1 IMPORTS
(U.S.), INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement with Defendant Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. The parties
filed a joint stipulation dismissing only Defendant Pier 1
Imports, Inc. with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In light of the stipulation of the parties, Defendant Pier 1
Imports, Inc., has been terminated and has been dismissed without
an award of costs or attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7pmoy6qfrom Leagle.com.

Lauren Mathein, Plaintiff, represented by William Anthony Baird--
tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Lauren Mathein, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Christine Sabas, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory William
Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
LLP & Galit Avitan Knotz -- gknotz@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.


PIERATT'S INC: "Henderson" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Herman Henderson, on behalf of
himself and ALL others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pieratt's Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17-CI-3072, was removed on
Sep. 18, 2017 from the Fayette Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00377-JMH to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph M. Hood.

Pieratt's Inc. operates as a retailer of appliances and home
furniture. The Company offers services in areas of appliances,
electronics, mattresses, and furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abney & McCarty, PLLC
          Jeremiah Wesley Reece, Esq.
          2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite 13
          Louisville, KY 40220
          Telephone: (502) 459 4108
          Facsimile: (502) 459 4277
          E-mail: jeremiah@amkylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Stewart Abney, Esq.
          ABNEY & MCCARTY, PLLC
          2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite 13
          Louisville, KY 40220
          Telephone: (502) 459 4108
          Facsimile: (502) 459 4277
          E-mail: stewartabney@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mauritia Gauvin Kamer, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC - LEXINGTON
          One Paragon Centre
          2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40504
          Telephone: (859) 219 8218
          Facsimile: (859) 255 6903
          E-mail: mauritia.kamer@steptoe-johnson.com


R&R EXPRESS: "Rood" Suit Wants Damages for Non-Payment of Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEN ROOD, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v.
R&R EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01223-MRH (W.D. Pa., September
18, 2017), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law, to recover damages for non-payment of
wages.

R&R Express, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is a common carrier
and engaged in the business of freight brokerage, and provides
transportation and logistics solutions throughout the United
States and internationally.  The Company is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Company uses a combination of its
own truck assets and contracted carriers to move "hundreds of
thousands of shipments per year" for its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          First & Market Building, Suite 650
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


R.T.G. FURNITURE: "Bulgajewski" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charlotte Bulgajewski, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. R.T.G. Furniture Corporation, doing business as:
Rooms to Go, the Defendant, Case No. 17-CA-7762, was removed on
Sep. 19, 2017 from Hillsborough County Court, to the U.S. District
Court for Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-02166-SDM-AAS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday.

RTG Furniture Corporation retails home furniture. The Company
offers sofas, chairs, dining room sets, bedroom furniture, lamps,
table sets, ottomans, chaises, and other related products. RTG
Furniture serves customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333 3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  MEdelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Corey A. Lee, Esq.
          Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          1111 Brickell Ave, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810 2500
          Facsimile: (350) 810 2460
          E-mail: leec@hunton.com
                  jisani@hunton.com


RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: "Tovar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW TOVAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA,
INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC676386 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants
as a Pest Control Technician on or about August 3, 2016, although
he has been on a leave of absence since approximately June 27,
2017. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly
worked from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or later on weekdays, and
occasionally Plaintiff worked on weekends as well. As a Pest
Control Technician, Plaintiffs job duties primarily consisted of
providing pest control services to Defendants' customers. The
Plaintiffs employment with Defendants was terminated during
Plaintiffs medical leave. During Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per
workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not
receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically,
Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary incentive pay,
including bonuses, commissions and other forms of non-
discretionary pay. As a result of Plaintiff receiving Incentive
Pay, Defendants did not properly calculate Plaintiffs regular rate
of pay for overtime purposes, thereby causing Plaintiff to be
underpaid all of his required overtime wages.

Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees with all required meal periods, because Defendants did
not maintain a lawful meal period policy, and required Plaintiff
to enter into an unlawful on-duty meal period agreement.
Specifically, Defendants routinely failed to provide duty-free
meal periods to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, because
Defendants required Plaintiff sign an on-duty meal period
agreement when he was hired. As a result of this on-duty meal
period agreement, Defendants have conceded that Technicians cannot
be provided with a duty free meal period for all shifts worked.

Rentokil, Inc. provides pest control services for commercial and
residential customers in the United Kingdom, the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew JT Rowbotham, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
          fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
          arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
          skierig@haineslawgroup.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Hit with CA Over Hurricane Harvey Cancellation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Click2Houston reports that a popular cruise line is being sued
after passengers said they were forced to fly to Houston at the
height of Hurricane Harvey.

The class-action lawsuit claims that Royal Caribbean refused to
make changes to tickets before the storm, and told passengers that
they would not get a refund if they didn't board the ship.

Royal Caribbean sends cruise ship to help Puerto Rico
Cruises canceled as Hurricane Irma menaces Caribbean
Ultimately, the cruise was delayed and then canceled, leaving
passengers stranded because of floodwaters. [GN]


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Judge OKs Illinois CA Over Home Inspections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Safeguard
Properties, one of the country's largest property inspection
companies, must face a class action alleging that some of its
inspections are actually attempts to collect debt for a mortgage
servicer, a federal judge has ruled.

In a decision on September 28, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall
in Chicago rejected Safeguard's bid to dismiss the lawsuit, saying
whether the company is a debt collector subject to federal law on
collection practices is an open question that will have to be
decided at trial. [GN]


SATELLITE COUNTRY: "Prejean" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PREJEAN, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SATELLITE COUNTRY,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01170 (W.D. La., Sep. 14,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and its other Cable Technicians for all hours worked and also
failed to pay appropriate overtime wages when they work more than
40 hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA. In addition, SC
makes improper deductions from Plaintiff's wages, causing
Plaintiff to be paid less than the statutory minimum and overtime
wage required by Sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA. As a result, SC
violates the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the FLSA.

Satellite Country Incorporated operates as television retailer.
The Company offers video, internet, and phone solutions for both
residential and business consumers. Satellite Country offers Dish
Network as the source of its products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE,
          STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833 5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613 4528


SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bitcoin Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tabish Faraz, writing for CoinReport, reports that International
attorney Dr. Jonathan Levy announced in an email he sent to
CoinReport a global class action lawsuit alleging unlicensed
banking, unfair business competition and fraudulent practices by
cryptocurrency operators.

The lawsuit is Christopher Strunk vs. Satoshi Nakamoto et al.
Strunk, a New York-based consumer advocate, alleges his private
banking venture, which sought a New York license, was crippled by
bitcoin operators providing similar services with no real capital,
no regulation and no license.

Dr. Levy said in the email, "It is my well-founded belief that the
profits in Bitcoin, Ethereum and all the other digital coin based
ventures are largely based in fraud, pump and dump tactics, theft
and securities violations.  The world's largest holder of
Bitcoins, worth more than $4 billion is of course the inventor and
promoter.  And that is a conservative estimate since we have no
way of knowing how many proxy accounts the mysterious Satoshi
Nakamoto gang controls."

It is a rule of economics, says Dr. Levy's email, that for every
winner, there must be an equal number of losers, and in this case,
there are lots of victims.  The winners, says the email, are the
promoters of cryptocurrencies, token makers or so-called miners,
High Yield Investment Programs, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and
all the varied bitcoin-assisted scams and fraud. Mentioning the
Fortune Magazine as the source, Dr. Levy says even when investors
have broken the bank on bitcoin and ethereum, their accounts have
been inexplicably hacked and drained.

Dr. Levy goes on to mention recent bitcoin news, including JP
Morgan's Jamie Dimon claiming the [bitcoin] fraud is so bad that
"people will die!", the SEC issuing a sweeping warning, the
Chinese government outlawing ICOs and Fortune, Forbes and The
Economist exposing what gives the impression of a massive fraud
bigger than the Madoff and Stanford Ponzi schemes combined.

The lawsuit may affect those who have been a victim or investor in
bitcoin, ethereum and other cryptocurrencies or blockchain and
fintech fraud utilizing cryptocurrencies, says the email, adding
losses may be actual or lost profits.  Dr. Levy advises those who
have invested in such ventures may be a victim and not know it.

Dr. Levy is licensed and admitted to practice law in the US,
Europe, Africa and the Caribbean.  He is best known for his class
action lawsuits against the UBS Bank and the Vatican Bank and for
representing high profile clients like the former deputy prime
minister of Yugoslavia and the former president of Taiwan.
Dr. Levy is also an adjunct professor of international law and
political science. [GN]


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Wright Petitioners Oppose Sale to Platinum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Law, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that once a week
for nine months in 2016, Barbara Hughes drove the 90 minutes from
her home in Springfield, Ill., to visit her son at Tazewell County
jail in Pekin, where he was awaiting trial.  But she never got to
see him in person.  Instead, she had to enter a room with video
phones lining two walls and sit down at her assigned station.

At Tazewell, inmates' loved ones are allowed one free 20-minute
session a week at the video phones.  The stations are so cramped
and narrow that Hughes and her ex-husband couldn't sit side by
side while they talked to their son. (Hughes declined to give her
son's name or specify his charges, wanting to protect his future
employment prospects.) "It doesn't seem real, even though you're
in the same building," she says.  The monitors were so high that
Hughes, a petite 5-feet-4, had to crane her neck to see.  And
there was always the ticking clock.  "It's a hurry-up thing," she
says. "You have to know what you're going to say, because you
might get shut off."  She could have video-called from home as
much as she wanted but would have had to pay $6.95 for 20 minutes.

There are 650 U.S. correctional facilities offering some form of
video viewing.  Like Tazewell, most are county jails, and three-
quarters have eliminated in-person visits, often as a stipulation
of their contract with the company charging for the video feeds.
Tazewell did so in 2014, when it hired Securus Technologies Inc.,
a prison phone company that now controls about a third of the
video market.  The business has been lucrative enough to attract
the attention of the private equity world. In February, Platinum
Equity LLC, the firm run by Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores,
agreed to buy Securus for $1.6 billion, more than double the
company's 2012 valuation.  The proposed deal has come under
scrutiny from both regulatory commissions and prisoners'
advocates, delaying its likely approval.

Securus Chief Executive Officer Richard Smith says the company is
spending a lot to set up and run its video systems for jails,
rather than simply selling them the equipment, but he adds that
"we expect this to grow faster than our normal business." He
estimates Securus will oversee 2.4 million video calls this year,
two-thirds of them remote, i.e., paid. Rates vary by jail, from $5
to $12.99 for a 20-minute call and, in at least one jail, $40 for
40 minutes.

Even on the low end, though, these charges can be unmanageable:
More than two-thirds of people incarcerated in the U.S. reported
earning less than $12,000 before their arrest, and their families
tend to fall into the same income bracket.  Smith says Securus
negotiates prices with individual institutions, and the more
people who use the service, the lower the fees. "They like the
prices to come down, and so do we," he says, "as long as it
stimulates additional volume."

For now, the bulk of Securus's revenue comes from traditional
phone services to 3,500 correctional facilities, a market
historically associated with price gouging.  In 2000 homebound
grandma Martha Wright filed a class action to limit prison phone
rates on the grounds that she couldn't afford to communicate with
her incarcerated grandson.  Her case became a cause celebre for
prisoner-rights advocates, many of whom joined the suit and came
to be known collectively as the Wright Petitioners.

The suit was referred to the Federal Communications Commission,
which ruled in 2013 to cap interstate calling rates and in 2015 to
extend that cap to in-state calls and prohibit certain fees. This
June a federal court ruled in a countersuit filed by Securus and
four other companies that the FCC lacked the authority to limit
in-state rates.  Interstate caps remain intact.

The Wright Petitioners, represented by attorney Lee Petro, are now
pressing the FCC to deny the sale of Securus to Platinum Equity,
arguing that the company has continually violated the commission's
previous rulings.  "They'll still find ways to extract as much
revenue as possible from inmates and their families," Petro says.

In June he filed a formal petition protesting the sale, which
prevented the FCC from fast-tracking its approval, something
Securus and Platinum had sought.  Securus maintains that it has
complied with all applicable requirements.

The deal faced other holdups from public utilities commissions in
states where Securus operates.  While most states simply require
notification of a proposed sale, at least two mandate an in-depth
review.  California, where Securus has contracts with 65
correctional facilities, approved the deal in August.  Alaska,
which contracts with Securus for all 14 of its prisons, won't
issue a final order on the transaction until mid-December.

While the deal awaits approval, Gores, a favorite son of Flint,
Mich., has had to weather criticism from prisoners' family members
and advocates.  "Securus charges an average of $15.78 for a 15-
minute intrastate call in Michigan, while other providers charge
substantially less," Petro says.  "To the extent that Pistons fans
will be paying more to speak with their loved ones than it costs
to buy a 12-inch pizza at a Pistons game, Mr. Gores should think
twice about completing his acquisition of Securus." Platinum
Equity declined to comment.

Securus may have a better shot at federal clearance than it did
last year. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who took office in January,
previously represented Securus as a partner at Jenner & Block.

Prisoners' advocates say Pai's work history presents a conflict of
interest that should force him to recuse himself from voting on
the company's acquisition. But federal agencies, including the
FCC, require recusal from a merger or transaction only if the
employee worked for one of the parties within the past year. The
FCC's press secretary says Pai has the blessing of the
commission's ethics office.

At least one FCC commissioner is worried about the costs of
Securus's video service.  In an email, Obama appointee Mignon
Clyburn wrote, "I am concerned about the serious allegations made
by the Wright Petitioners. Irrespective of whether the transaction
is approved, I hope that the FCC will investigate these issues."

The Bristol County House of Correction in Massachusetts is one of
Securus's newest video customers.  Although the jail previously
allowed only noncontact visits through a Plexiglas divider,
Sheriff Thomas Hodgson says visitors still found ways to smuggle
in drugs and that switching to video eliminates that risk.

Several states, including Massachusetts, have introduced bills
that would require correctional facilities to offer in-person
visits. Hodgson plans to testify against such a mandate.  "Whether
you're looking through the Plexiglas and talking on the phone or
looking through a screen, you're seeing the exact same thing," he
says.

Hughes disagrees.  In October 2016 her son was transferred to a
jail that allows in-person visits through Plexiglas, though he has
to remain handcuffed and shackled.  They're not allowed any
physical contact, but still, Hughes says, "I can see his face, his
skin, his hair, his beard.  I can see if he's doing OK. As a
mother, these things are important." [GN]


SHINE CORPORATE: Quinn Emanuel Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Anna Zhang, writing for The Asian Lawyer, reports that Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has filed a class action lawsuit
against Australian Securities Exchange-listed law firm Shine
Corporate Ltd., accusing it of misleading investors with its
financial disclosure.

In the lawsuit, Dodd v. Shine Corporate Ltd., filed by Quinn
Emanuel in Queensland Supreme Court on behalf of representative
plaintiff and fund manager Allen Dodd, Shine Corporate was blamed
for a 73 percent drop in its share price on Jan. 29, 2016, after
the firm cut its earnings forecast for the financial year ending
June 30, 2016, by half--to $18.4 million (A$26 million) from $38
million (A$54 million).

According to filings to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX),
Shine Corporate argued that the decreased profit forecast was due
to a more conservative estimate of income from active cases. Quinn
Emanuel, alongside Australian litigation funding firm Regency
Funding Pty. Ltd., said that Shine Corporate should have known of
all the factors that might contribute to a lower income but failed
to disclose them to investors between 2014 and 2016.

The U.S. litigation firm is now recruiting plaintiffs who were
Shine Corporate's investors between August 2014 and January 2016.
Shine Corporate was listed in May 2013. The Brisbane-based firm's
core business is personal injury law practice, and it, too,
handles class actions.

The case was filed following the July settlement between another
ASX-listed personal injury law firm-Slater and Gordon-and Sydney-
based class action firm Maurice Blackburn. Slater and Gordon
agreed to pay $27.8 million (A$36.5 million) to its shareholders
following a two-year-long legal battle.

The Dodd case is led by Quinn Emanuel Sydney partner Damian
Scattini, who happens to be an alumnus of both Maurice Blackburn
and Slater and Gordon. Scattini, a class actions specialist,
joined Quinn Emanuel in 2015 from Maurice Blackburn, where he was
practice leader in Queensland. He moved to Maurice Blackburn from
Slater and Gordon and worked his way up to become a name partner
at his previous firm, Quinn & Scattini .

Shine Corporate said in a filing to the ASX that the class actions
brought by Quinn Emanuel would be "vigorously defended." [GN]


SINGING RIVER: Steven Simpson Removed as Pension Plan Overseer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has removed a lawyer who
was overseeing a troubled Mississippi hospital pension plan.

Circuit Judge James Bell said on Sept. 29 that Steve Simpson, a
former judge and state public safety commissioner, had a conflict
of interest.  Mr. Simpson joined a law firm that once advised
Singing River Health System on pension issues.

The Sun Herald reports Judge Bell named Jackson County Chancery
Clerk Josh Eldridge as the plan's temporary overseer.   Mr.
Eldridge says he won't charge the pension plan for work.

The plan covers 3,100 employees and retirees from two county-owned
hospitals.

The pension has been frozen for three years with no contributions,
as its balance dropped from $150 million to $125 million.
Pensions are still being paid, while courts decide on a federal
class-action settlement.  About 200 retirees oppose the
settlement. [GN]


SNOWPLOW LH: Faces "Yu" Suit over Downpayment for Condo Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Se Liao Liao, and all other similarly situated individuals and
entities who entered into purchase agreements and/or purchased
condominium units in the 252 Condominium, the Plaintiff, v.
SNOWPLOW LH 2 LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 655902/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 18, 2017), seeks to recover declaratory judgment in
equity for the Defendant to return the Downpayment paid by
Plaintiff to Defendant and/or their escrow agent.

According to the complaint, Defendant is the sponsor of a
condominium offering plan for the 252 Condominium located at 252
East 57th Street, City, County and State of New York. The
Plaintiff agreed to purchase condominium unit No 41D, parking
space and Storage Locker No 31 and Storage Locker No 32 in the
Condominium pursuant to an "Option Agreement" dated March 25,
2015. The Plaintiff never executed a purchase agreement for the
purchase of condominium unit No. 41D in the Condominium. The
Option Agreement was never defined as a purchase agreement in the
Condominium Offering Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW LLC
          216 Lakeville Road
          Great Neck, NY 11020
          Telephone: (516) 437 3400


SOR TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dickson" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOR Technology, LLC.
The case is captioned as Jeremy Dickson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOR
Technology, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06884-VAP-MRW (C.D. Cal.,
Sep. 18, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A.
Phillips.

SOR Technology provides technology and software services for
membership programs, loyalty and employee benefit programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          TODD M FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Denies Move to Dismiss FAC in "Smith"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the First Amended Complaint 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.).

Plaintiff Margarette Smith filed a purported first amended class
action complaint against Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing,
LLC, for alleged violations of Regulation X of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).  Prior to the filing of the FAC, Smith died
and the Court granted the movants Zarah Kimble, Sarah Sakinah
Groza O'Loughlin, and Seher Basak's motion to substitute them in
as plaintiffs.  A second amended complaint adding the movants as
plaintiffs has not yet been filed.

Defendant's motion included an alternative argument, that the
class allegations should be struck pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure, in the event the Court denied its motion to
dismiss.

Defendant seeks to strike the class allegations in the FAC arguing
that Plaintiffs, as successors-in-interests, cannot satisfy the
typicality and adequacy requirements for class certification
because they are subject to unique defenses that will delay class
certification.  Defendant contends that while Plaintiffs may be
successors-in-interest to the Property at issue, they are not
successors in interest to Plaintiff's causes of action.

The issues raised by Defendant are factual issues that have not
yet been subject to discovery and Plaintiffs should be given the
opportunity to present their evidence to support class
certification, the Court says.  While plaintiffs' class
definitions are suspicious and may in fact be improper, plaintiffs
should at least be given the opportunity to make the case for
certification based on appropriate discovery. The Court concludes
that the motion to strike class allegations is premature and
Defendant may raise its arguments at the time of class
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available http://tinyurl.com/y92usjsrfrom Leagle.com.

Margarette Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Law Sagafi,
Tycko & Zavareei LLP, 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA
9460

Margarette Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200,
Oakland, CA 9460

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Andrew Paino -- bpaino@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford &
Dhruv Mohan Sharma -- dsharma@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford.


STATE COLLECTION: Faces "Simpson" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Collection
Service, Inc. The case is captioned as MORRIS SIMPSON, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04170-MAK (E.D. Pa., Sep. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Mark A. Kearney.

State Collection Service, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351 0200
          Facsimile: (215) 922 3874
          E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ruling Could Up Suits Over Wage Disputes
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon, writing Legal Newsline, reports that a landmark
ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court on Aug. 24 allowing class
action lawsuits at the state level in cases involving wage and
hour disputes could cause a spike in the number of such lawsuits.

"I would think so," Wendy Miller, Esq. --wendy.miller@ogletree.com
-- told Legal Newsline when asked if more class actions will
result. Miller is an attorney with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart PC in Nashville, Tenn., who also is admitted to practice
in Kentucky.

"It is a significant development. It's not that class actions
haven't been tried here in Kentucky before at the state level,
it's that for the first time the issue has been made clear that
you can do a class action."

The ruling is virtually certain to open the door to more liability
for employers in the future.

A state Court of Appeals ruling in 2013 stated that a plaintiff
could not bring a class action claim for unpaid wages, wage theft
and unpaid overtime. That ruling and continuing controversy
prompted the state Supreme Court in 2015 to take up the issue of
whether the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act permitted class actions.

On Aug. 24, the high court overruled the appellate decision in a
case called McCann v. Sullivan University and decided employees
could bring class action suits in state courts for wage and
overtime-pay violations.

Prior to the decision, employees could file class action suits
through the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Kentucky Wages and Hours Act and state laws previously had not
been explicit in stating whether class actions were authorized.

"Before the Supreme Court ruling it was in limbo - it was unclear
if an employee in Kentucky could bring a class action lawsuit for
unpaid wages," Miller said.

The high court's ruling said such lawsuits are allowed by state
law, and the state's rules of civil procedure authorize class
actions.

In a class action suit against an employer, the plaintiff must
provide proof they are not employed in an administrative,
supervisory or outside sales capacity.

Miller said the state Legislature is set to do a review of state
laws regarding hours and wages.

"However, they were going to do that before the Supreme Court
decision," she said. "They want to make the laws more consistent."

It remains unclear if the state Legislature will challenge the
Supreme Court decision.

"But it did kind of put it out there for them to look at," Miller
said.

Miller advised Kentucky employers to review their existing
policies and procedures to avoid undiscovered problems turning
into litigation. [GN]


TENNESSEE: Sued Over License Suspensions Due to Unpaid Fines
------------------------------------------------------------
Julieta Martinelli, writing for Nashville Public Radio, reports
that over the last five years, 250,000 Tennesseans have lost the
right to drive legally.  That's the result of an uncommon state
law that makes license suspensions mandatory if drivers can't
afford to pay court fees and traffic fines.  A new lawsuit accuses
the state of violating the constitutional rights of low income
Tennesseans.

Early in the morning, dozens of people have already piled into two
Rutherford County courtrooms.  There are more than 100 charges of
driving on a suspended license on the day's docket.

Anthony Carter has been in this courtroom before.  It all started
in 2013, when he racked up some traffic tickets across the county
line in Nashville.  He couldn't afford to pay in full so his
license was suspended.  But he says he couldn't afford to stop
driving to his construction job.

"I have seven kids and a mortgage," says Mr. Carter.  "I have to
go to work."

He hoped to save enough money to pay off the tickets before he got
caught.  Then, he was arrested for driving on a revoked license.
He says he was finally given an option to make payments -- but
only on the new fees.

"They make you do probation until you can pay it off," explains
Mr. Carter.  "Then you got probation fees, $45 a month, on top of
whatever you're trying to pay off."

But he had trouble keeping up with the mounting fees and kept
getting pulled over.  Each time he was arrested, his debt
multiplied.  The last time, he spent six months in jail.

Mr. Carter, like the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, is trapped in what
the attorneys called a "vicious cycle of debt from which escape is
virtually impossible."

Josh Spickler, executive director of the legal nonprofit Just City
and one of the attorneys in the suit, says the current law makes
no distinction between someone who won't pay and someone who
simply can't.

"That means that people that don't have money to pay the court
debt don't have protection simply because they are poor,"
Mr. Spickler says.  "We have a very, very important public
interest in the state of having good drivers and licensed drivers
in the street, but a poor driver does not make a bad driver."

The lawsuit highlights Rutherford County, where almost 9,000
licenses were suspended due to non payment over five years. Wilson
county, with just over 4,000 suspensions, is also a defendant.
The suit alleges that clerks routinely failed to inform people
they could apply for restricted licenses.

Both counties, as well as the cities of Lebanon and Mt. Juliet,
their clerks, and the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety are defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed by legal firm
Baker Donelson, Civil Rights Corps, Just City, and the National
Center for Law and Economic Justice.  They are seeking federal
class action lawsuit status.

Though most states have similar policies, a new report by the
Legal Aid Justice Center highlights that Tennessee is one of only
five states who are legally mandated to issue suspensions due to
unpaid debt.

The state does have a new policy to get people back on the road
but only after their license has been suspended in the first
place. Only Shelby County is mandated to offer payment plans
before the fact.

The problem, says Mr. Spickler, are the fees that come with a
suspension.  The payment plans include the original debt, court
costs, application fees, and reinstatement costs.  This can add up
to hundreds or even thousands of dollars.  And if even one payment
is missed, the license is once again suspended, and the person
becomes ineligible for another payment plan.

As for Anthony Carter, he's finally worked out a payment plan with
Rutherford County.  But he still has problems in Nashville -- with
the tickets that pushed him into this cycle in the first place.

"They're telling me my tickets are too old to be put on a payment
plan," Mr. Carter says.  "Right now that's holding me up from
getting my license."

Mr. Carter says he wants to pay.  He just has to figure out how.

The Legal Aid Justice Center says similar lawsuits have been filed
in four other states: Virginia, California, Michigan, and Montana.
[GN]


TERANET: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex Robinson, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that
the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a decision dismissing a
class action lawsuit against Teranet.

Keatley Surveying Ltd. brought the action in 2007 on behalf of
Ontario land surveyors against Teranet, which operates the
province's electronic land registry system. Class members claimed
that Teranet had infringed on their copyright by digitizing,
storing and copying plans of surveys they created and deposited in
the system.

After the lawsuit was certified in 2015, both sides moved for
summary judgment. A motion judge dismissed the action last year,
finding that land surveyors do not hold copyright in plans
registered in the system and that therefore the plaintiff had no
claim for breach of copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision in Keatley
Surveying v. Teranet, holding statutory provisions give the Crown
complete control over the publication of registered plans of
survey.

"I am satisfied that certified copies of plans of survey made
available to members of the public under the statutory scheme are
works published under the 'direction or control' of the Crown for
the purposes of s. 12 of the Copyright Act," Justice David Doherty
wrote in the decision.

"Pursuant to the terms of that section, copyright in registered or
deposited plans of survey 'belongs' to the Crown for the period of
time prescribed in that section."

Julie Parla, Esq. -- jparla@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault
one of the lawyers representing Teranet in the appeal, says the
decision makes it clear that under Canadian copyright law, making
copies of a work available to the public through the Electronic
Land Registration System constitutes publishing under the
Copyright Act.

She says the decision provides guidance as to how a particular
provision of s. 12 of the Copyright Act is meant to function, and
that there was little jurisprudence in  of McCarthy Tetrault the
area before.

"There is also helpful guidance in the way in which provincial
statutes are interrelated to and can support the federal statute
such that those two aspects work together with the result in this
case," says Parla, who is a partner at McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

Garth Myers, Esq. -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP,
counsel for the plaintiffs in the appeal, says the Court of
Appeal's conclusion that copyright had been transferred to the
Crown as plans of survey are prepared under the Crown's direction
or control is incorrect.

"Crown copyright has traditionally been held to apply only to
works created by the Crown," says Myers, an associate at Koskie
Minsky LLP. "By extending it to any work that the Crown makes
publicly available, the Crown has been inappropriately given
copyright in all sorts of works for which it ought to have no
claim."

Myers adds the Crown cannot give itself copyright to materials by
simply publishing them. He says the decision has impact on all
works that are filed by private actors and are then subsequently
made public by the Crown.

"According to the Court of Appeal, the copyright in these works
transfers to the Crown upon the Crown's publication," he says.

"In consequence, individuals and corporations must be very careful
about submitting valuable copyrighted works in circumstances where
they might be published by the Crown."

The Court of Appeal did not bother considering a cross appeal by
Teranet as the dismissal of Keatley's appeal rendered it moot.

Myers declined to answer whether his client intends to seek leave
to appeal the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, which intervened in the
appeal, did not provide comment before deadline.  [GN]


TRANS UNION: Faces "Jakob" Suit over Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGITTE A. JAKOB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01247-NJ (E.D. Wisc., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, actual
damages, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the
jury, attorney's fees, and litigation costs, as well as further
relief as may be permitted by law.

The case is a consumer class action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act against Trans Union, a national consumer reporting
agency. In violation of the FCRA, Trans Union prepares and
delivers consumer reports that include information about civil
judgments that: (a) the FCRA prohibits Trans Union from reporting
and (b) have been paid in full, satisfied, or released, but are
not reported by Trans Union as paid, satisfied, or released.

TransUnion LLC operates as a credit reporting agency that provides
data/insights and information to help consumers and businesses
make informed decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1902
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: 215 735 8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


UNITED STAFFING: "Byers" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
TONI BYERS, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC675912
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages
under the California Labor Code.  The Plaintiff alleges that
United Staffing Solutions, Inc. failed to include all remuneration
in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime wages and
failing to timely pay all wages owing at the termination of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


UNITED STATES: 10th Cir. Affirms Settlement in Prisoner's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, issued an Order
and Judgment affirming the District Court's judgment approving
class action settlement in the case captioned HAROLD CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant, and PERCY BARRON; ALPHONSO BLAKE; JABBAR
CURRENCE; CARLTON DUNBAR; SCOTT FOUNTAIN; SEAN GILLESPIE; CHARLES
HIPPS; RONNIE HOUSTON; JOHN LAMB; HERBERT PERKINS; JOHN J. POWERS;
ARNELL SHELTON; MARCELLUS WASHINGTON; CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY,
d/b/a Disability Law Colorado, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-1054. (10th Cir.).

Harold Cunningham, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment
approving the settlement of a class action brought by mentally ill
prisoners housed in the federal administrative-maximum facility in
Florence, Colorado (ADX).

Counsel for several ADX prisoners filed the action alleging that
they were denied required mental-health treatment and were so
abused by prison personnel that the conditions of their
confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment.

A federal magistrate judge facilitated discovery and settlement
negotiations.  The BOP agreed to the settlement because it
recognized the need for new policies and practices for mentally
ill inmates at ADX. The court observed that although the case was
triable, the complexities of such a trial are evident.
The district court acknowledged that some of the prisoners
objected to the settlement because it did not provide for any
awards of money damages.

The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's approval of the
settlement for abuse of discretion. A district court may approve a
proposed settlement only after finding that it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Mr. Cunningham first claims that during a hearing in November 2013
the attorney for the class and the magistrate judge agreed to set
up a trust fund for payment of money awards to certain prisoners,
yet the attorney improperly failed to set it up.  But he does not
cite to any record evidence for this claim.  And what the Tenth
Circuit does have in the record does not support the claim.

Mr. Cunningham also raises an argument based on his proposed pro
se Third Amended Complaint seeking money damages.  Contrary to his
characterization of the proceedings, however, the BOP responded to
the motion to reconsider. And although the district court did not
formally rule on the motion, the court implicitly denied it by
dismissing the case.

Mr. Cunningham next asserts that the settlement agreement should
be voided because BOP officials retaliated against him for
refusing to agree to the settlement.  But he does not identify
where he raised a retaliation claim in the district court and he
does not argue for the application of plain-error review on
appeal. Therefore, the retaliation claim is waived.  Even though
we do not consider his retaliation claim in this appeal, we note
that the settlement order does not foreclose Mr. Cunningham from
bringing a separate action for retaliation.

Mr. Cunningham argues that an award of money damages was
contemplated by the operative complaint because the relief
requested included such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Perhaps so. But even if the complaint had explicitly sought money
damages, that would not affect the validity of the ultimate
settlement. A settlement is not unfair simply because it does not
provide all relief originally sought.

Finally, Mr. Cunningham maintains that he is entitled to an award
of attorney fees for acting as the lead plaintiff and helping to
put the case together.  The fees payable to the attorneys for the
class were authorized under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA). But "attorney fees are not available for pro se litigants
under the EAJA.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's September 21, 2017 Order
and Judgment is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybh6m3osfrom
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Ct. Adopts Prelim Approval of "Moss" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Medford Division, issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation granting Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned AMICHAEL MOSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
SECRET SERVICE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:06-cv-03045-CL (D.
Ore.).

Having reviewed the file of this case, the District Court finds no
clear error and adopts the Magistrate Judge's F&R.  The Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Related Relief is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc34bg8pfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker --
steven.wilker@tonkon.com -- Tonkon Torp LLP.

Michael Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Tinker --
alex.tinker@tonkon.com -- Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B. Spitzer,
American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area,
Suite 1191440 20th St NW, Washington, DC 20036-5907, pro hac vice.

Lesley Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker, Tonkon
Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Beth Wilcox, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker, Tonkon
Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Richard Royer, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker, Tonkon
Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Lee Frances Torelle, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker,
Tonkon Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Mischelle Elkovich, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker,
Tonkon Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Anna Vine O'Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Wilker,
Tonkon Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon Torp LLP & Arthur B.
Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital
Area, pro hac vice.

Jackson County Pacific Green Party, Plaintiff, represented by
Steven M. Wilker, Tonkon Torp LLP, Alexander M. Tinker, Tonkon
Torp LLP & Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union of
the National Capital Area, pro hac vice.

United States Secret Service, Defendant, represented by Brant S.
Levine, U.S. Department of Justice & Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

Ralph Basham, Defendant, represented by Brant S. Levine, U.S.
Department of Justice & Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

Tim Wood, Defendant, represented by Brant S. Levine, U.S.
Department of Justice & Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

Rob Savage, Defendant, represented by Brant S. Levine, U.S.
Department of Justice & Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

John Doe 1, Defendant, represented by Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

David Towe, Defendant, represented by Robert E. Franz, Jr., Law
Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr..

City of Jacksonville, Defendant, represented by Robert E. Franz,
Jr., Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr..

Ron Ruecker, Defendant, represented by Christina L. Beatty-
Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Christopher A. Perdue,
Oregon Department of Justice.

Eric Rodriquez, Defendant, represented by Christina L. Beatty-
Walters, Oregon Department of Justice.

Eric Rodriquez, Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Perdue,
Oregon Department of Justice.

Sheriff Mike Winters, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Jewett,
Attorney at Law, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel & Joel C.
Benton, Jackson County Counsel.

Jackson County, Defendant, represented by Joel C. Benton, Jackson
County Counsel, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel & Michael
D. Jewett, Attorney at Law.

John Does 2-20, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Jewett,
Attorney at Law, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel & Joel C.
Benton, Jackson County Counsel.

Mark Sullivan, Defendant, represented by Jeremy S. Brumbelow, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.

Tim F. McClain, Defendant, represented by Christina L. Beatty-
Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Christopher A. Perdue,
Oregon Department of Justice.

Randie Martz, Defendant, represented by Christina L. Beatty-
Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Christopher A. Perdue,
Oregon Department of Justice.

Corey Falls, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Jewett, Attorney
at Law, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel & Joel C. Benton,
Jackson County Counsel.

Jackson County, Cross Claimant, represented by Michael D. Jewett,
Attorney at Law.

United States Secret Service, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brant S. Levine, U.S. Department of Justice & Jeremy S. Brumbelow,
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.


URBAN SETTLEMENT: Court Denies Move to Strike Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Colorado issued
an Order denying Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to
Strike Class Allegations in the case captioned  RICHARD GEORGE,
STEVEN LEAVITT, SANDRA LEAVITT, DARRELL DALTON, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES,
d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions, and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-cv-01819-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.).

BOA argues that all of plaintiffs' class-action allegations should
be stricken because plaintiffs will not be able to establish that
class certification is appropriate.  If that relief is denied, BOA
asks that the Court strike plaintiffs' class-action promissory
estoppel claims brought under the law of states in which the named
plaintiffs do not reside because the named plaintiffs lack
standing to bring such claims.

BOA admits that the standard for striking class allegations prior
to plaintiffs filing a class certification motion is high. To
succeed, BOA must show that 'it will be impossible to certify the
classes alleged by the plaintiffs regardless of the facts the
plaintiffs may be able to prove.'

Courts are divided on the issue of whether named plaintiffs in a
putative class action have standing to bring claims under the law
of states where the named plaintiffs do not reside.  Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring claims under state laws to which Plaintiff
has never been subjected and the class action claim must therefore
be dismissed for lack of standing. This Court is not persuaded
that where a plaintiff resides or suffers an injury has anything
to do with Article III standing. The Court agrees with courts that
have held that where a named plaintiff resides or suffers an
injury is not determinative of whether they have Article III
standing. As the Seventh Circuit explained, plaintiffs have
standing if they have been injured, the defendants caused that
injury, and the injury can be redressed by a judicial decision.

Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that their reasonable reliance on
defendants' promises led to financial losses and that such losses
were caused by defendants.  Accordingly, because plaintiffs have
demonstrated a case or controversy with defendants that can be
redressed by a judicial decision, plaintiffs have shown that they
have Article III standing.  Whether plaintiffs have a valid cause
of action under the laws of any particular state is a separate
matter, but one that is not at issue here.  It is firmly
established in our cases that the absence of a valid (as opposed
to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter
jurisdiction, the courts' statutory or constitutional power to
adjudicate the case. It is well settled that the failure to state
a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and
not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Court will not dismiss plaintiffs' promissory
estoppel claims brought under the law of states where the named
plaintiffs do not reside.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 21, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd42seltfrom Leagle.com.

Ajay Sood, Movant, Pro Se.

Richard George, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Ari Y.
Brown, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite
3300Seattle, WA 98101 & Tyler Stuart Weaver --
tyler@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Steven Leavitt, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Ari Y. Brown, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP & Tyler Stuart Weaver, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP.

Sandra Leavitt, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Ari Y. Brown, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP & Tyler Stuart Weaver, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP.

Darrell Dalton, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Y. Brown, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP.

Urban Settlement Services, Defendant, represented by Martin
Christopher Bryce, Jr. -- BRYCE BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr,
LLP, Rachel Rose Mentz -- MENTZR BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard
Spahr, LLP & Sarah Block Wallace -- WALLACES BALLARDSPAHR.COM --
Ballard Spahr, LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by James W. McGarry,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place53 State Street Boston, MA
02109  Benjamin R. Cox, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Keith Eric
Levenberg, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place53 State Street
Boston,  MA  02109 & Peter John Korneffel, Jr.-
peter.korneffel@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


VERASTIQUE ENTERPRISES: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) v. VERASTIQUE ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a QUICK TRIP
MOVERS and MICHAEL I. VERASTIQUE, Case No. 3:17-cv-02524-B (N.D.
Tex., September 18, 2017), is brought as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of similarly situated
employees, who have not been paid overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Verastique Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Quick Trip Movers,
is a company that regularly transacts business within the Northern
District of Texas.  Michael I. Verastique is a corporate officer,
owner or manager of Verastique Enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Merkel's Party Rejects Call for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Peres, writing for Automotive News, reports that
Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union party was victorious in
the recent German elections, and it appeared that voters didn't
care how the chancellor has shielded Volkswagen and other
automakers from liability toward domestic consumers and
shareholders stemming from the diesel scandal.

Experts estimate about 4 million VW vehicles in Germany were
affected by defeat devices that manipulated emissions in a
laboratory test situation.  Yet, Merkel's ruling party has
rejected any calls for consumer compensation through class-action
litigation, a legal option that Germans -- unlike Americans --
don't have.

Volkswagen and other industry giants such as BMW and Daimler, who
also have been accused of manipulating emissions systems, have
agreed to software updates for all diesel cars already on the
roads, claiming this would reduce poisonous nitrogen oxide
emissions by 30 percent.

This was the result of a "diesel summit" convened by the German
government and spearheaded by Merkel.  However, many critics say
these software updates do little to nothing about the emissions
and demand hardware solutions for the vehicles.  Manufacturers
argue that would cost about 1,500 euros ($1,800) per car and would
seriously harm the industry and threaten many jobs.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
and U.S. President Donald Trump confer at the G20 in July.  Merkel
has been called "chief lobbyist" for carmakers because of her
protective stance.

Around 800,000 jobs in Germany are either directly or indirectly
linked to the automobile industry.  Calling it to task for its
transgressions is a no-no in German politics.

Merkel has been called "chief lobbyist" for carmakers because of
her protective stance.  The opposition, and even her coalition
partner, the Social Democrats, have tried to introduce legislation
that would specifically enable car owners damaged by Volkswagen to
sue collectively in court, without success.

The majority coalition party CDU/CSU hasn't even allowed a debate
in parliament about a legislative draft prepared by Justice
Minister Heiko Maas that would introduce something similar to
class-action litigation in Germany.  It was stopped cold by
Alexander Dobrindt, Germany's transportation minister and lead
member of the conservative Christian Social Union.  His
handwritten comment on the draft read: "We reject this, strike
completely!"

In sharp contrast, Volkswagen has entered into a settlement with
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that includes hefty compensation
for about 600,000 affected American car owners. Large criminal and
civil fines, as well as the cost of buybacks, bring the bill for
Volkswagen close to $25 billion.  Some Volkswagen employees in the
U.S. are even facing jail time.  None of this is happening in
Europe, where 8.5 million VW customers have purchased diesel cars
with the illegal devices. Worldwide, there are 11 million defeat
devices.

Several German plaintiff law firms have been ramping up to sue
Volkswagen.  Their problem is that they need to bring each case to
court separately.  One Duesseldorf firm has announced plans to
file 5,000 cases. "VW is fighting every claim individually," says
Ralph Sauer, partner at Dr. Stoll & Sauer.  "If they start to
offer a big deal like they did in the U.S., they fear 2.4 million
people will want the same thing."

The European Commission has issued directives to its member states
in the past to implement class-action litigation in order to
counter egregious transgressions by businesses against consumers,
the last one in 2016.  Most European countries have followed the
directives and introduced some sort of collective redress in their
laws.

Not so in Germany.  This and the diesel scandal prompted European
Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova in March to threaten Volkswagen
with enforcement action if the automaker doesn't offer European
consumers compensation for their damages. The European Commission
hosted a meeting of 22 consumer protection authorities from across
the continent, in which they agreed to prepare collective action
against VW.

So Volkswagen has it coming, even if the German authorities are
still treating them with kid gloves.  It has been an election
time, but maybe all the corporate lobbying against class-action
lawsuits has reached a wall?

For years, the main arguments were that class actions would burden
businesses and promote an "American-style" litigation industry.
The worn examples of exorbitant attorney fees, the potential for
blackmail and excessive discovery to extract trade secrets don't
all work in Germany.

German procedural law does not allow pretrial discoveries nor
contingency fees for lawyers.  Progressive legal academics have
long supported changes to German law that would allow groups of
claimants to sue together.

A smart legislative draft that would enable plaintiffs to initiate
group actions, without needing sponsorship by consumer protection
agencies or other public entities, died in German parliament. It
was denied discussion when introduced Sept. 5.

It seems like Merkel still is holding her hands over the
automobile industry.  Her victory was also a win for the German
carmakers. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Alters" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brett Alters, April Rockstead
Barker, Dave Battinieri, Chloe Crater, David Deking, Deloris A.
Jones, Malia Moore, Delola Nelson-Reynolds, George O'Connor, and
Christine Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v., Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Volkswagen A.G., Takata Corporation, and TK
Holdings Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05863, was
transferred on Sep. 19, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23433-FAM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
of automobile companies of Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1741
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Window and Door Financing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and
Mississippi Iron Works.

"This lawsuit is yet another example of the disgusting manner in
which Wells Fargo's well-publicized fraud-scandal touches nearly
every consumer product-line that Wells Fargo, and its co-branding
agents, have pushed onto an unsuspecting public," attorney Macy
Hanson of Madison said in the lawsuit. "This case, specifically,
involved the fraudulent consumer credit-product named the Wells
Fargo Visa Home Projects Credit Card."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, presents
only one side of the legal argument. Wells Fargo and Iron Works
have not filed a response.

The case has been assigned to federal Judge Tom Lee.

Nationally, Wells Fargo, the second largest bank in the United
States, has been rocked with scandal over the last year or so for
creating fraudulent bank and credit cards accounts.

Hanson said the latest lawsuit involves the fraudulent and
dishonest financing-scheme devised and perpetuated by the
defendants in which unauthorized and never-disclosed Wells Fargo
credit cards were used to finance the window and door purchases of
Mississippi Iron Works consumer-products.

"As detailed in this complaint, the defendants conspired to create
a financing-scheme in which Mississippi Iron Works, and its
president and owner, Cary W. Crawley (who also acts as a door-to-
door salesman), fraudulently signed customers up for unauthorized
and concealed Wells Fargo Visa Home Projects Credit Cards," the
lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says that on Sept. 11, 2014, Crawley, while engaging
in unsolicited door-to-door sales in the Yazoo City area, knocked
on 69-year-old John Meeks' door.

The lawsuit says Crawley was acting in his individual capacity and
also, and simultaneously, as a dual agent, for the financial
benefit, of Mississippi Iron Works and Wells Fargo Financial
National Bank. It says Crawley was canvassing Meeks' neighborhood
in Yazoo City in early September 2014  to capitalize, financially,
upon a home invasion and robbery of an elderly lady in Yazoo City
in late August 2014.

Crawley said on September 29 he had contacted Meeks and the
homeowner had no problem with him or his work. Crawley said he was
basically caught in the middle. He said he uses Wells Fargo, like
numerous people and businesses, for financing.

"Everybody knows Wells Fargo has some issues," Crawley said.

However, Crawley said it was plainly marked on the application
that Meeks entered into that Wells Fargo was providing the
financing.

Meeks agreed to purchase from Mississippi Iron Works three custom
security doors, a set of double doors, and installation of
"security screens" on all of his first-floor windows at a total
cost of $13,950, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says the cost of Meeks' purchase, according to the
Mississippi Iron Works work order and invoice provided him by the
defendants, would be financed through a "60-months, no-interest"
closed-end loan, and the words  "Wells Fargo" nor "credit card"
were ever used in the presence of Meeks.

"Nonetheless, the defendants conspired in an unlawful scheme to
sign Mr. Meeks up for an unauthorized, fraudulent, and criminal
Wells Fargo Visa Home Project Credit Card," the lawsuit says.

Hanson said that due to widespread, intentional and systemic fraud
related to the Wells Fargo Visa Home Projects Credit Card, as of
June the bank had terminated the product line.

Hanson has filed several lawsuits against Wells Fargo on behalf of
clients this year, including one on behalf of a blind Jackson
woman against the bank and window companies.

Wells Fargo has sought to force the cases into arbitration saying
the parties agreed to arbitration when they signed credit card
agreements.

Also, a Mississippi mother and her son are part of one of the
initial class-action lawsuits filed against Wells Fargo Bank over
allegedly forcing hundreds of thousands of auto loan customers to
pay for unnecessary and unwanted collateral protection insurance.

Dianne Neal and son Robert Neal of Macon and Blaine Boone of
Parkville, Maryland, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in
federal court in California. [GN]


WENDY'S COMPANY: Banczak and Jastrzebska Sue over Beverage Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAN BANCZAK, and ANGELICA JASTRZEBSKA, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
THE WENDY'S COMPANY, WENDY'S RESTAURANTS, LLC., WENDY'S
INTERNATIONAL, LLC., WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS OF NEW YORK,
INC., WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS OF NEW YORK, LLC.,
WENDY'S PROPERTIES, LLC, ALL-STAR MANAGEMENT NO.4, INC., ALL-STAR
MANAGEMENT NO. 12, INC., BF ILLINOIS, LLC., CALUMET CROSSING
MANAGEMENT, INC., TRI CITY FOODS OF ILLINOIS, INC., SABRINA R.
HICKS, TFN, INC., and THOMAS F. NOVAK, the Defendants, Case No.
2017-L-315 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover for
overcharges of the Sweetened Beverage Tax imposed and collected by
Wendy's in Cook County, Illinois in its drive-thru locations.

The case is a consumer class action relating to unlawful over-
taxation of sweetened beverages sold by Defendants in its drive-
thru locations under the Sweetened Beverage Tax. The Plaintiffs
bring this action for Wendy's violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law fraud, and
money had and received.

Wendy's is engaged in the business of operating, developing and
franchising a system of quick-service restaurants in the retail
sales of food and beverages, including retail sales of sweetened
beverages subject to the Sweetened Beverage Tax in Cook County,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Rodriguez, Esq.
          MILLENNIUM LAW GROUP P.C.
          155 N. Michigan Av., Ste 9010
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5291
          E-mail: david@millennium-law.com


WESTPORT RECOVERY: Accused by "McElveen" Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARA E. MCELVEEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WESTPORT RECOVERY CORPORATION and DEBRA L. GREENBERG,
Case No. 0:17-cv-61816-BB (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2017), accuses
the Defendants of sending the Plaintiff a communication, which
contained false representations of the amount allegedly due -- in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Westport Recovery Corporation is a corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Florida with its principal place of business
at in Plantation, Florida.  Debra L. Greenberg, Esq., is a Florida
attorney and a resident of Broward County, Florida, and a
principal of Westport.  The Defendants regularly use the mail and
telephone in a business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD A. YARBROUGH
          Post Office Box 11842
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339
          Telephone: (954) 537-2000
          Facsimile: (954) 566-2235
          E-mail: don@donyarbrough.com

               - and -

          Joel D. Lucoff, Esq.
          JDL LAW, P.A.
          Post Office Box 277534
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Telephone: (954) 562-0907
          E-mail: joel@jdllawpa.com


WS ENERGY: "Mansilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MANSILLA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00297 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover all available relief, including compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who worked for WS Energy since September 14, 2014
and through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid a
salary plus job bonuses/day rates, but did not receive overtime
for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members are also those similarly situated
persons who worked for WS Energy since September 14, 2014 and
through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid on an
hourly basis plus job bonuses/day rates and were actually paid
overtime, but the job bonuses/day rates were not included in the
calculation of their overtime rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


ZILLOW GROUP: "Shotwell" Securities Suit Cites CFPB Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SHOTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,
SPENCER M. RASCOFF, and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01387 (W.D. Wash., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Zillow securities between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017, both dates inclusive.

Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company
provides information about homes, real estate listings, and
mortgages through their website and mobile applications. Zillow
serves homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters, and real estate
professionals throughout the United States. Founded in 2004, the
Company is headquartered in Seattle, Washington and the Company's
stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "Z".

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's co-marketing program did not comply with the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Zillow' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. In April 2017, Zillow received a
Civil Investigative Demand from the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau that questioned whether some of Zillow's advertising
revenues violated regulations against kickbacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cliff Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Telephone: (425) 868 7813
          Facsimile: (425) 732 3752
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


* California Helps Workers Sue Their Bosses
-------------------------------------------
Josh Eidelson, writing for Bloomberg, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court will consider whether employees have the right to
bring class actions against their bosses. With the court's
Republican majority restored this year by President Donald Trump,
labor advocates aren't holding their breath.

Instead, they're pursuing a work-around pioneered on the West
Coast. A decade-old California law allows people to act as
"private attorneys general," bringing cases against companies on
behalf of the government. Activists are urging other states and
cities to follow suit.

It's the latest skirmish in a long war. Over the past couple of
decades, companies have increasingly required their employees --
and their customers -- to surrender the right to class action in a
courtroom, and instead bring any grievances to individual
arbitration hearings.

The California model helps plaintiffs to get around such
agreements. "The worker isn't acting just as a worker -- they're
acting as an agent of the state, and the state isn't a party to
that forced arbitration agreement," says Meg Fosque, lead
organizer for the community group Make the Road New York. "It's
kind of poetic justice." Her organization is backing a pair of
bills to give New York's workers and consumers a similar option.

Consumer Complaints

More than half of non-union private-sector employers now make
their workers sign mandatory arbitration agreements, and 30
percent of those include class-action waivers, the Economic Policy
Institute said this week. The left-of-center think-tank carried
out a review of arbitrators' disclosures in 2015, and found that
corporations engaging in the practice included industry leaders
like Anheuser-Busch InBev SA, J.C. Penney Co. and Wells Fargo &
Co.

It's becoming a common requirement for consumers, too. The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated in 2015 that 53
percent of outstanding credit-card loans went to borrowers who'd
signed an agreement for any complaints to be handled via
arbitration. For pre-paid cards and storefront payday lenders,
such terms were even more widespread.

In July, the agency issued a rule that would stop banks and
credit-card companies from making customers relinquish their
rights to class action, though congressional Republicans are
rounding up votes to overturn the rule.

Business advocates argue that courtroom class actions are often
frivolous shakedowns, and that arbitration represents a cheaper,
faster alternative with better outcomes for all parties except
attorneys.

'Money for Themselves'

"Trial lawyers want to eliminate arbitration as an option in as
many spheres as possible, to bring more business and money for
themselves," says Ted Frank, who directs the Center for Class
Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "If
somebody really prefers to avoid arbitration, they can find a job
that doesn't have an arbitration clause."

But consumer and labor groups, and the attorneys who represent
them, say that class actions are often the only financially
feasible way for low-income plaintiffs with non-lucrative claims
to redress wrongs. "A class action waiver is in many cases a
waiver of rights altogether, practically," says Justin Swartz, a
plaintiff's lawyer who's among a group that provided input on the
new bills proposed in New York.

Plus, they say, arbitrators can be biased -- because their future
earnings depend on companies agreeing to keep using them.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have favored the employers. In a
landmark 2011 decision siding with AT&T, the court overturned a
California rule invalidating arbitration agreements that
prohibited class action. It found that an act passed by Congress
in 1925 to promote the use of arbitration had priority. Also, in a
2013 ruling in favor of American Express that cited the same 1925
law, the court said that class-action waivers can't be invalidated
merely because it's unrealistic for consumers to bring their cases
one by one.

On September 25, when the court considers whether labor laws
protect employees' right to collectively sue their boss, activists
expect a similar result.

Not in California

But arbitration advocates haven't been winning everywhere -- and
especially not in California. Since the state passed the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, its courts have repeatedly denied
pleas by companies to handle claims in individual arbitration
rather than collectively.

Under PAGA, employees can bring claims as agents of the state --
though they first have to give their bosses a chance to resolve
the case, and the labor commissioner's office retains a veto. If a
claim succeeds or gets settled, the payout is shared with the
state government, which uses the funds for further labor law
enforcement.

In a precedent-setting 2014 case, the California Supreme Court
allowed a driver to proceed with a PAGA claim against a
transportation company, for failing to pay overtime. The court
acknowledged the 1925 arbitration act, but said it "does not
preclude our Legislature from deputizing employees to prosecute
Labor Code violations on the state's behalf."

PAGA has enabled some big-money settlements. Bank of America Corp.
paid out $15 million for allegedly not providing proper seating
for tellers. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and a group of warehouse
contractors reached a $22.7 million agreement to resolve claims
including minimum-wage violations.

'Changes the Calculus'

"The possibility of a PAGA case changes the calculus for a
company, so that they would invest more in compliance and not be
as cavalier about the labor standards," says Rachel Deutsch, a Los
Angeles-based attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy, which
plans to campaign for PAGA-like bills in four states next year.
The group also held a conference in July for municipal lawmakers
from around the country, who discussed pushing the measures at the
city level. New York City's public advocate's office is
considering the idea.

Business advocates say PAGA shouldn't go viral. "It's essentially
open season on employers," says Paul DeCamp, who led the federal
Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division under George W. Bush and
now defends companies in employment suits.

The Supreme Court has declined repeated requests to consider
whether California courts were wrong to keep PAGA cases out of
arbitration. That will change if more states follow California's
lead, says Marshall Babson, a board member of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce's litigation arm. And he says the court may decide to
treat PAGA claims the same way as other suits filed by employees.
"If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, there's a chance
it's a duck," Babson says.

Labor's supporters say they're confident the law is on their side,
despite prior high court defeats.

"Arbitration has interfered with the private individual's ability
to protect themselves," says attorney David Seligman, who has
drafted a model PAGA-like bill for the National Consumer Law
Center. "So the state has to figure out a new way to enforce its
laws." [GN]


* NCEO Analyzes Recent Trends in Employer Stock Plan Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Rosen of The National Center for Employee Ownership, in an
article for The National Review, reports that a new analysis by
the National Center for Employee Ownership shows activity in
employer in the last twelve months (July 2016 through July 2017).
There were just eight new decisions involving employer stock in
401(k) plans, and 25 decisions involving employee stock ownership
plans (ESOPs), all in private companies.  Only some of these
involved significant amounts of money.  Two trends stand out:
plaintiffs are having a very hard time prevailing in stock drop
cases in public companies and the Department of Labor continues to
challenge a handful of what it perceives as excessive prices paid
for shares in closely held ESOP companies.

Courts Rejecting Plaintiffs in Stock Drop Cases

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs in cases where
retirement funds in 401(k() plans and/or ESOPs were invested in
employer company stock, trustees could no longer be presumed to be
prudent with respect to the sale or holding of these securities.
That seemed like it might be a victory for plaintiffs, but in
FifthThird Bank v. Dudenhoeffer, the Court replaced that rule with
a requirement that plaintiffs allege a plausible alternative
course of action that fiduciaries could have taken with regard to
employer stock that would have been better than what they chose to
do.  The ruling said fiduciaries cannot be required to outguess
the markets, so the fact that the stock goes down substantially is
not in itself a cause for action.  Even if they have information
that the stock price will likely go down, if selling stock would
itself drive stock prices down, the fiduciaries still are not
required to act.

Since then, plaintiffs have had a hard time prevailing, and in the
12-month period we covered, no luck at all.  Two appeals courts
and seven district courts all ruled that employees failed to meet
the special pleading.  In Whitley v. BP, PLC for instance, The
Fifth Circuit dismissed claims that BP 401(k) plan fiduciaries
should have disclosed inside information and/or frozen trades of
BP stock in its 401(k) pan after the Deepwater Horizon disaster
because if they did, stock prices would go down. In Saumer v.
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., the Sixth Circuit, rejected claims
by employee participants in Cliffs Natural Resources for similar
reasons after employees alleged they should have known the stock
would likely fall.  In Rinehart v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., the
Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court ruling against
plaintiffs after a lower court also ruled against the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs had argued that SEC warnings about short sales should
have met the special pleadings standards.

The same pattern held in district courts. In Martone v. Whole
Foods Mkt., Inc., employees noted that company stock dropped 11%
in one day after disclosure of a government investigation over
pricing irregularities.  A district judge, relying on the Fifth
Circuit guidance in the BP case described above, ruled that 401(k)
plan fiduciaries had no plausible alternative cause of action that
would have done more good than harm.  In In re 2014 RadioShack
ERISA Litig., the court ruled the plaintiffs had not presented any
new facts to show that there was inside information that would
have been material that would have created a plausible alternative
course of action.

In a later BP case, In re B.P. P.L.C. Sec. Litig., a federal
district court went even further than other courts in a suit about
employer stock in the company's 401(k).  Employees argued that BP
executives could have disclosed safety risks or divert company
stock to safer alternatives.  The judge said none of the
plaintiffs' proposed alternative courses of action, including
disclosure of impending problems, would meet the Dudenhoeffer
standard.  The judge ruled that plaintiffs must allege a course of
action that that is "so clearly beneficial that a prudent
fiduciary could not conclude that [the action] would be more
likely to harm the fund than to help it," and that no prudent
fiduciary could have reached an alternative conclusion.

Finally, in Wilson v. Edison International, Inc, a district court
ruled that two executives were not liable in a proposed class
action over Edison stock in 1 401(k) plan because disclosing
regulatory problem could have sent the stock price down.

ESOPs are much more common in private companies.  They are most
often used to purchase shares from one or more owners.  The most
significant litigation involves how much the ESOP pays.  The price
is determined by an independent outside appraiser and reviewed and
approved by the ESOP trustee.  In a limited number of cases, the
Department of Labor has argued ESOPs overpaid for the shares in
its initial purchase of shares.  Although these have been high
profile in the ESOP community, and have led some to charge the DOL
is being too aggressive, it is important to note that only six
such cases were decided in the last 12 months, one of which was a
settlement, four that went against the defendants, and one that
favored the defendant.

In Jessop v. Larsen, No. 2:14-cv-00916-BSJ, a court approved a
$19.8 million settlement against executives of the failed multi-
level juice marketing company MonaVie and ESOP trustee Bankers
Trust.  MonaVie acquired shares in 2010 with a 10% loan to buy
$186.5 million in stock.  The stock dropped to almost zero in two
years as the company went bankrupt.

In Allen v. GreatBanc Trust Co., the Seventh Circuit overturned a
lower court ruling that dismissed a case over an ESOP valuation at
the ESOP for Personal-Touch Company.  The company's stock price
dropped just over 50% after the valuation.  GreatBanc, the plan
trustee, argued that post-transaction declines in stock price are
common because of the debt, much as equity value in a home
declines after taking out a mortgage.  Plaintiffs argued that
GreatBanc failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the stock
price and approved an interest rate on the ESOP loan two
percentage points above what banks were normally charging. The
case was remanded.

In a very detailed ruling that provides useful general guidance
for trustees, in Fish v. GreatBanc Trust Company, a district court
ruled in favor of the ESOP trustee, GreatBanc, and members of the
Antioch Company board and family who previously owned stock
outside of the ESOP.  Antioch became a 100% ESOP in 2003, but
after spectacular growth, experienced a downturn and went
bankrupt.  Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the ESOP paid too much
for the stock and that the appraisal failed to account for a
looming repurchase obligation (the requirement that the company
buy back shares from departing employees).  The 131-page ruling
dismissed all claims, saying that the process the company and
GreatBanc used met fiduciary standards, including through review
of financial projections, and independent a multi-pronged process
for assessing value.

Defendants were less successful in Brundle v. Wilmington Tr. N.A.
Here a district court ruled that Wilmington Trust must pay $29.8
million to a terminated ESOP.  The Constellis Group, which
operated Triple Canopy, a major provider of international security
services, became 100% ESOP owned in 2013.  The deal was financed
largely with seller note at 5% interest, with sellers getting a
25% claim on equity in return for the higher interest they argued
the risk of the loan would have justified.  Plaintiffs said the
trustee, Wilmington Trust accepted a substantially inflated
valuation, and failed to assess a valuation done a year before for
valuing stock options that showed the company worth $100 million
less.  The court said Wilmington accepted unrealistic financial
projections as valid and paid a 10% control premium when the ESOP,
although a 100% owner, did not have full control because of
covenants in the agreements protecting sellers.  A loss of major
contracts soon after the ESOP led Constellis and Wilmington to
start negotiations that led to the sale of the company and the
termination of the ESOP six months after it was created.  The
stock price declined significantly between the two transactions.

Similarly, in Perez v. First Bankers Tr. Servs., Inc., a district
court ordered First Bankers Trust (FBT) to pay almost $9.5 million
to plaintiffs for failing to adequately protect the interest of
ESOP participants by allowing the ESOP to overpay for the shares
from the owners of SJP Services.  The case revolved mostly around
the reliability of company projections.

Other Cases
Two other cases are worth noting.  In Hugler v. Vinoskey,  a
district court ruled that an employee of an independent ESOP
trustee could be sued as a fiduciary individually because he made
decisions independently. The decision is the first of its kind in
ESOP law.

In Forte v. U.S. Pension Committee, the court ruled the plaintiff
had purchased or sold Sanofil stock during the period of the
alleged artificial price inflation and thus did not have standing.
[GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 278 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. faces fewer than 278 asbestos-related claims as of
June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The
claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related
to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company
from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar USA is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims. As of June 30,
2017, there were fewer than 278 asbestos-related claims for which
the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to
the indemnification obligation. The volume of such cases has
decreased in recent quarters. Historically, the vast majority of
the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been
dismissed without payment. The Company does incur costs in
defending these claims. While the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon
currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of
these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims
or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact
earnings or cash flows in a particular future period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xakaNz

Headquartered in Downers Grove, Ill., Univar Inc. is a global
distributor of commodity and specialty chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 508 Exposure Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is named a defendant in 508 lawsuits as of June
30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.  As of June 30, 2017, we are
named a defendant in approximately 508 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,128 claims.  No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims.  Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable.  It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/s7yOkR

MRC Global Inc., through its subsidiaries, distributes pipes,
valves, fittings, and related products and services to the energy
industry in the United States, Canada, and internationally. MRC
Global Inc. was founded in 1921 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metlife Unit Had 1,896 New Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metlife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received 1,896 new asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company says, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of
certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty
to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute, or sell
the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other
trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance
that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received
approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016. During the
six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received
approximately 1,896 and 2,348 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements included in the 2016 Annual Report for
historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC's
increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2014. The
number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount
of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and
judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving
serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and
other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are
pending. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from
asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for
asbestos-related claims through June 30, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eDRUGc

MetLife, Inc., (MetLife) is a provider of life insurance,
annuities, employee benefits and asset management. The Company's
segments include Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits, and
Corporate Benefit Funding.  Its three geographic segments are
Latin America (collectively, the Americas); Asia, and Europe, the
Middle East and Africa (EMEA).  In addition, MetLife's Corporate &
Other includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (MLHL), the surviving, non-
bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association
(MetLife Bank) with and into MLHL, and other business activities.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it operates in the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
The Company's businesses in the Americas offer a range of
protection products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corp. ("WABTec") and certain of its affiliates in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

Further information and detail on these claims is described in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2016, filed on February 28, 2017. During the first six months
of 2017, there were no material changes to the information
described in the Form 10-K.

In its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed on
February 28, 2017 with the SEC, the Company said, "Most of these
claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary,
Railroad Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on
a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired
any interest in RFPC.

"Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.  We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.  Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CkQk2W

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at
1001 Air Brake Avenue in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. Wabtec is one
of the world's largest providers of value-added, technology-based
equipment and services for the global rail industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 309 Asbestos Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation was a defendant in 309 cases as of June
30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for the past 29 years. Our subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by us. As of June 30, 2017, we were a
defendant in approximately 309 cases brought in state and federal
courts throughout the United States. In the six months ended June
30, 2017, 29 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the
calendar year 2016, 84 asbestos cases were brought against us. In
the last 29 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In
many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial
for lack of product identification. As of June 30, 2017, 50,986
asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the six months ended June
30, 2017, 28 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31,
2016, 50,958 cases were dismissed. With regards to the
approximately 309 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively
defending these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing
product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of
our product.

"As of June 30, 2017, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in
162 cases. In 54 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in
excess of some dollar amount (about $599 thousand per plaintiff);
in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts
requested as to any defendant. In 106 other cases pending in state
and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $429
million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In two cases,
plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the
amount of $20 million. In addition, in relation to these 162
cases, there are claims of $271 million in punitive damages from
all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these
cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of June 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately
$4.4 million and as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, had
recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries for
these lawsuits. The net amount of $4.0 million as of June 30, 2017
and December 31, 2016 represents our best estimate in order to
cover resolution of current asbestos-related claims.

"The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, aggregate settlement costs were $10.2 million and $9.8
million, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and
July 1, 2016, settlement costs totaled $0.4 million and $0.1
million, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
aggregate litigation costs were $27.8 million and $27.1 million,
respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and July 1,
2016, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims
totaled $0.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively.

"In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with
certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the
costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the
asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the
insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for
a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and
another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the
insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially
most of the costs relating to these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/35myJj

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former College Technician Exposed to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Scott, writing for EDP24.co.uk, reported that a former
college technician from Norfolk who was diagnosed with
mesothelioma a year ago has joined with lawyers to appeal to his
former colleagues for help as he seeks answers and justice
regarding his illness.

Graham Buckland, 77, from Emneth near Wisbech, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung associated with
asbestos exposure, in September 2016 following a biopsy at the
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn.

Following the news, he instructed specialist asbestos-related
disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Cambridge office to help him
discover how he developed the illness and whether more could have
been done to protect him.

After reviewing his work history, it is believed Mr. Buckland may
have been exposed to the deadly material during his time working
as a technician at Dacorum College, Hemel Hempstead, for
Hertfordshire County Council between 1982 and 1992.

Mr. Buckland said he remembered asbestos being removed from the
fabric of the building while he worked there and believes his
former colleagues will recall the removal work being done.

As part of their work, Mr. Buckland's legal representatives are
now keen to hear from anyone who may have more information
regarding the presence of asbestos at the site during that time
period.

Mr. Buckland said: "The tiles were often removed, replaced and
drilled into, during a range of refurbishment work and, as I had
not been given any warnings or protection, I would tend to sweep
up any dust myself. When the asbestos removal works eventually
took place, it's quite likely that I was again exposed to asbestos
dust.

"When you go to work you simply never expect that your health may
be put at risk, yet I'm stunned by the fact that this appears to
be the case. I am desperate to know whether more should have been
done to protect me and would be hugely grateful if anyone with
information regarding asbestos at the college could come forward.

"Any detail no matter how small could make a huge difference."

Anyone with information which may be able to help this case is
urged to contact Martyn Hayward on 0370 1500 100 or email
martyn.hayward@irwinmitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Continue Asbestos Libby Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------
Dillon Tabish, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency will continue cleaning up asbestos
from properties in Lincoln County for another year following an
outpouring of last-minute requests.

Mike Cirian, remedial project manager for the EPA, said the
federal agency will clean up roughly 70 new properties in the
Libby area and roughly 50 will be carried over to next year.

"We were trying to complete all properties in Libby and we're very
close," Cirian said.

The cleanups are part of the Superfund program that was initiated
in the early 2000s after it was discovered that asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite had sickened and killed hundreds in the
community.

In January, the EPA announced a "last call" for residents of Libby
and Troy to participate in the asbestos cleanup. Officials gave
residents until March to ask the agency to inspect their property
for contamination and potential cleanup at no expense to the
property owner. If no inspections were sought, the future cost of
remediating any contamination could fall on the individual owner.

"We had an overwhelming response" to the last call, Cirian said.

Cirian said more than 260 people asked for federal inspections,
which led to 70 additional cleanups.

From the early 2000s to January 2017, more than 7,500 properties
within the Superfund site have been inspected and about 2,440 have
required cleanup actions. Four years ago, there were nearly 800
people neglecting federal inspections and potential cleanups of
their properties, but that number has dropped to roughly 280
property owners who own 320 properties in the area, Cirian said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Close Jersey Shore District
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Goldman, writing for NJ.com, reported that although asbestos
levels at in Pinelands Regional's two schools were found to be
within federal and state standards, district officials will keep
students home for the fourth consecutive day.

The district said it's awaiting word on air quality tests in
explaining the closure.

In August, a contractor performing a roof-replacement project at
the high school pulled out asbestos-containing paper from roofing
material, APP.com

The school is closed for Columbus Day and will re-open the
following day, the district announced.

Asbestos refers to six naturally occurring minerals that have the
ability to resist heat, fire and electricity.

School was closed beginning as precautionary measure, acting
Superintendent Maryann Banks said. Asbestos levels were found to
have been OK following sampling done by TTI Environmental, the
district's environmental consultant, officials said.

The SAT test will be administered at the junior high school, the
district said on its website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BART to Remove Asbestos from Powell St. Station
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Suratos, writing for NBC, reported that BART is preparing to
make some additions to one of its most popular stations in San
Francisco, but, in the process, it will have to remove a material
that has sparked concern among riders.

The agency needs to remove asbestos from three locations at the
Powell Street station before installing new ceiling panels and
lights. Starting Monday, the work will take place when the station
is closed, but a protective enclosure will be visible during
business hours.

BART says the asbestos has not been a hazard while it remained
undisturbed. However, the new installations could cause dusting or
flaking of the material so they are taking necessary precautions
to inform the public about the construction.

Although BART says passengers have nothing to fear because it is
common practice to remove asbestos from older buildings, some
commuters can't help but be worried that asbestos is dangerous and
can, in some cases, lead to cancer.

Over the summer, BART removed asbestos as well as lead paint from
eight other stations without running into any issues.

A special filtering system will be in place at the Powell Street
station to ensure that the air in the station is clean. BART will
also have safety monitors present during the work, which officials
say could take two weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Case vs J&J Being Heard in Pasadena
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pasadena News Now reported that a Pasadena Courtroom of the
Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County is the scene of
an important lawsuit with implications for thousands filed by a
California woman who alleges she developed mesothelioma -- a type
of cancer that develops from the mesothelium, the thin layer of
tissue that covers many of the body's internal organs -- from
breathing in baby powder and other talcum products manufactured by
cosmetics firm Johnson and Johnson, between 1956 and 1993.

The case, filed in January, alleges that Johnson and Johnson's
talc powder may have been contaminated with asbestos.

A report by asbestos.com said the case is the first asbestos-
related lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson. Asbestos.com is a
website and advocacy group that helps the victims of asbestos
exposure and their loved ones.

Before this case, courts have issued several notable asbestos-
related verdicts against other talc manufacturers, the report
said.

In April 2015, a California woman won a $13 million lawsuit
against Colgate-Palmolive. The jury ruled the plaintiff, Judith
Winkel, developed mesothelioma from asbestos in the company's
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder.

That same year, a New York jury awarded $10.55 million in a
wrongful death case against R.T. Vanderbilt.

In 2016, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded Philip Depoian
$18 million against talc supplier Whittaker, Clark and Daniels. It
remains the largest verdict for mesothelioma linked to talcum
powder.

After trial, the jury ruled Depoian developed mesothelioma after
he was exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc his father brought
home from working in a barber shop.

While failure-to-warn lawsuits have been filed against asbestos
insulation manufacturers, who intentionally added the toxic
mineral to products, the cases against talc companies point to
negligence among the manufacturers and distributors of talc powder
products who reportedly failed to detect a deadly contaminant and
false ensured a product's safety.

Judge C. Edward Simpson is hearing the Pasadena Courtroom case.

Prosecution lawyer Chris J. Panatier, who won the Winkel vs.
Colgate-Palmolive case in 2015, is handling the Pasadena Courtroom
prosecution.

The Asbestos.com report said recently unsealed documents from the
lawsuit revealed Johnson and Johnson has known for decades that
its talc products may have contained deadly asbestos fibers.

The company has marketed their talcum powders as safe for daily
feminine hygiene use, but multiple scientific studies have
surfaced linking these products with ovarian cancer, the report
said.

Based upon these findings, and a lack of any warning, at least
5,500 lawsuits have been filed, and five verdicts since 2016 have
awarded women over $724 million in damages.

Considered one of the world's softest minerals and coveted for its
ability to absorb moisture, talc has been mined from deposits
interwoven with asbestos fibers.

Inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers can lead to serious
diseases, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma,
according to the American Cancer Society.

Some studies suggest asbestos fibers can accumulate in the ovaries
of women, potentially leading to ovarian cancer, the Asbestos.com
report said. Using talc products on the genitals could be to
blame, but there is still much debate regarding exposure pathways,
the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Asbestos Talc Caused Illness, Jury Told
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that Johnson & Johnson
has concealed the fact that its talcum powder products contain
asbestos for nearly a century, an attorney for a woman alleging
she developed mesothelioma after decades of using J&J's products
told a California jury during opening statements.

During the first day of the trial in Pasadena, California, Chris
Panatier of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, representing
plaintiffs Tina Herford and Douglas Herford, told the jury that
J&J's internal documents revealed that starting at the beginning
of the 20th century, when it began selling the product, up until
the 1970s, the company had "dozens and dozens" of pieces of
evidence showing that there were asbestos minerals contained in
the talc it was using in its products -- but that it tried to keep
this information from the public.

"Tina Herford believed that Johnson's Baby Powder was something
that was safe for her to use, and the evidence will show that it
was not," he said. "And the evidence will show that J&J has
concealed the fact that their talc contains asbestos for about one
hundred years. This case is about a betrayal of trust."

Panatier said that Tina Herford had used Johnson's Baby Powder in
the 1950s, its Shower to Shower product for decades up to the
1980s, and then used the baby powder again on her daughters
starting in the 1980s and lasting until 1993.

He noted that Tina Herford would have breathed in the talc product
-- and its asbestos  --  after every diaper change, and after
every post-shower use, for decades.

Panatier said that asbestos naturally occurs in the deposits of
talc that are mined to create J&J's products, and that despite the
company claiming a zero tolerance policy for asbestos in its talc,
studies in the 1970s, such as one by Mount Sinai Hospital,
revealed this wasn't the case.

"Now it was in the public domain, and the evidence will show that
Johnson & Johnson did absolutely everything it could to discredit
that result," he said.

Panatier said his clients were seeking tens of millions of dollars
in damages, saying it was well deserved after everything they went
through after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2016.

The Herfords filed suit in January against a host of companies,
alleging that they were responsible for the asbestos that caused
Tina Herford's mesothelioma, an asbestos-related lung cancer. The
case has headed to trial with claims against J&J, and its talc
supplier, Imerys Talc America Inc.

Sharla J. Frost of Tucker Ellis LLP, representing J&J, told the
jury that the talc J&J used for its cosmetic products was of a
high grade that did not contain asbestos -- only five percent of
all talc worldwide qualifies for this use  --  and that many of
the testing results the plaintiffs were pointing to could be
referencing talc sources that weren't actually used in the baby
powder or Shower to Shower products.

"We bought talc, we used talc, that's what the powder it is,
evidence is going to be that it didn't contain asbestos, and it
didn't cause her mesothelioma," she said.

Frost said that rather than J&J's products, the most likely cause
of Tina Herford's mesothelioma was the 30 sessions of radiation
therapy she received in 1998 as a treatment for breast cancer.
Frost added that the American Cancer Society, National Institute
of Health and other authorities agree radiation therapy can cause
mesothelioma.

"We're going to show you that Mrs. Herford had an intense
treatment and that radiation caused mesothelioma," she said.

The Herfords' trial comes in the wake of a host of lawsuits that
have accused J&J's talcum powder of causing harm, not through any
alleged asbestos link, but rather by contending that the talcum
powder itself causes ovarian cancer when applied to a women's
genital area.

After five completed trials in St. Louis over the alleged link
between J&J's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, the
company was hit with verdicts totaling more than $300 million, but
also was cleared of liability in one trial. In the first trial in
consolidated Los Angeles County litigation about the issue, a jury
awarded plaintiff Eva Echeverria $417 million.

The Herfords are represented by Chris Panatier of Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett PC.

J&J is represented by Sharla J. Frost of Tucker Ellis LLP.

The case is Tina Herford et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case
number BC646315, consolidated in LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number
JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uphill Battle to Ban Use of Asbestos in Vietnam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duong Tam, writing for VN Express, reported that health industry
and construction experts in Vietnam have long been arguing the
pros and cons of the use of chrysotile, otherwise known as white
asbestos, but construction insiders have so far prevailed by
claiming that the material is safe and cheap.

A clash of opinions on both sides of the debate at a conference in
2014 shook the public, but ended with former Vice Minister of
Construction Nguyen Tran Nam giving his approval for its use due
to a lack of "convincing evidence" about its potentially harmful
effects.

This October, researchers from the Vietnam Union of Science and
Technology Associations are meeting again to discuss the country's
growing use of what they say is a deadly material.

A 2017 report by the World Health Organization showed that as of
2013, Vietnam was among the top 10 consumers of white asbestos out
of the 25 countries in the world that were still using it. Back
then, the country was using up to 70,000 tons a year.

Fast-forward to 2017 and the country now has more than 40 asbestos
roofing tile factories that churn out 100 million square meters a
year, a quantity that satisfies over 60 percent of the country's
roofing material demands.

It also buys products containing white asbestos like insulation
materials, brake linings, gaskets and pads for automobiles from
China, Thailand, India, the U.S., Korea, Japan and Singapore, some
of which have already banned the use of the substance
domestically.

White asbestos is one of six forms of asbestos, all of which are
alleged to cause cancer in humans.

A 2014 WHO report stated that asbestos in general caused at least
107,000 deaths each year. About half of the fatalities were caused
by occupational cancer, but thousands of deaths were attributed to
exposure to asbestos in the home.

Top 10 asbestos consumers, 2013. Data extracted from the US
Geological Survey via the WHO's 2017 Asbestos Report.

Despite worldwide concerns, white asbestos remains a contentious
topic in Vietnam.

Experts at the latest meeting, which took place on Friday, said
that Vietnam lacks the research into asbestos-related diseases to
put a stop to the use of the material.

They agreed it would take at least 20 years to look into the
impacts of white asbestos.

Three years ago at a conference in Hanoi, experts on the other
side of the debate provided research that even dismissed the link
to cancer.

David Bernstein, a Swiss mediator with extensive experience in
public health who was invited to speak at the conference by the
Ministry of Construction, said white asbestos is not cancerous
like the blue and brown varieties.

He said its weak structure allows it to be easily dissolved by the
body over the course of 3 to 15 days.

Bernstein is an American-born toxicologist based in Geneva who has
been researching chrysotile since the late 1990s. According to The
Global Investigative Journalism Casebook, Bernstein is the most
active of industry-backed scientists who helped fuel the asbestos
trade. His work has been cited over 5000 times, yet most have been
underwritten by the industry. Court documents show that one
sponsor, Union Carbide, paid $400,623 for work by Bernstein in
2003 and 2005, the casebook reports.

His work has been cited over 5,000 times, yet most have been
underwritten by the industry. Court documents show that one
sponsor, Union Carbide, paid $400,623 for work by Bernstein in
2003 and 2005, the casebook reports.

At the same conference, Le Thi Hang, deputy director of the Hanoi-
based Construction Hospital at the Construction Ministry, said a
survey of workers at Vietnam's white asbestos roofing tile
factories found no cases of cancer or asbestosis.

However, researchers did find a number of workers suffering from
chronic respiratory inflammation.

After hearing the various arguments, the then Vice Minister of
Construction Nguyen Tran Nam said Vietnam would continue to allow
the manufacture and use of white asbestos due to a lack of
"convincing evidence" against it.

The argument seemed to be supported mainly by the material's
exceptionally low price.

Bach Dinh Thien, director of the Institute for Tropical
Construction Materials Research, said they had explored
alternatives to white asbestos, but every other option had proved
more expensive.

He did not go into specifics.

Vietnam produced its first roofing materials from white asbestos
in 1963 in Ho Chi Minh City and neighboring Dong Nai Province.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Fears Halts Sydney Opera House Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that the carcinogenic material asbestos
is behind an unknown number of total mesothelioma deaths around
the world, with industrialized countries like the United States,
the United Kingdom and Australia having the dubious distinction of
the highest number of these occupational fatalities. Though
exposure to asbestos was common through much of the 20th century,
increased awareness has led to improved safety precautions on the
part of both employers and employees -- but that is not always the
case. Electricians working on renovations to the iconic Sydney
Opera House recently walked off the job after asbestos was
repeatedly found in their work area. Out of fear for their long-
term health, workers are defying their employer, and say that they
are not returning until the issue is properly addressed.

The thirty-five workers who have refused to proceed with their
cabling work are all too familiar with asbestos and its potential
devastation. According to Electrical Trades Union secretary Dave
McKiley, "Throughout my career I've worked with people who have
died from asbestos and it's a horrible, horrible miserable
disease." Speaking of 25 of his fellow workers who were exposed to
asbestos fibers two months ago while working in a service duct, he
said, "These guys won't know for 15, 20, maybe 30 years if this
exposure is actually fatal."

When asbestos was found in the building's wiring, causing the
earlier exposure, the builder received notice that they had seven
days to remove it or eliminate the threat to workers. Now that
asbestos has been found again, the workers are taking matters into
their own hands.

Though the builder, Laing O'Rourke has indicated that safety is a
"top organizational priority", the union is demanding an
investigation into why no prohibition notices have been placed on
the company to stop work from taking place in contaminated areas.
McKinley said, "It is completely unacceptable that workers,
performers and the general public continue to be exposed to a
toxic substance at this iconic building."  The workers are
threatening legal action over their exposure.

Knowing who to go to for help is essential when mesothelioma or
other asbestos-related diseases have affected your life. For more
information on the resources available to you, contact the Patient
Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at t 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tipper Caught Dumping Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------
Eva Astreinidouon, writing for Oxfordshire Guardian, reported that
a fly-tipper who was caught red-handed has been ordered to pay
GBP900 after admitting he dumped hazardous asbestos waste.

Dean Paul Smith, 36, of Blackthorn Road, Didcot, pleaded guilty to
the charge of unlawfully depositing waste and failing to provide
information regarding the identification of the driver of the
vehicle from which the waste was deposited.

He appeared at Oxford Magistrates' Court on September 19 when the
court heard how, on February 6, a member of the public contacted
the police after seeing two men unloading waste from a vehicle on
land off Mill Road in Abingdon.

When the police arrived they found the pair trying to move the
vehicle that had got stuck in the mud as they attempted to leave
the site.

They claimed they had stopped at the site to eat lunch, when the
vehicle got stuck and they decided to remove the waste in order to
lighten the load to free the van.

But due to the quantity of rubbish involved, and the hazardous
nature of the rubbish, officers from Vale of White Horse District
Council investigated the case.

Smith, who was the passenger in the vehicle, was given a GBP400
fixed penalty notice for the offence, but after failing to pay
this money council officers had to prosecute the case in court.

He also declined to name the driver of the vehicle.

Cllr Elaine Ware, cabinet member for environmental health at Vale,
said: "Whatever the circumstances involved fly-tipping is always a
real blight on society.

"It costs thousands in public money to clean up and investigate,
and is potentially dangerous, especially if, like in this case, it
is hazardous waste such as asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Asbestos Cancer Victim Seeks Answers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Boyle, writing for Sunday Post, reported that walking his
daughter down the aisle, Richard Elliott could not have looked any
happier.

The guests would never have guessed just how ill he was -- or that
his wife was carrying a letter in her handbag that no one would
ever want to take to a wedding.

It was a Do Not Resuscitate note from the hospital, in case
Richard collapsed during his daughter Katrina's big day.

The respected academic had been diagnosed with asbestos-linked
mesothelioma, a type of cancer, just 10 months previously.

He was so ill that doctors had expressed serious concerns about
allowing him to leave hospital for the wedding.

Richard's wife Angela said: "We were all trying so hard to make
this the best day of Katrina's life.

"But Richard was dying from a cancer people associate with
shipyard workers, builders and others who worked with asbestos.

"We had to make the best of what we had left and Richard was
desperate to fulfil his duties as father of the bride. Carrying a
Do Not Resuscitate note in my handbag was the only way his doctors
let him out of hospital."

Just four days later he passed away from a disease that
campaigners brand an industrial disaster.

Mesothelioma, commonly linked to heavy industries such as
shipbuilding, has nonetheless claimed many white-collar victims
including academics, doctors, teachers, office workers and
hundreds of others whose working lives never seemed to expose them
to asbestos.

Speaking out to raise awareness of the illness, Angela said she
had married Richard, 61, just six months before his death.

After the ceremony at Glasgow's City Chambers, Richard, in an
impromptu gesture, guided her to a Christmas funfair in nearby
George Square where they rode on the carousel.

It was a rare moment of unthinking happiness as Richard's illness
worsened.

A special moment on the carousel with Angela after their wedding
Angela said: "Richard was diagnosed in October 2014 and died the
following June.

"It is one of the most horrific diseases we know of.

"There is no time to get your head around the diagnosis before it
progresses.

"The first sign was a cough which Richard couldn't shake off.
Until then he had been a keen hill walker and very fit."

A course of antibiotics failed to shift the cough and he was
referred to a chest consultant.

"An X-ray prompted a lung biopsy and the results revealed
mesothelioma," said Angela. "Richard had begun to suspect it
earlier when his doctors asked if he had ever worked with
asbestos.

"However, his immediate concerns were how to tell me and his two
daughters, Katrina and Emma."

The couple had met while working together at the MRC-University of
Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, where Richard was Professor.

Richard had been widowed some years earlier and brought up his
daughters, balancing an international career with being a single
dad.

Angela had taken up the post of technical co-ordinator, ensuring
the safety of scientists working with viruses.

She said his concern for others never wavered.

"Even when he was desperately ill in bed he would sit with his
laptop working, mentoring students," she said.

"Three members of his lab and others from within the centre were
sent to Sierra Leone to run laboratories diagnosing Ebola cases.

"They became part of the team which stemmed the spread of the
deadly virus and stopped a pandemic."

Richard died more than 90 years after the earliest warnings were
issued about the links between asbestos and cancer.

Angela said: "I feel we were robbed of a wonderful life together.

"It was short but wonderful and packed with memories.

"Katrina and Emma lost a dad who adored them and messages of
condolence flooded in from all over the world."

So respected was Richard that the university has named its bio-
safety labs after him.

Two years on from his death, Angela is campaigning to reduce the
death toll from asbestos, which claims the lives of 500 Scots per
year.

She is desperate to save a new generation of potential victims.

Breathing in the deadly microscopic fibres can set in motion a
cancer which can take 20 to 50 years to develop. And the true
number of deaths is higher than official figures, say doctors, as
some patients are too ill to undergo biopsies to confirm it.

Instead they are labelled with lung cancer.

Angela is at a loss to pinpoint where Richard was exposed to
asbestos.

"I do not know where he came into contact with it," she said.

"But I know that asbestos has been woven into the fabric of
countless public buildings and homes.

"The fibres are so small they are barely detectable and easily
breathed in when disturbed.

"We have to protect tomorrow's victims by warning them.

"I am one of many women who have lost their husbands and this
terrible tragedy needs to stop.

Hope for victims lies in a flourishing network of research and
drug trials. Chest consultant, Dr Kevin Blyth, of Glasgow's Queen
Elizabeth University Hospital, said: "The incidence of
mesothelioma is higher in the West of Scotland than in almost any
other part of the world.

"That is mainly because of its legacy of our shipbuilding and
heavy industries that used asbestos. However, we are seeing more
patients whose jobs have not been traditionally associated to
asbestos."

Campaigner and survivor, Mavis Nye, added: "Mesothelioma is the
biggest industrial disaster of recent times and the figures are
rising.

"So many of our workplaces and homes have been built using
asbestos."

Angela is involved in a mesothelioma focus group project to help
improve earlier diagnosis for patients suffering from
breathlessness and pains. Asbestos can be found in homes built or
refurbished before 2000 and could be lurking in, for example,
textured ceilings and garage roof tiles, pipe lagging and window
frames.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The Health and Safety
Executive provides guidance to local authorities and health boards
on the management of asbestos. The Scottish Government welcomes
and supports HSE efforts to raise awareness of the dangers.

"Our approach to mesothelioma is integrated within our cancer
strategy.

"Our Scottish Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer include a
specific section on mesothelioma.

"This should aid the identification of those patients who are most
likely to have cancer and require urgent specialist assessment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Probes Into Aberdeen Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the Aberdeen City Council has launched an
investigation into claims workers may have been exposed to
asbestos at a depot.

The alleged incident is understood to have taken place the
Kincorth depot at the end of September.

An Aberdeen City Council spokeswoman said: "An investigation is
being carried out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Costs Jump to $3.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reported that
the estimated cost to remediate the asbestos in the Madison County
Government Center has jumped by 75 percent.

At a meeting of the Madison County Council, County Administrator
Dan Dykes said the projected cost is now $3.5 million. The
original estimate was placed at $2 million.

Dykes said the $3.5 million includes the cost of the asbestos
removal, new fireproofing, moving and storage of all the county
offices, new ceiling tiles, paint and carpeting.

That figure doesn't include the estimated $420,000 the county will
spend to lease space at the Anderson University building at the
Flagship Enterprise Center for the court system and space in the
First Savings Tower for the remaining county offices.

The Madison County Government Center is expected to be vacated
from Nov. 27 through June 30 for the asbestos remediation work to
be completed and to finish the installation of the new heating and
air conditioning system.

The Madison County Council approved a resolution to issue a bond
in the amount of $3.5 million to cover the projected costs.

The council will vote Nov. 14 on an ordinance to issue up to a 15-
year bond for the $3.5 million that will be paid for with county
local option income tax revenues.

Tom Beeman, council attorney, said the county was considering a
$1.55 million bond to pay for the new heating and cooling system
and lighting in the courthouse.

"I didn't advertise that amount with the asbestos remediation,"
Beeman said.

Beeman said the council can vote to lower the $3.5 million amount
at the November meeting, but can't increase it.

He said the county might be able to borrow the money at a 2.99
percent interest rate. Dykes said the commissioners will request
proposals from local banks to purchase the bonds.

Not including interest payments, a $3.5 million bond for 15 years
would cost the county $233,333 per year. A 10-year bond would have
an annual cost of $350,000 not including the interest payment.

Councilman Mike Gaskill cast the only no vote on the resolution to
borrow the $3.5 million.

Council President Steve Sumner said the council doesn't have an
official request from the commissioners to borrow the money.

Dykes said the commissioners have not received bids for the
asbestos remediation work and related expenditures but should know
the costs by the end of November.

Sumner said the council earlier this year approved a $1.5 million
loan from the general fund operating balance for the new heating
and air conditioning system and the lighting with the intent of
borrowing the money to repay the general fund.

"We didn't need the $1.5 million loan because the county's
revenues were higher than projected," Dykes said.

Sumner said the county didn't intend to borrow the $1.5 million
until the asbestos remediation problem surfaced.

Councilman Anthony Emery said the county has already spent $1.5
million on the courthouse and now needs $3.5 million additional.

Dykes said the commissioners decided not to do spot remediation of
the asbestos in the building and to remove the asbestos from the
entire building.

"We can't afford to update everything in the courthouse,"
Councilman Brent Holland said.

Dykes said the county needs to improve items like carpeting in the
courthouse and painting.

"If you spread the cost out over 10 or 15 years, you're not
talking about a lot of money for the improvements," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Probes Complaint of Asbestos at Hotel
------------------------------------------------------------
News Channel9 reported that the Tennessee Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (TOSHA) is looking into a complaint about
asbestos made by an employee of The Read House Historic Inn and
Suites.

TN Department of Labor Communications Director Chris Cannon says
TOSHA first received the complaint on August 17, 2017.

Cannon says the complaint was initially handled by a letter to the
employer. After further evaluation, TOSHA opened an onsite
inspection.

TN Department of Labor Communications Director Chris Cannon says
that TOSHA responds to all employee complaints to determine the
truthfulness of the allegations.

Cannon says it takes anywhere from six to eight weeks to complete
workplace investigations, and TOSHA does not release information
or findings during the investigation.

Once the investigation ends, TOSHA will release a final report to
the public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mistrial in Johnson & Johnson Asbestos Talc Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reported that a California
judge declared a mistrial in a closely watched trial over claims
Johnson & Johnson's talc-based products such as Johnson's Baby
Powder contained asbestos and caused a woman to develop
mesothelioma.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge C. Edward Simpson declared the
mistrial just days after jurors heard opening statements in a
lawsuit brought by Tina Herford, who claimed she was exposed to
asbestos from an early age by J&J's talc products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarries Closed Over Fertilizer Asbestos Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reported that asbestos safety fears have prompted
WorkSafe to order three quarries to stop mining serpentine rock,
and fertilizer company Ravensdown has suspended all movement of
the material.

Serpentine rock containing natural asbestos is also sold by the
other main rural services companies as an ingredient in farm
fertilizer as a way to get magnesium into the soil.

It is estimated about 80 of farms, and predominantly those in
Southland and central North Island, have used it at some stage.

One of the WorkSafe abatement notices was to Southland Serpentine
at Mossburn owned and operated by partners Duncan and Lockey
McGregor, and Bob and Lyn Pearson who declined to comment.

Serpentine rock is dug from the Mossburn quarry by a digger and
transported to McGregors Concrete Te Anau for crushing into 3
millimetre particles before being distributed to fertilizer
suppliers.

Another quarry company, Rorisons RMD, has operated lime and
serpentine quarries in south Waikato for 50 years.

WorkSafe's deputy general manager assessments operations and
support, Jo Pugh, said Ravensdown revealed that regular testing
had shown the presence of low levels of asbestos in serpentine
rock it was crushing.

WorkSafe requested test results from the quarries mining
serpentine rock and Ravensdown manufacturing plants.

The tests showed asbestos at or below trace levels.

To ensure workers and others handling the product were protected,
WorkSafe has placed prohibition notices on three operational
quarries associated with the Ravensdown results.

It requires them to either produce test results showing no
asbestos, or an asbestos management plan before they can re-start
mining serpentine rock.

"We have received draft plans from two quarries and one is in the
process of being prepared.

"A fourth quarry has returned test results indicating no presence
of asbestos. A fifth quarry which has produced serpentine rock no
longer operates.

"A prohibition notice has also been placed on a transport company
which is currently storing the crushed product and an asbestos
management plan is being prepared by the company.

"Once the plans are in place, or testing shows no presence of
asbestos, WorkSafe will lift the prohibition notices and we expect
that to occur in the next few days.

"Our risk assessment shows any risk to workers and others handling
the product is very low to insignificant," Pugh said.

The presence of asbestos in serpentine rock depends on the geology
of the particular seam being mined, she said.

A Ravensdown spokesman said the company sourced serpentine rock
from three quarries but declined to name them for commercial
confidentiality reasons.

He said serpentine made up about 1 per cent of Ravensdown's $627
million annual sales.

"As part of Ravensdown's focus on health and safety, the co-
operative took the precautionary measure of suspending sales of
its Serpentine Super product on October 3.

"As a result of testing of our stocks and products in September,
there had been a potential identification of a trace level of
naturally occurring asbestos in some of our dunite serpentine rock
supplies and manufactured Serpentine Super.

"It was a potential identification because since that date testing
been negative.

"The product remains unavailable at this time pending further
tests being conducted by a different laboratory.

"These measures are a precautionary approach because the original
detected presence was at extremely low level.

"We are working on alternatives for customers. The suspended
product is a relatively minor product in our portfolio. We do not
use these dunite serpentine rocks for the manufacture of any other
products so all other products are unaffected.

White asbestos or chrysotile can occur naturally in certain seams
of the serpentine dunite family of rocks. The risk profile and
concentrations of this naturally-occurring type are very different
to those found in asbestos-containing building materials,"
Ravensdown said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Filings Allege Secondhand Exposure to Son
----------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the St. Louis Record published a story about a complaint
that has been filed at the St. Louis Circuit Court. The complaint
alleges several companies "failed to warn of the dangerous effects
of inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing asbestos."

One of the two plaintiffs was recently diagnosed with
mesothelioma. He claims that between the early 1950s and 1990,
when both of his parents worked at the companies listed in the
legal complaint, he was exposed to secondhand asbestos when his
parents came home from work.

Asbestos is the name given to six naturally occurring fibrous
minerals. Due to the unique properties found in these minerals,
they were used for decades in thousands of commercial products and
building materials. The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry (ATSDR) reports that significant exposure to any type of
asbestos will increase the risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis. The agency also reports that asbestos-related disease
has been diagnosed in not just workers that dealt with asbestos
and asbestos-containing materials, but also with family members.

"The National Cancer Institute has reported that the risk to
family members is thought to result from exposure to asbestos
fibers brought into the home on the shoes, clothing, skin and hair
of workers," said Joe Frasca, Senior Vice President of Marketing
at EMSL Analytical, Inc. "This type of exposure to family members
is often referred to as secondhand, secondary or take-home
asbestos exposure."

While there are regulations to protect workers and their families
from asbestos, many of these regulations did not exist decades
ago. Even today, asbestos can be a significant human health threat
if workers do not know they are being exposed or the proper safety
precautions and procedures are not put in place.

To protect workers and their families, and to help keep companies
in regulatory compliance, EMSL Analytical provides material and
environmental asbestos testing services. EMSL has also sponsored
an educational video about asbestos and secondhand exposure that
can be seen at: https://youtu.be/l6pVwqoAMUk.

To learn more about EMSL's asbestos or other hazardous material,
industrial hygiene and indoor air quality (IAQ) testing services,
please visit www.AsbestosTestingLab.com or www.EMSL.com, call
(800) 220-3675 or email info@EMSL.com

                    About EMSL Analytical, Inc.

EMSL Analytical, Inc. is one of the leading testing laboratories
with 40 locations throughout the United States and Canada. EMSL is
a nationally recognized and locally focused provider specializing
in fast laboratory results for mold, bacteria, Legionella, USP
797, pathogens, asbestos, lead, soot, char & ash from fires,
VOC's, odors, radon, formaldehyde, indoor air quality,
microbiology, environmental, industrial hygiene, radiological,
food, beverage & consumer products and material testing services
for the identification of unknown substances. EMSL services both
professionals and the general public. EMSL maintains an extensive
list of accreditations from leading organizations as well as state
and federal regulating bodies including, but not limited to A2LA,
AIHA LAP, LLC. (AIHA EMLAP, AIHA IHLAP, AIHA ELLAP), NVLAP, CDC
ELITE, CPSC, CA ELAP, NY ELAP, TX DOH, NJDEP and multiple other
state accrediting agencies. Please visit our website at
www.EMSL.com for a complete listing of accreditations.  In
addition, EMSL carries a wide range of Sampling Equipment and
Investigative Products for environmental professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms $9MM Award in "Miller"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the
First Department affirms the judgment of the Hon. Cynthia S. Kern
of the Supreme Court of New York County, entered on September 13,
2016, awarding the Plaintiff Walter Miller $5 million for past
pain and suffering and $4 million for future pain and suffering
without costs.

The Court determines that the Plaintiff's expert testimony was
sufficient to establish that Plaintiff's use of the grinder --
manufactured and designed by the Defendant Hennessy Industries'
subsidiary, Ammco -- on automobile brake linings caused his
exposure to asbestos dust in sufficient quantities to cause his
mesothelioma. Moreover, because the asbestos-laden dust was
created by the Plaintiff's use of the Defendant's grinder and the
Defendant knew its grinder would be used on asbestos-containing
products, the Defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff of the latent
danger arising from the foreseeable use of its product.

Accordingly, the First Department finds that the damages award, as
reduced by the trial court and stipulated to by the Plaintiff, to
be appropriate. Moreover, based on the evidence adduced at trial,
the jury properly apportioned 86% of the fault to the Defendant.

The appealed case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
WALTER MILLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
ET AL., Defendants, HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellant,
4599, 190087/14, (App. Div. N.Y. 1st Dept.).

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated October 5, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/EXZjwY from Leagle.com.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Michael J. Garvey of
counsel), for appellant.

The Karst & Von Oiste Law Firm, New York (Kyle A. Shamberg of
counsel), for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties "Richey" Directed to Re-File Filings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District
Montana requires the Plaintiff in the case styled ELMORE B.
RICHEY, Plaintiff, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
No. CV-17-80-GF-BMM, (D. Mont.), to re-file the Motion for Leave
to Amend the Complaint and any other filings that reflect the
amended caption Colleen L. Johnson, as Personal Representative for
the Estate of Elmore B. Richey, Deceased, otherwise, the caption
cannot be amended before the Court rules on the Motion for Leave
to Amend the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Order dated October 3, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/5Fd9Ny from Leagle.com.

Elmore B. Richey, Plaintiff, represented by Allan M. McGarvey,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY.

Elmore B. Richey, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Lacey,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C., Roger M. Sullivan,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, Dustin A. Leftridge,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C. & Ethan A. Welder,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C..

BNSF Railway Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony Michael
Nicastro, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, Caleena D. Svatek, KNIGHT
NICASTRO, LLC, pro hac vice, Chad M. Knight, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC,
Nadia A. Patrick, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC & Steven T. Williams,
KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC.

John Swing, Defendant, represented by Anthony Michael Nicastro,
KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, Caleena D. Svatek, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, pro
hac vice, Chad M. Knight, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, Steven T.
Williams, KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC & Nadia A. Patrick, KNIGHT
NICASTRO, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holzer" Remanded to Missouri State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri remands the case titled JACK HOLZER
and MARY BRUESH-HOLZER, Plaintiffs, v. ATHENE ANNUITY & LIFE
ASSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants, No. 17-cv-0755-NKL, (W.D. Mo.)
to the Circuit Court of Jackson County.

The Plaintiffs Jack A. Holzer and Mary F. Bruesh-Holzer filed this
action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on September 12,
2016, alleging that Mr. Holzer contracted mesothelioma and
asbestosis from his exposure to asbestos fibers emanating from
products manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or installed by the
defendants.

The Holzers are residents of Kansas, but brought suit in Missouri
because Mr. Holzer allegedly was first exposed to asbestos while
he worked in the state. Two of the defendants named in the most
recent state court petition, KCG, Inc. and Fuhrco, Inc. f/k/a
Schutte Lumber Company are citizens of Kansas. The other
defendants, including Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company, are
citizens of other states.

The Defendant Athene removed this case on the basis of diversity,
asserting that the Holzers on the one hand and the Defendants on
the other are citizens of different states, and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.

While there is no dispute regarding the amount in controversy,
however, the Holzers insist that both KCG and Fuhrco, as fellow
citizens of Kansas, destroy diversity.

Athene insists that the Holzers have no basis in fact or law to
sue KCG, and that the Holzers never intended to prosecute their
claims against either KCG or Fuhrco. Athene insists that the two
Kansas defendants were fraudulently joined.

The Holzers deny that they filed suit against either of the
Kansas-based defendants with improper purpose and maintain that
they intend to seek a default judgment against Fuhrco.

The Court finds that Athene does not argue that the Holzers'
claims against Fuhrco are without a factual or legal basis.
Instead, Athene argues that the Holzers have no intention of
prosecuting their claims against Fuhrco.

The Court determines that the Holzers' intent to prosecute Fuhrco
is irrelevant in light of the undisputed fact that they have a
reasonable basis in fact and law to sue Fuhrco. As such, if the
Holzers have a reasonable basis for their claims against Fuhrco,
joinder of Fuhrco was not fraudulent. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Holzers' motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Order dated October 3, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/FWQwcX from Leagle.com.

Jack A. Holzer, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton Evan Gillette,
Accurso Law Firm.

Jack A. Holzer, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Carl Accurso, The
Accurso Law Firm.

Mary F. Holzer, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Balcer, Louis
Carl Accurso, The Accurso Law Firm & Clayton Evan Gillette,
Accurso Law Firm.

Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Deirdre C. Gallagher, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P., Beth C. Boggs,
Boggs, Avellino, Lach & Boggs, LLC, Gino F. Battisti, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Katie M. Slaughter, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &
Nicholas Bunnell, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

KCG, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Wayne Taff, Law Offices of
E. Wayne Taff.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles Lee Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, Oliver & Beasley P.C. &
Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Oliver & Beasley, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Sustaining Bare-Metal Defense Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the
decision of the District Court with respect to Roberta G. Devries'
and Shirley McAfee's strict liability claims, and remand for
further proceedings on their negligence claims.

These asbestos cases styled IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (No. VI) ROBERTA G. DEVRIES, Administratrix of the
Estate of John B. Devries, Deceased, and Widow in her own right,
Appellant in 16-2602, IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (No. VI) SHIRLEY McAFEE, Executrix of the Estate of
Kenneth McAfee, Deceased, and Widow in her own right, Appellant in
16-2669, Nos. 16-2602, 16-2669, (3rd. Cir.) involve the
availability of the "bare-metal defense" under maritime law.

The defense's basic idea is that a manufacturer who delivers a
product "bare metal" -- that is without the insulation or other
material that must be added for the product's proper operation --
is not generally liable for injuries caused by asbestos in later-
added materials.

Appellants Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee are the widows of
deceased husbands who served in the U.S. Navy. Each couple filed a
Complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging that the husband
contracted cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Devries alleges that on the U.S.S. Turner from 1957-60, her
husband was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation and
components that were added onto the ship's engines, pumps,
boilers, blowers, generators, switchboards, steam traps, and other
devices.

McAfee alleges her husband was similarly exposed through his
service on two ships and in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

Devries and McAfee named a number of defendants, of which Appellee
Manufacturers are a subset. The Manufacturers each made their
products "bare metal," in that if they manufactured an engine,
they shipped it without any asbestos-containing insulation
materials that would later be added.

Devries and McAfee's Complaints each allege claims of negligence
and strict liability. The Manufacturers removed to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, invoking the bare-metal defense in
support of their respective summary judgment motions, arguing that
because they shipped their products bare metal, they could not be
held liable for the sailors' injuries.

The District Court agreed and granted the Manufacturers summary
judgment motions. Devries and McAfee each appealed separately,
raising an issue as to whether the District Court's decision
addressed their negligence claims.

The Third Circuit summarily remanded with instructions that the
District Court address the negligence issue and also consider a
split in authority as to whether a bright-line rule or a fact-
specific standard governed the bare-metal defense's availability.

On remand, the District Court applied the bright-line-rule version
of the bare-metal defense, and clarified that summary judgment had
been entered in favor of the Manufacturers on both the strict
liability and negligence claims. The Court reasoned that the rule
approach was best because, according to the Court's view of the
precedents, maritime law favors uniformity and the rule approach
was the majority view.

Devries and McAfee appealed for a second time. The key question in
this case is the bare-metal defense's availability: "When, if
ever, should a manufacturer of a product that does not contain
asbestos be held liable for an asbestos-related injury most
directly caused by parts added on to the manufacturer's product?"

The Third Circuit finds that the defense is rooted in both duty
and cause because its keystone is the concept of foreseeability.
The Third Circuit explains that the "duty" element in a negligence
action, foreseeability limits a defendant's liability to only the
risks and plaintiffs that are reasonably foreseeable. And in
proximate cause, foreseeability limits a defendant's liability to
only the injuries that are a reasonably foreseeable result of the
defendant's actions.

Thus, the Third Circuit concludes that the bare-metal defense is
nothing more than the concept of foreseeability, as embedded in
the duty of reasonable care in a negligence action and the
proximate cause standard in a negligence or strict-liability
action, as applied to the facts of a certain subset of asbestos
cases.

The Third Circuit explains that a manufacturer of a bare-metal
product may be held liable for a plaintiff's injuries suffered
from later-added asbestos-containing materials if the facts show
the plaintiff's injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of
the manufacturer's failure to provide a reasonable and adequate
warning.

The Third Circuit concludes that although cases will necessarily
be fact-specific, already-decided precedents show that a bare-
metal manufacturer may be subject to liability if it reasonably
could have known, at the time it placed its product into the
stream of commerce, that (1) asbestos is hazardous, and (2) its
product will be used with an asbestos-containing part, because:

      (a) the product was originally equipped with an asbestos
containing part that could reasonably be expected to be replaced
over the product's lifetime,8

      (b) the manufacturer specifically directed that the product
be used with an asbestos-containing part, or

      (c) the product required an asbestos-containing part to
function properly.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated October 3, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/PwkmG7 from Leagle.com.

Richard P. Myers [ARGUED], Robert E. Paul, Paul Reich & Myers,
1608 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for
Appellants.

John S. Howarth, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, 1818 Market Street,
Suite 3100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee Buffalo
Pumps, Inc.

Shay Dvoretzky [ARGUED], Emily J. Kennedy, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, Counsel for Appellee CBS
Corp.

Lee J. Janiczek, Reilly Janiczek McDevitt Herich & Cholden, PC,
One South Penn Square, Suite 410, Widener Building, Philadelphia,
PA 19107, Christopher J. Keale, Afigo I. Okpewho-Fadahunsi,
Sedgwick, 1085 Raymond Boulevard, One Newark Center, 16th Floor,
Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellee Foster Wheeler LLC.

Timothy E. Kapshandy, John A. Heller, Sidney Austin, One South
Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Rebecca K. Wood, Wen W. Shen, Sidley
Austin, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Counsel for
General Electric Co.

Joseph I. Fontak, Leader & Berkon, 1515 Market Street, Two Penn
Center Building, Suite 1200, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for
IMO Industries, Inc.

Laurie J. Hepler, Greines Martin Stein & Richland, One Embarcadero
Center, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94111, Counsel for Appellee
Warren Pumps.

Carol A. VanderWoude, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
18th Floor, 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Counsel for Appellee Ingersoll Rand Co.






                             *********


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. Agravante, 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  * * *