CAR_Public/171117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, November 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 228



                            Headlines

600 WEST: "Rivera" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ACCELERATED SERVICING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. New York
ACCOUNT SERVICES: Faces "Collins" Suit in S.D. California
AETNA INC: Faces Suit in E. Dist. Penn. Over Privacy Rights
AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Day" Wage & Hour Suit

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Gotel" Suit in E. Dist. New York
ANNE FONTAINE: Faces "Norman" Suit in S. Dist. New York
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Matalon" Suit in E.D. New York
ASPREY LIMITED: Faces "Norman" Suit in S. Dist. New York
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Buck" Suit in Eastern District New York

ASTORIA BOWL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
AVM ENTERPRISES: Faces Cincinnati Insurance Suit in Connecticut
BAYER US: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Douglas" Suit Says
BILLIONAIRE BOYS CLUB: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
BLL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Peralta" Suit Says

BLOOMBERG LP: Bid to Stay "Roseman" Suit Pending Appeal Denied
BOFI HOLDING: Lead Plaintiffs Named in "Mandalevy"
CANALI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
CAPITAL COLLECTION: Court Dismisses "Macelus" FDCPA Suit
CCB CREDIT: Faces "Gotel" Suit in Eastern District of New York

COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Manco" Suit in E. Dist. New York
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: "Pierre-Charles" Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Dismisses "Aldabe" Suit with Prejudice
CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Approves $1.75MM Settlement in "Cifuentes"
CHATHAM UNIVERSITY: Sued in Penn. Over Inaccurate Credit Reports

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Espinal" Suit in E.D. New York
CREE INC: Falsely Marketed LED Lights, "Young" Action Claims
CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" Transferred to New Jersey
DATAMAX CORP: Faces "Leavens" Suit in E.D. of New York
DENNIS BASSO BOUTIQUE: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York

DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Beltrez" Suit in E.D. New York
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Muhlstock" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
DLG DEVELOPMENT: "Ali" Remanded to Pennsylvania State Court
EDWARD HOSPITAL: Faces Humana Financial Recovery Suit in W.D. Ky.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Ford" Suit in Eastern District New York

EQUIFAX INC: Has Allowed Procurement of Private Info, Cooper Says
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Barnum" Suit in E.D. New York
ERIN ENERGY: Ct. Dismisses "Lenois" Over Allied Asset Purchase
FAIRFAX SERVICING: Faces "Reizes" Suit in E. Dist. New York
FCI LENDER: Faces "Diaz" Suit in Southern District New York

FLEXCARE LLC: Sued by Junkersfeld Over Improper Calculation of OT
FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "Corwise" Suit in E. Dist. New York
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Molkandow" Suit in E.D. New York
GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GENERAL CABLE: Kessler Named Lead Atty in "Doshi" Securities Suit

GOLD KEY CREDIT: Faces "Beyer" Suit in Eastern District New York
GRACIOUS HOME: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
HAIR BAR: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HANNAFORD BROS: Class Entitled to OT Under FLSA, Gagnon Asserts
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in Eastern District New York

INNATE INTELLIGENCE: 2nd Amended TCPA Suit Dismissed
JOBEN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Brown" Suit in E. Dist. New York
JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Amended "Capozio" FDCA Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Limits Thomas Testimony in Angola Inmates' Suit
MAGNUM DRILLING: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Gafford" Suit Says

MALLINCKRODT ARD: Faces MSP Suit Over Acthar Gel-Price Fixing
MDL 2406: "Chicoine" Suit Moved to Blue Cross Antitrust MDL
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Compels Arbitration in "Marcario"
MMR SENIOR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wilson" Suit Says
MRS BPO LLC: Faces "Meisels" Suit in Eastern District New York

MUNGER-HORTIFRUIT: Faces "Castillo" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MUTUAL APARTMENT: Faces "Carlone" Suit in Rhode Island
NATIONAL AUTO: Chado Seeks to Recover Specialists' Unpaid Wages
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Markistic" Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Torres" Suit in E. Dist. New York

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Cafiso" Suit in E. Dist. New York
NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Knotts" Suit in District of Minnesota
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: Decertification Order Appeal Dismissed
NORTH DAKOTA: Faces "Hansen" Class Action
OBAM MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zeas" Suit in Southern District New York

OLIVINA NAPA: Faces "Evans" Suit in Eastern District of NY
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Won't Dismiss Appeal in "Turman"
PROCOLLECT INC: Faces "Cagle" Suit in S. Dist. New York
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
PURE BRAZILIAN: Faces "Khallili" Suit in E. Dist. New York

RCI HOSPITALITY: Court Directs Amendment of Complaint in "Garvin"
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Jackson" Suit in E.D. New York
REDMONT PROPERTIES: "Padilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
RIVERDALE CAR: Court Approves $67.5K Settlement of FLSA Suit
SAFAVIEH INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Won't Certify Class in Polinsky Suit
SCANA CORPORATION: Violates Securities Laws, "Evans" Suit Alleges
SCI PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Schaefer" Suit in Eastern District of Pa
SEAMAN SCHEPPS: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
SHEA PROPERTIES: Class Certification Denial in "Reynolds" Upheld

SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Mallh"
SLEEPY HOLLOW: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities
SOUTHEAST ALABAMA: Court Refuses to Reopen "Carrigan"
STAAR SURGICAL: Court OKs $7MM Settlement in Securities Suit
STARWOOD WAYPOINT: Bushansky Questions Merger w/ Invitation Homes
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces "Devitt" Suit in E.D. of NY

TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Ellison" Suit Included in Chinese Drywall MDL
TEEKAY CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Prejudice
TRANS UNION: Court Denies Bid for New Trial in "Ramirez"
TRANS UNION: Ramirez Gets $75K Service Award in FCRA Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Electric Welfare Trust Suit in C.F.C.

US BANCORP: Settlement in "Wert" Labor Suit Has Final Approval
VIRGINIA: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Abusive Conditions at SVJC
WILSON SPORTING: Bid to Dismiss "Alea" Suit Partly Granted
WINCO FOODS: Court Allows Filing of SAC in "Perez"
WINCO FOODS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Central District of Cal.

WM. WRIGLEY JR CO: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Martin"
WPA INTELLIGENCE: Faces "Mey" Suit in District of Columbia


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Lifts Asbestos Warning for Mobile Home Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Co. Fined After Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Attempts to Ban Mesothelioma for 6th Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northern Calif. Wildfires Leave Asbestos Behind
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Talc Case Could Open Litigation for J&J

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Panel Told to Nix Deceased Judge's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scituate Town Hall Vacated Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Settles Claims Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Diseases to Remain High in Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Tri-Carb Worker Has Asbestos Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Angelina College to Remove Asbestos in Floors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foley & Mansfield Expands NY Asbestos Team
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peter Angelos Wants Lawmakers Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 93 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuit vs. E-Source Still Pending in Texas

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Jun 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Still Defends 725 PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 221 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,966 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $158.9MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 93 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amec Foster Has GBP420-Mil. Liability at Jun 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Leathers" to Proceed Against Pneumo Abex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Ruling in "Leathers"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Union Carbide in "Aveni"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Ford Motor in "Aveni"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors ArvinMeritor in "Ardis"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors BorgWarner in "Gloyne"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Pneumo Abex in "Murphy"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Disputed Discovery in "Barabin" Set
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Needed to Prove Product Liability






                            *********


600 WEST: "Rivera" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matias Rivera, Charles Resnick and Jonathan Hernandez, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. 600 West 169th
Rest. Inc. d/b/a Coogan's, Peter Walsh, David Hunt and Theresa
McDade, Case No. 1:17-cv-08344 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit
deduction, unpaid regular and overtime wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a food and beverage establishment under the
trade name "Coogan's' located at 4015 Broadway, New York, NY
10032. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


ACCELERATED SERVICING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accelerated
Servicing Group, LLC. The case is styled as Leo Garcia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Accelerated Servicing Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-06531 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Accelerated Servicing Group, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

ACCOUNT SERVICES: Faces "Collins" Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Services
Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Gregory Collins, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Account Services Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02259-GPC-NLS (S.D. Cal., November 6, 2017).

Account Services Collections, Inc. is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald Marron, Esq.
   Law Office of Ronald Marron
   651 Arroyo Drive
   San Diego, CA 92103
   Tel: (619) 696-9006
   Fax: (619) 564-6665
   Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


AETNA INC: Faces Suit in E. Dist. Penn. Over Privacy Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna, Inc.  The
case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health
and Life Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company of Connecticut
and Aetna Health of California, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-05013-JS (E.D. Penn., November 7, 2017).

Aetna caters to HIV patients and mail-orders their HIV medicines.
However, HIV medication prescriptions are sent in an opaque
envelope with a large transparent glassine window clearly
indicating the name of the patient, thus failing to respect the
privacy rights of people who are taking HIV-medications, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LAURENCE D. KING, Esq.
   LINDA M. FONG, Esq.
   MARIO MAN-LUNG CHOI, Esq.
   MATTHEW B. GEORGE, Esq.
   KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
   350 SANSOME ST SUITE 400
   SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 772-4700


AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Day" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned LETCH G. DAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AIR METHODS CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-183-
DCR (E.D. Ky.).

The plaintiffs purportedly filed this lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and other similarly-situated employees who are or were
employed by AMC.  They allege violations of the Kentucky Wage and
Hour Act (KWHA) and various other state wage and hour laws.
Additionally, the plaintiffs assert claims of unjust enrichment
and retaliation.

The plaintiffs assert that AMC failed to pay its employees
overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in a week in
violation of KRS. They also allege on behalf of similarly-situated
current and former employees that AMC failed to pay overtime in
violation of various state wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs have the burden of establishing personal
jurisdiction.  The plaintiffs must make a two-part prima facie
showing to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, they must demonstrate
that jurisdiction is proper under a long-arm statute or other
jurisdictional rule of the forum state. Second, they must show
that the Due Process Clause also allows for jurisdiction under the
facts of the case.

Specific jurisdiction depends on an affiliation[n] between the
forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore
subject to the State's regulation.

AMC fails to cite any authority that would support the assertion
that its contacts with the named plaintiff and this forum are
insufficient to for this Court to exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over them. Instead, this court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over AMC if such jurisdiction is authorized by
Kentucky law and otherwise consistent with the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.  AMC does not contend that personal
jurisdiction would be improper over the claims brought by the
named plaintiffs in this case.

The Court will deny AMC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

AMC contends that KRS Section 337.385(2) does not authorize class
actions for Kentucky wage and hour violations. In support, it
relies on a 2015 Kentucky Court of Appeals decision which was
recently reversed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. McCann v.
Sullivan University Systems, Inc., No. 2014-CA-392, 2015 WL 832280
(Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).  The supreme court found that the
General Assembly did not create a special statutory proceeding
brought under KRS 337.385. Therefore, we hold, as a matter of law,
that CR 23 remains an available procedural mechanism to McCann's
cause of action brought under KRS 337.385.
Because Kentucky's highest has held that KRS Sec 337.385
authorizes class actions, AMC's motion to dismiss on this ground
will be denied.

Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) contains an
express pre-emption clause which provides: "A State, political
subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2
States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other
provision having the force and effect related to a price, route,
or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation
under this subpart."

While some state actions are contrary to the preemptive purpose of
the ADA, Congress did not intend for the ADA to completely preempt
all state actions in this area. The Court concludes that this
action is not preempted simply because the claims are asserted
against an air carrier. The state wage and hour laws regulate the
employment relationship between AMC and the plaintiffs. They do
not have a sufficient connection with the rates, routes or
services of AMC to be preempted. Additionally, for the same
reasons the wage and hour laws are not related to rates, routes or
services and are not pre-empted, the unjust enrichment claim and
retaliation claims are not pre-empted.

KRS Section 413.120(2) provides a five-year statute of limitations
for an action upon a liability created by statute, when no other
time is fixed by the statute creating the liability. Because the
KWHA does not specify a statute of limitations for wage and hour
claims, they are subject to a five-year statute of limitations.

The plaintiffs conclude by suggesting that the issue of when they
first learned of their cause of action is a disputed material
fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this time. They cite Hasken
v. City of Louisville, 173 F.Supp.2d 654 (W.D. Ky. 2001), to
suggest that the when they first learned of the cause of action is
disputed. While Hasken dealt with employees working the same type
of 24 hour shifts as the current plaintiffs, little else is
similar. There, the court was faced with whether the FLSA claims
were equitably tolled due to alleged errors in the calculation of
overtime pay, not failure to pay overtime pay all together.
Hasken, 173 F. Supp.2d at 661-62.

The issue here concerns AMC's failure to pay overtime pay, not the
calculation method. The plaintiffs would have been aware of this
failure at the end of each pay period when they received their pay
checks, lacking any overtime pay.

Applying the five-year statute of limitations, Davenport's,
Fryman's, and Logsdon's claims must be dismissed, as they were not
employed by AMC at any time after 2008, 2009, and 2010
respectively. The claims of all other plaintiffs will be
restricted to overtime hours worked after March 22, 2012, or five
years from the date the Complaint was filed.

AMC next argues that the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims are
pre-empted by their KWHA claims.

AMC fails to cite any case holding that the KWHA pre-empts any
common law cause of action. In response, the plaintiffs cite to
another court in this district, Russell v. Citi, No. 12-16-DLB,
2012 WL 5947450 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 28, 2012), in support of their
argument that their unjust enrichment claim is not pre-empted by
the KWHA. In Russell, the court found that only one Kentucky court
has analyzed whether the KWHA pre-empts a common law claim.   AMC
does not cite Russell or Dodd, nor do they make any attempt to
distinguish them from the case at bar.

AMC cites Gryzby and Ogborn which dealt with the Kentucky Civil
Rights Act and preemption of claims substantially similar.
However, the Court can find no Kentucky cases extending those
holdings and reasoning to the KWHA and common law claims. Lacking
any clear indication of how the Kentucky Supreme Court would
decide this issue, this Court is unwilling to predict that that
KWHA pre-empts common law unjust enrichment claims.

Further, as the court held in Russell, assuming arguendo that the
KWHA can pre-empt unjust enrichment claims for overtime pay, it
would be premature at this stage of the litigation to find as
such, because if the plaintiffs cannot establish that they are
entitled to relief under the KWHA, pre-emption of the unjust
enrichment claims would not apply.

The claims asserted by Plaintiffs Stephanie Logsdon, Leslie
Fryman, and Sean Davenport are dismissed, with prejudice.  Insofar
as Count I and II are predicated on hours worked prior to March
22, 2012, those claims are dismissed, with prejudice. All other
allegations of the remaining plaintiffs encompassed by Count I,
Count II, and Count III remain pending.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y7lr7c2rfrom Leagle.com.

Letch G. Day, Plaintiff, represented by Charles William Arnold,
VICTORIAN SQUARE 401 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 303 LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY 40507

Letch G. Day, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Miller,
Arnold & Miller, VICTORIAN SQUARE 401 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 303
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40507, Gerry Lynn Calvert, II, Cowan Law
Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman, Cowan Law Office, PLC & J.
Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC. 2401 Regency Rd #300,
Lexington, KY 40503, USA

Stephanie E. Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Charles William
Arnold, Christopher D. Miller, Arnold & Miller, Gerry Lynn
Calvert, II, Cowan Law Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman, Cowan
Law Office, PLC & J. Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC.

Steven D. Frasure, Plaintiff, represented by Charles William
Arnold, Christopher D. Miller, Arnold & Miller, Gerry Lynn
Calvert, II, Cowan Law Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman, Cowan
Law Office, PLC & J. Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC.

Sonya A. Burkhart, Plaintiff, represented by Charles William
Arnold, Christopher D. Miller, Arnold & Miller, Gerry Lynn
Calvert, II, Cowan Law Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman, Cowan
Law Office, PLC & J. Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC.

Edwin Bentley, Plaintiff, represented by Charles William Arnold,
Christopher D. Miller, Arnold & Miller, Gerry Lynn Calvert, II,
Cowan Law Office, PLC, Henrietta Gera Meyman, Cowan Law Office,
PLC & J. Robert Cowan, Cowan Law Office, PLC.

Air Methods Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Ahearn, Fisher & Phillips LLP, pro hac vice, Cynthia Blevins Doll,
Fisher & Phillips, Lonnie D. Giamela, Fisher & Phillips LLP, pro
hac vice & Megan R. U'Sellis, Fisher & Phillips.

William Kelly Miller, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Blevins
Doll -- cdoll@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips & Megan R.
U'Sellis -- musellis@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips.
Joseph Barkley Hill, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Blevins
Doll, Fisher & Phillips & Megan R. U'Sellis, Fisher & Phillips.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Gotel" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Daniel Gotel, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06505 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com

ANNE FONTAINE: Faces "Norman" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne Fontaine USA,
Inc.  The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anne Fontaine USA,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08646 (S.D. N.Y., November 7,
2017).

Anne Fontaine USA, Inc. is engaged in the retail sale of women's
ready-to-wear clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Matalon" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Fortune Matalon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arcadia
Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06509 (E.D.
N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Arcadia Recovery Bureau is an accounts receivables agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


ASPREY LIMITED: Faces "Norman" Suit in S. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asprey Limited. The
case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asprey Limited,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08648 (S.D. N.Y., November 7, 2017).

Asprey Limited designs and manufactures jewelry, silverware, home
articles, leather products, timepieces, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Buck" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Annmarie G. Buck,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-06550 (E.D. N.Y., November 9, 2017).

Associated Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ASTORIA BOWL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Astoria Bowl Inc.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Astoria Bowl Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08753 (S.D. N.Y., November 9, 2017).

Astoria Bowl Inc. is a 28 lanes of bowling with laser light shows
plus a sports bar, video game arcade & casual dining.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


AVM ENTERPRISES: Faces Cincinnati Insurance Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AVM Enterprises,
Inc.  The case is styled as Cincinnati Insurance Company,
Plaintiff v. AVM Enterprises, Inc. and Gorss Motels Inc.
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01875-SRU (D.
Conn., November 8, 2017).

AVM Enterprises, Inc. is a restaurant supply store in Hamilton
County, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Samuel B. Mayer, Esq.
   46 Woodbury Avenue
   Stamford, CT 06907
   Tel: (203) 324-0711
   Fax: (914) 487-7331
   Email: samuelbmayer@gmail.com


BAYER US: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Douglas" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota M. Douglas, on behalf of himself all and others similarly
situated v. Bayer U.S. LLC, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Business and
Technology Services, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RG17880460 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 27, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with meal
and rest periods; failure to pay them premium wages for missed
meal and rest periods; failure to pay them at least minimum wage
for all hours worked; failure to pay them overtime wages at the
correct rate; failure to pay them double time wages at the correct
rate; failure to provide them with accurate written wage
statements; and failure to pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical and life sciences company
in California. [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) 888-0l09
      E-mail: shaun@setwehlaw.com
              scott@setarehlaw.com


BILLIONAIRE BOYS CLUB: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Billionaire Boys
Club, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Billionaire Boys
Club, LLC and Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream: Retail
Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08752 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 9, 2017).

Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream is an American and Japanese
clothing retailer featuring two lines of clothing established by
Pharrell Williams and Nigo, founder of clothing label BAPE.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BLL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Peralta" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Peralta, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BLL Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Porto Bello, BLL Restrnt
Corp. d/b/a Porto Bello, 49 Carmine St. Restaurant Corp. d/b/a
Porto Bello, Alberto Bevilacqua, and Louis Bevilacqua, Case No.
1:17-cv-08362 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants operate an Italian restaurant located at 208
Thompson St., New York, NY 10012. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


BLOOMBERG LP: Bid to Stay "Roseman" Suit Pending Appeal Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Bloomberg L.P.'s motion to stay the
case, ERIC MICHAEL ROSEMAN, ALEXANDER LEE, and WILLIAM VAN VLEET,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No. 14cv2657 (DLC)
(S.D. N.Y.), pending appeal.

On Sept. 21 and 25, 2017, two classes were certified in connection
with the claims brought by Bloomberg's Analytics Representatives
for a violation of New York Labor Law Section 650 et seq. and the
California Labor Code 8 Cal. Code Regs. Section 11040(1)(A).  On
Oct. 5, 2017, Bloomberg filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition to
the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the Orders granting
certification of the two classes.

On Oct. 11, 2017, Bloomberg filed a motion to stay the issuance of
class notice pending the resolution of Bloomberg's petition to the
Second Circuit and, in the event the petition were granted, the
Second Circuit's decision regarding the appeal.  The motion was
fully submitted on Oct. 20, 2017.  The Plaintiffs consent to a
stay pending a settlement conference to be held on Nov. 30, 2017,
but oppose any stay beyond that date if no settlement is reached
on Nov. 30.

Judge Cote finds that Bloomberg has made no persuasive showing of
harm or of a likelihood of success on the merits, and any stay
beyond Nov. 30, 2017 would injure the Plaintiffs and the public
interest.  Accordingly, the Judge denied Bloomberg's request for a
stay pending review of its Rule 23(f) petition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/fKk6zJ from Leagle.com.

Eric Michael Roseman, Plaintiff, represented by Artemio Guerra --
aguerra@getmansweeney.com -- Catholic Migration Office.

Eric Michael Roseman, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Charles Getman
-- dgetman@getmansweeney.com -- Law Office of Dan Getman.

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 Hykal,
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,
Jones Day & Terri L. Chase -- tlchase@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


BOFI HOLDING: Lead Plaintiffs Named in "Mandalevy"
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California appointed David Grigsby, Joseph
Shepard, and David Siebert as the Lead Plaintiffs in the case, BAR
MANDALEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BOFI HOLDING, INC.; GREGORY GARRABRANTS;
and ANDREW J. MICHELETTI, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-0667-GPC-
KSC (S.D. Cal.).

The Class Action Complaint alleges that during the class period --
April 28, 2016, through March 30, 2017 -- the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.  In light of these
false and misleading statements, the complaint alleges, BofI's
share price fell approximately 5.26%, leading to substantial
losses for investors.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and the Securities
and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.

The Court received three motions for appointment of the Lead
Plaintiff within the 60 days after notice was published pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").
Grigsby asserts that he has the largest financial interest in the
litigation.  Ricciardi, Dooley, and Ostermann ("Group One") state
that they have lost a total of $19,962.93 in connection with their
Class Period purchases.  Shepard, David Siebert, Vickie Siebert,
and Chao Wang ("Group Two") assert that they have lost $94,038 as
a result of purchasing BofI securities during the class period.

On July 17, 2017, members of Group One filed a notice stating that
it appears they do not have the largest financial interest in this
litigation, and as a result, they do not oppose the competing Lead
Plaintiff motions.  The Court therefore disregards Group One's
motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs.

Also on July 17, 2017, Grigsby and two members of Group Two --
Shepard and David Siebert -- filed a "Joint Response" indicating
that they have collectively agreed that, rather than continue to
litigate their competing motions, it is in the best interest of
the Class to amicably resolve the motions and pool their resources
to effectively and efficiently prosecute the action.  Grigsby,
Shepard, and David Siebert ("Group Three") claim to have lost
$94,049, $63,320, and $13,062, respectively -- a total of $170,431
-- as a result of the Defendants' actions, and now seek to be
appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs.

On July 17, 2017, the Defendants filed a memorandum responding to
the pending motions for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff.  Group
Three filed a response to the Defendants' memorandum on July 24,
2017, arguing that the Defendants lack standing to oppose their
appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs.

Judge Curiel acknowledges that Group Three's motion to be
appointed as the Lead Plaintiff was filed beyond the time limit
set forth in PSLRA.  This fact, however, does not automatically
render Group Three's request untimely.  The fact that no other
Plaintiff has opposed Group Three's appointment further supports
the contention that Group Three's formation was not an effort to
manipulate the appointment process.  Nor can the Court say that
Group Three is an inappropriate candidate because it is a group of
Plaintiffs rather than a single Plaintiff.  Grigsby, Shepard, and
David Siebert also otherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.
The Judge therefore finds that the proposed Lead Plaintiff group
of Grigsby, Shepard, and David Siebert are the presumptively most
adequate Plaintiffs.

The Judge needs not address the dispute between the Defendants and
Group Three over whether the Defendants may participate in the
process of appointing the Lead Plaintiffs because even if the
Court did consider their arguments, it would reject them.  In
other words, the Defendants' argument does not operate as a
challenge to the propriety of any specific Plaintiff serving as
the Lead Plaintiff -- it serves as an argument against the merits
of the putative-class claims.

Grigsby, Shepard, and David Siebert have selected Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP as the co-lead counsel.  Group
Three's filing offers Judge Curiel no reason to believe that it is
appropriate to have more than one lead counsel in the case.  He
therefore deferred appointment of the class counsel for 21 days to
allow the Lead Plaintiffs to (i) offer additional information
explaining why multiple class counsel is appropriate, or (ii)
choose one firm to serve as the class counsel.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel appointed Grigsby,
Shepard, and David Siebert as the Lead Plaintiffs in the action.
Within 21 days, the Lead Plaintiffs will file briefing that (i)
permits the Court to determine whether the appointment of more
than one firm as class counsel is appropriate, or (ii) chooses one
firm to serve as class counsel.  The Judge denied as moot
Grigsby's individual motion for appointment and Group One's motion
for appointment, and denied Group Two's motion for appointment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JXSZ1X from Leagle.com.

Bar Mandalevy, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

BofI Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi, III -
- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Gregory Garrabrants, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi, III,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Andrew J. Micheletti, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi,
III, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

David Grigsby, Movant, represented by Adam C. McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

BOFI Investors Group, Movant, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Jr. -- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP.

Joseph Shepard, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP.

David Siebert, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP.

Vickie Siebert, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP.

Chao Wang, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Larry Dooley, Movant, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr.,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

Linda Ostermann, Movant, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr.,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

Philip Ricciardi, Movant, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr.,
Kirby McInerney LLP.



CANALI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canali U.S.A. Inc.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Canali U.S.A. Inc. and
Canali E-Com USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08751 (S.D.
N.Y., November 9, 2017).

Canali U.S.A., Inc. offers men clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CAPITAL COLLECTION: Court Dismisses "Macelus" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, dismissed the case, VILBRUN
MACELUS, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL COLLECTION SERVICE, and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendant(s), Civil No. 17-2025 (RBK/JS) (D. N.J.).

Advanced Endoscopy & Surgical Center, LLC, apparently hired the
Defendant to recover a debt of $351 allegedly incurred by the
Plaintiff.  What brings Mr. Macelus to court today is a letter
notifying him of a claim for collection and requesting that he pay
or dispute the account directly with the office.  The letter also
states it's is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector.

The Plaintiff, though, discerned injustice in this language, and
filed a class action complaint.  He has since amended as of right,
and the operative complaint argues that although the Letter
identifies the name of the facility the alleged debt was incurred
to, the Letter fails to explicitly or implicitly identify the
Plaintiff's current creditor.  He also argues that as a least
sophisticated consumer, he was left unsure as to what creditor
Defendant was attempting to collect for.  He argues that merely
naming the creditor as the account, does not explicitly convey
that the account is the current creditor to whom the debt is owed.
The Plaintiff argues this is part of some pernicious pattern and
practice used to collect consumer debts.

The Defendant received the original complaint and promptly
responded by moving for dismissal and also notifying the
Plaintiff, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), that if he
did not drop the case, the Defendant would move for sanctions.
The Plaintiff, undeterred, filed an amended complaint, which he
now argues moots the motion to dismiss, and opposed the sanctions
motion.  The amended complaint has only one claim: that this
conduct violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
specifically 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
moot because he filed an amended complaint, which supersedes the
original version in providing the blueprint for the future course
of a lawsuit.  Judge Kugler holds that the Plaintiff is right
insofar as the amended complaint becomes the operative complaint.
But that alone does not make the motion to dismiss moot.  The
Plaintiff's amended complaint merely removed two counts, leaving
only a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, under which a debt
collector must identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt
is owed.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss is responsive to this,
and there are no material changes to the claim in the amended
complaint.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss is thus not mooted
by the amended complaint.

The Judge agrees with the Defendant that "the least sophisticated
consumer does not mean an imbecile."  The letter at issue today
appears to the Court to be fair notice, readable, and obviously
relating to an outstanding debt owed to the creditor Advanced
Endoscopy & Surgical Ctr., LLC and whose recovery is sought by a
debt collector.  It follows that the Plaintiff's complaint is
bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.  However, because
the Plaintiff has some basis, however flimsy, to bring the suit,
the Judge denied the motion for sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HjRg8T from Leagle.com.

VILBRUN MACELUS, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

VILBRUN MACELUS, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

CAPITAL COLLECTION SERVICE, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH
MICHAEL PINTO, POLINO AND PINTO, P.C..


CCB CREDIT: Faces "Gotel" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCB Credit Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Daniel Gotel, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCB Credit Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06512 (E.D. N.Y., November 8,
2017).

CCB Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Manco" Suit in E. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit,
Inc.  The case is styled as Patsy Manco, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Computer Credit, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06510 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Computer Credit is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: "Pierre-Charles" Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017 captioned
Deborah C. Pierre-Charles, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No.
MER-L-002058-17 was removed on October 30, 2017 from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-10025 to the proceeding.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. operates a sales financing
company in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victor L. Matthews II, Esq.
      Jason A. McCumber, Esq.
      MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
      112 West 34th Street, Suite 1515
      New York, NY 10120
      Telephone: (646) 362-4000
      E-mail: vmatthews@mcglinchey.com
              jmccumber@mcglinchey.com


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Dismisses "Aldabe" Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case captioned Fermin Aldabe, Plaintiff, v. Cornell
University et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-12268-NMG (D.
Mass.), and denied as moot the Defendant's motion to control
service.

The dispute is over the rejection and reclassification of certain
written articles of Aldabe.  The articles were submitted to arXiv,
an online repository of manuscript preprints owned and operated by
Cornell University ("Cornell").  Aldabe, who appears pro se,
alleges that Cornell and the individual Defendants who operate
arXiv breached a contract between the parties and violated the
Copyright, Civil Rights, Sherman Antitrust and False Claims Acts.

In 1991 the Los Alamos National Laboratory ("LANL") created an
online repository of digital scientific "preprints."  These
digital preprints take the place of draft articles researchers
used to post on physical billboards in research labs.  Originally
maintained under the domain name xxx.lanl.gov, LANL secured
arXiv.org as a domain name in 1998 and transferred arXiv to
Cornell University Library in 2001.

Aldabe joined xxx.lanl.gov in 1994 as a postdoctoral fellow in
theoretical physics and submitted a dozen articles to the website
between 1995 and 1998.  Aldabe alleges that, after the 2001
transfer from LANL to Cornell, arXiv's continued publication of
those articles was improper.

In a separate incident, Aldabe alleges that arXiv mistreated him
with respect to an October, 2015, paper submission.  According to
Aldabe, arXiv misclassified the paper as a general physics
("physics.gen-ph") paper, although Aldabe intended the paper to be
categorized as a high energy theoretical physics ("hep-th") paper.
Two weeks after the initial submission, during which time the
plaintiff and arXiv exchanged emails, arXiv rejected Aldabe's
paper.  Aldabe alleges that arXiv's real reason for rejection was
that his name "sounds Muslim."

One year after the described incident, in November, 2016, the
European Physical Journal C, a peer-reviewed journal, accepted
Aldabe's paper for publication.  Upon submitting his article to
arXiv again, Aldabe discovered that the paper was once again
reclassified from "hep-th" to "physics.gen-ph."

The Plaintiff filed his original complaint in November, 2016, and
an amended complaint in March, 2017.  Before the Court are the
Defendants' motion to control service and motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Plaintiff brings each claim as a putative class action but, as
a pro se litigant, Judge Gorton says the Plaintiff is not
authorized to serve as the representative of a class.

Judge Gorton finds that because arXiv did not exceed the scope of
the license, the Plaintiff's alleged facts, taken as true, do not
state a claim for copyright infringement.  The Plaintiff's claims
for copyright infringement are barred by the statute of
limitations and fail to state a claim.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint is
insufficient to state a cause of action under Section 1981.
Without any explanation as to how the Plaintiff identified persons
as belonging to one of the described groups, the allegation is
frivolous.  Even if the claim were true, however, it would sound
in discriminatory impact, not discriminatory intent, and would not
state a claim under Section 1981.  His allegation bearing upon the
first two letters of his name is not only untenable but also the
kind of threadbare recital of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements that does not suffice to
state a claim for relief.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section
1981 claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Because the Plaintiff fails to plead facts demonstrating that
arXiv had a monopoly or a dangerous probability of achieving one,
even were the Court to accept that the global market for ideas is
sufficiently defined, the Jude granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act for failure to state a claim.

Judge Gorton also granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's False Claims Act count for failure to satisfy Rule
9(b).  He says the Plaintiff has failed to provide that
particularity that the Defendants engaged in fraud.  Instead, the
Plaintiff just opines that "a professor cannot be a professor at
Cornell unless he has won grants."  This kind of res ipsa loquitur
allegation fails to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
requirement.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff fails to allege that
any material feature of the alleged contract was breached.  arXiv
did not materially breach any contract by rejecting or
reclassifying the Plaintiff's work.  Accordingly, he granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim of breach of
contract for failure to state a claim.

With respect to the Plaintiff's claims against a handful of
Individual Defendants and the Simons Foundation, Judge Gorton says
he has explained that each count in the Plaintiff's amended
complaint fails against Cornell University and the Individuals who
operate arXiv.  In addition, however, the copyright count against
Ginsparg and the discrimination count against Simons Foundation
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, as will all counts
against the Individual Defendants who are not mentioned in the
body of the complaint.

Because Judge Gorton allowed the motion to dismiss with respect to
the class of the Individual Defendants who are not specifically
mentioned in the body of the amended complaint, he denied as moot
the Defendants' motion to control service.
Finally, the Judge finds that further leave to amend the
Plaintiff's complaint would be futile.  The Plaintiff's opposition
to the motion to dismiss included new allegations and 20 new
exhibits.  That new information does not cure the defects of the
Plaintiff's amended complaint and does not help him state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  Instead, it consists of
speculation and conclusory statements. Hence, Judge Gorton
dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, the Plaintiff's
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Sg4I1M from Leagle.com.

Fermin Aldabe, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cornell University, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth G.H.
Ranks-- ranks@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Gus P.
Coldebella -- coldebella@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson, P.C..

Michael Kotlikof, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth G.H. Ranks,
Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Gus P. Coldebella, Fish & Richardson,
P.C..

Hunter R Rawlings, III, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth G.H.
Ranks, Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Gus P. Coldebella, Fish &
Richardson, P.C..

Anne R. Kenney, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth G.H. Ranks,
Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Gus P. Coldebella, Fish & Richardson,
P.C..

Eanna Flanagan, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth G.H. Ranks,
Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Gus P. Coldebella, Fish & Richardson,
P.C.


CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Approves $1.75MM Settlement in "Cifuentes"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Attorney's Fees, Litigation Costs and an Incentive Award and
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Motion in
the case captioned WILLIAM CIFUENTES, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CEVA LOGISTICS
U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01957-H-DHB (S.D. Cal.).

CEVA is a delivery company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida,
and engages in delivery services in California. Plaintiff claims
that CEVA improperly categorized class members as independent
contractors, rather than as employees, and as a result denied them
the rights and protections afforded by the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff claims that CEVA failed to make meal and rest periods
available to class members, did not provide accurate, itemized
wage statements, and failed to reimburse class members for
reasonable business expenses.  Lastly, Plaintiff claims CEVA
failed to compensate class members for all hours worked, overtime,
and full wages upon departure from the company as required by
California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203. Plaintiff seeks
compensation, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Under the proposed settlement, CEVA will pay $1,750,000 to
establish a settlement fund to resolve the litigation.  The PAGA
payment will take $87,500 from the settlement fund and set aside
75% of it for the California Labor Workforce Development Agency
(LWDA). The reserve fund will consist of 2% of the settlement
fund, and will pay for any late or unexpected claims.
Additionally, any remaining finances in the reserve fund will be
donated to the parties' agreed upon cy pres beneficiary, Legal Aid
at Work (LAAW).  The class representative's requested service
award is $7,500.  The parties agreed to a maximum attorney fee
award of $583,333.

The settlement class meets the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule
23(a). The class is sufficiently numerous because it contains
sixty-five individuals, sixty-two of whom were sent a detailed
settlement notice via first class mail.

Common questions predominate, because: (i) the significant common
issue in this case is whether CEVA misclassified class members as
independent contractors instead of employees; (ii) the class
members all performed substantially similar work, and had a
materially similar employment relationship with CEVA; and
therefore (iii) if CEVA misclassified some class members, that
finding would apply to all class members.

The settlement class also meets the predominance and superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The common question of whether the
class members were misclassified as independent contractors
predominates over all individual issues, because once that issue
is determined on a class-wide basis, the only remaining issues
would be determining the amount of damages that each class member
is entitled to.

The Court certifies a settlement class consisting of all
individuals who have personally made one or more deliveries for
CEVA, while being classified by CEVA as an independent contractor,
at any time between August 3, 2012 and February 14, 2017.

Both parties have expended significant time, effort, and resources
supporting their positions, and they would continue to do so if
the settlement failed to receive final approval. The disputed
factual and legal issues would be complex and costly to resolve at
trial. Both sides have considered the uncertainty and risk of the
outcome of future litigation, the burdens of proof, and the
general difficulties and delays of litigation. These
considerations led the parties to conclude that a timely
settlement would be best for everyone involved.
The Court concludes that the strength of the parties' positions as
well as the risk of further litigation militate in favor of
approving the settlement.

After deducting various fees and expenses, the settlement fund
offered to the class totals approximately $1,034,541. The average
recovery for each class members will be $15,855.26. This
settlement is outstanding when compared with other wage and hour
settlements approved in recent years by federal courts sitting in
California.

The Court concludes that the amount offered in settlement weighs
in favor of granting final approval of the settlement.

The parties settled this lawsuit fairly early in the proceedings,
submitting the settlement for preliminary approval before any
dispositive motion practice, and less than one year after the
complaint was filed. But a swift resolution does not mean the
parties were unprepared to engage in settlement negotiations. To
the contrary, the parties conducted discovery prior to mediation,
and obtained policy documents and data that allowed the parties to
assess the relative strength of the class claims. The parties also
had the benefit of probing one another's positions during
mediation.

The Court concludes that the parties conducted sufficient to
discovery to allow them to make an informed decision to settle
this case.

Plaintiff's counsel has extensive experience acting as class
counsel in wage and hour class actions. Class counsel recommends
the settlement as both fair and adequate, a factor that weighs in
favor of granting final approval.

No class members have objected to the settlement or requested
exclusion. The complete lack of objections is indicative of the
adequacy of the settlement.   Accordingly, the reaction of the
class members weighs in favor of granting final approval.

The $7,500 incentive award for Plaintiff William Cifuentes does
not appear to be the result of collusion. The Court evaluates
incentive awards using relevant factors including the actions the
plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the
degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions and
the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing
the litigation. Plaintiff has protected the interests of the class
by assisting counsel in the development of this case, including
participating in several hours of in-person and telephonic
interviews.

Therefore, the $7,500 award to Plaintiff appears to be reasonable
in light of his efforts in this litigation.

Plaintiff has requested an award of $583,333 in attorneys' fees.
The requested amount of attorneys' fees is 33% of the total
settlement fund of $1,750,000. This is higher than the Ninth
Circuit's 25% benchmark for common fund cases. Nevertheless, the
overall award Plaintiff's counsel achieved for the class was quite
favorable, and the risks of continuing to litigate this case were
real and substantial.

Plaintiff has represented to the Court that class counsel has
incurred litigation expenses in the amount of $9,996.90. After
reviewing counsel's declaration regarding expenses, the Court
concludes that the requested litigation expenses are reasonable
and grants class counsel's request for these fees.

The $7,500 incentive payment for class representative William
Cifuentes is reasonable. "The criteria courts may consider in
determining whether to make an incentive award include: 1) the
risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both
financial and otherwise; 2) the notoriety and personal
difficulties encountered by the class representative; 3) the
amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; 4)
the duration of the litigation and; 5) the personal benefit (or
lack thereof) enjoyed by the class representative as a result of
the litigation.

Plaintiff William Cifuentes has protected the interests of the
class by participating in several hours of in-person and
telephonic interviews, reviewing counsel's pleadings, and
assisting counsel with other aspects of the case. Plaintiff also
signed a broader release than other class members, further
justifying enhanced consideration.

Accordingly, the Court approves the $7,500 incentive payment for
Plaintiff William Cifuentes.

The Court certifies the settlement class and grants final approval
of the settlement

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yck46ad6from Leagle.com.

William Cifuentes, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

William Cifuentes, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie H. Joyner --
ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.

Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas G.A
Johnston -- douglas.johnston@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


CHATHAM UNIVERSITY: Sued in Penn. Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cummie Washington, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chatham University, Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Equifax, Inc., and Transunion Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-01401-
MPK (W.D. Penn., October 29, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, specifically by willfully and negligently continuing to
furnish and disseminate inaccurate and derogatory credit, account
and other information concerning the Plaintiff to credit reporting
agencies and other entities despite knowing that said information
was inaccurate.

Chatham University is an American university that has
coeducational academic programs through the doctoral level, with
its main campus located in the Shadyside neighborhood of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax, Inc., and
Transunion Corp. operate a consumer credit reporting agency
conducting business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Espinal" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Nelson Espinal, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06543 (E.D. N.Y., November 9,
2017).

Client Services offers mortgage modifications and credit card rate
reductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


CREE INC: Falsely Marketed LED Lights, "Young" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cree Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-06252-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
October 27, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and
deceptive practice of marketing, designing, manufacturing and
selling LED lights into the stream of commerce which do not last
as long as their represented and warranted life span and do not
provide the promised costs savings.

Cree Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of lighting-class LEDs,
lighting products and products for power and radio frequency
applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael McShane, Esq.
      S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA  94102-3275
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568 2556
      E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
              cwoods@audetlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, transferred the case, MICHAEL
BEWLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C17-802RSL (W.D. Wash.) to U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey as being related to Boss, et
al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No. 17C-1823 (D.N.J. filed Mar.
17, 2017).

On March 17, 2017, the Boss class action lawsuit was filed in the
District of New Jersey alleging collusion between pharmacy benefit
managers ("PBMs") and drug manufacturers to unlawfully inflate the
price of insulin, a life-saving drug used to treat diabetes.  Four
other class action lawsuits related to the pricing of insulin were
also filed in the District of New Jersey around this same time.
While waiting for the court in New Jersey to appoint interim lead
counsel, the Boss attorneys filed three separate lawsuits in other
districts.

On May 23, 2017, Johnson v. OptumRx Inc., et al., No. C17-900 was
filed in the Central District of California.  On May 24, 2017,
this case and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No.
C17-803, were filed here in the Western District of Washington.
These cases allege the same collusion between PBMs and drug
manufacturers, but they involve different diabetes medications and
supplies besides insulin.  In the present case, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants conspired to unlawfully inflate the
price of glucagon, a medicine for the emergency treatment of
people with diabetes who experience severe hypoglycemia.

The Defendants ask the Court to transfer the case to the District
of New Jersey under the first-to-file rule.  Alternatively, they
request a transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Judge Lasnik finds that the Plaintiffs in both cases are
substantially similar to warrant transfer.  Additionally, all nine
Defendants in this case are also listed as the Defendants in the
Boss complaint.  Finally, the Judge finds that the similarity of
the issues also weighs in favor of transfer.

The present case alleges an unlawful pricing scheme between PBMs
and drug manufacturers with respect to glucagon.  The Boss
complaint alleges the same unlawful pricing scheme, except Boss
concerns insulin.  In both cases, the Plaintiffs assert claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Sherman Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, various
state consumer protection laws, and common law fraud and unjust
enrichment.  The Plaintiffs' opposition briefing stresses that
glucagon and insulin are different drugs, with different purposes,
but this argument, according to the Judge, ignores that both
complaints allege the same unlawful conduct between the same
Defendants.  Even though insulin and glucagon are different, the
Judge finds that the underlying issues in both cases are
substantially similar to warrant transfer.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik granted the
Defendants' motion to transfer.  He directed the Clerk of Court to
transfer the matter to the District of New Jersey as being related
to Boss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2GXZSd from Leagle.com.

Michael Bewley, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Michael Bewley, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen S. Obrist --
gobrist@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Julia Boss, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER
ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by
Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER
ROHRBACK.

CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T.
Moore -- rtmoore@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice &
Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Caremark RX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY,
pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Caremark RX, Inc, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY,
pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Express Scripts Holding Company, Defendant, represented by James
A. Keyte -- james.keyte@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER
& FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G. Rideout --
patrick.rideout@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM,
pro hac vice, Robert A. Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com --
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice & John S. Devlin,
III -- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.

Express Scripts, Inc, Defendant, represented by James A. Keyte,
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G.
Rideout, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Robert
A. Fumerton, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice &
John S. Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone
-- brian.boone@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John
M. Snyder -- john.snyder@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac
vice, Trent M. Latta, MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan
-- bill.jordan@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice &
Shannon L. McDougald -- smcdougald@mcdougaldlaw.com -- MCDOUGALD
LAW GROUP P.S..

OptumRx, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone, ALSTON &
BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Snyder, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac
vice, Trent M. Latta, MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan,
ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. McDougald, MCDOUGALD
LAW GROUP P.S..

Eli Lilly and Company, Defendant, represented by Henry Liu --
hliu@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Lynch
-- mlynch@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, pro hac vice,
Shankar Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP, pro hac vice & Mark N. Bartlett -- markbartlett@dwt.com --
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.

Novo Nordisk, Inc, Defendant, represented by Charles J. Ha --
charlesha@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP & John
Winn Wolfe -- joseph.wolfe@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP.


DATAMAX CORP: Faces "Leavens" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Datamax Corporation.
The case is styled as Matthew Leavens, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Datamax Corporation
doing business as: Interstate Credit Collections, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06490 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

DataMax provides innovative accounts receivable solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


DENNIS BASSO BOUTIQUE: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dennis Basso
Boutique, Inc.  The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dennis Basso Boutique, Inc. and Dennis Basso Collections, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08647 (S.D. N.Y., November 7, 2017).

Dennis Basso Boutique, Inc. is a boutique owned by American
fashion designer Dennis Basso.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Beltrez" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Service, Inc.  The case is styled as Nicole Beltrez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06514-ADS-GRB (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Diversified Adjustment operates as an accounts receivable
management company in America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Muhlstock" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Todd D. Muhlstock,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-06492 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

DLG DEVELOPMENT: "Ali" Remanded to Pennsylvania State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand the case captioned HAROON ALI, Plaintiff, v. DLG
DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1537
(E.D. Pa.).

Ali filed a class action complaint in the Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas seeking the money from DLG and Dale
Construction that he was owed.  The complaint makes no reference
to the Davis-Bacon Act or the citations issued by the Philadelphia
Housing Authority (PHA).  Instead, Ali merely alleged that the
development project called Oakdale was a Prevailing Wage
assignment entitling him to a "Prevailing Wage with no mention of
federal law.  Based on that entitlement, Ali asserted claims for a
violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law
(PWPCL), a violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PWA),
and conversion.

Ali presents two arguments in favor of remand. First, he argues
that Dale's removal was untimely. Second, he argues that Dale9 has
failed to raise a sufficient federal issue to merit federal
question jurisdiction.

Here, although Ali's original complaint made no reference to
federal law or the Davis-Bacon Act, his subsequent motion for
class certification squarely presented the federal issue. The
motion for class certification stated that Mr. Ali is pursuing
claims for failure of the Defendants to pay him the fringe benefit
portion of the prevailing wage. The motion argues that Dale and
DLG were obligated to make the fringe benefit contributions in
cash as part of "the prevailing wage under the Davis-Bacon Act.

The motion makes clear that Ali is asserting his state law claims
based on a violation the Davis-Bacon Act. Defendants were not on
notice of this federal issue until the Motion for Class
Certification. Thus, Dale had thirty days from that point to
remove. On March 31, 2017, Ali filed the motion. On April 5, 2017,
Dale filed the notice of removal.

Therefore, Dale's notice of removal was timely.

Federal jurisdiction will lie over a state law claim if the
federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed,
(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court
without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.
Only when all four of these requirements are met is it proper for
a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over this slim category
of cases.

Additionally, in the context of removal, all doubts regarding
whether a case fits into the slim category should be resolved in
favor of remand.  In this case, the federal issue, the Davis-Bacon
Act is necessarily raised and actually disputed, but it is not
substantial. Without a substantial federal issue, the fourth prong
on federal-state balance need not be addressed.

Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction to support
removal.

Therefore, the District Court grants Plaintiff's motion to remand
the case back to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7cf3sbrfrom Leagle.com.

HAROON ALI, Plaintiff, represented by THOMAS MORE HOLLAND --
tmh@tmhlaw.com LAW -- OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND.

HAROON ALI, Plaintiff, represented by KELLY A. TREWELLA, Law
Offices Thomas More Holland, 1522 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA,
19102

DALE CORP., Defendant, represented by JONATHAN LANDESMAN --
jlandesman@cohenseglias.com -- COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL &
FURMAN, PC & JOSHUA BRAND -- jbrand@cohenseglias.com -- Cohen
Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C..

PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, represented by
CATHERINE S. STRAGGAS -- cstraggas@margolisedelstein.com --
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.


EDWARD HOSPITAL: Faces Humana Financial Recovery Suit in W.D. Ky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward Hospital. The
case is styled as Humana Financial Recovery & Subrogation
by and through its member and victim, Stephen P. Wallace and
Stephen P. Wallace, Private Attorney General, and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Edward Hospital, Dr. William R.
Sterba, Keith B. Hanni, Pamela M. Davis and John Does 1-5
not yet named, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00669-GNS (W.D. Ky.,
November 7, 2017).

Edward Hospital is a major healthcare provider located in
southwest suburban Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Ford" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as James Ford, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06495 (E.D.
N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUIFAX INC: Has Allowed Procurement of Private Info, Cooper Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORINNE COOPER, MORGAN RUTHERFORD, DONNA DECONCINI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., a
Georgia corporation, EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, and EQUIFAX CONSUMER SERVICES LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00490-RM (D.
Ariz., October 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants negligently
allowed the fraudulent procurement of the critical private
information of class member consumer report files, and failed to
disclose the fact of such procurement from the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants operate together as a unified consumer reporting
agency to prepare and furnish consumer reports for credit and
other purposes.  Equifax's databases contain a treasure trove of
valuable information about nearly every American adult-account
numbers and payment histories, Social Security numbers, names and
aliases, birthdates, addresses, employment histories, and the like
-- that Equifax collects and sells to businesses that extend
credit, loan money, sell insurance, and grant employment, among
numerous other activities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan M. Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES WEST, PLLC
          382 S. Convent Ave.
          Tucson, AZ 85716
          Telephone: (520) 622-2481
          E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Barnum" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Barnum and Robert
Sustrik and all similarly situated individual, Plaintiff, Canon
Business Process Services, Inc. Non Party, Petitioner v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-02968-AMD
(E.D. N.Y., November 9, 2017).

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   John Francis Fullerton, Esq.
   Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
   250 Park Avenue
   New York, NY 10177
   Tel: (212) 351-4580
   Fax: (212) 878-8670
   Email: jfullerton@ebglaw.com


ERIN ENERGY: Ct. Dismisses "Lenois" Over Allied Asset Purchase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware dismissed the case, ROBERT LENOIS, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders of ERIN ENERGY
CORPORATION, and derivatively on behalf of ERIN ENERGY
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. KASE LUKMAN LAWAL, LEE P. BROWN,
WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, J. KENT FRIEDMAN, JOHN HOFMEISTER, IRA WAYNE
McCONNELL, HAZEL R. O'LEARY, and CAMAC ENERGY HOLDINGS, LIMITED,
Defendants, and ERIN ENERGY CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, C.A.
No. 11963-VCMR (Del. Ch.).

The case arises out of transactions between an oil and gas
exploration company (Erin), its controller (Kase Lukman Lawal), a
controller-affiliated company (Allied Energy Plc), and a third-
party entity (Public Investment Corp., Ltd. "PIC").  In the
transactions at issue, PIC invested in Erin, and Erin transferred
stock to PIC.  Erin then transferred to Allied the majority of the
PIC cash, a convertible subordinated note, Erin stock, and a
promise of certain future payments related to the development of a
new oil discovery, in exchange for certain Allied oil mining
rights. The other stockholders in the Company also received
additional shares in connection with the Transactions.

One individual -- Lawal --initiated the process and acted
simultaneously as (i) a controller of Erin, (ii) a controller of
and the sole negotiator for Allied, which was counterparty to
Erin, and (iii) the effective sole negotiator between Erin and the
other counterparty in the transaction, PIC. Thus, the remaining
board members relied on the controller as the sole voice for --
and, more importantly, information source from--the two entities,
Allied and PIC, despite a potential misalignment of incentives for
the controller.  And the complaint is replete with allegations of
bad faith conduct against Lawal, including that he attempted to
dominate the process, withheld material information from the
board, and rushed the board into the unfair Transactions.

Yet at the same time, the Erin board formed an independent
committee to manage the process.  That committee retained
reputable, independent legal and financial advisors, resisted
attempts to rush the process, pushed back on numerous deal terms,
and obtained materially better terms, including an infusion of
much-needed cash into the troubled Company.  Thereafter, a
majority of the minority of stockholders approved the issuance of
shares required for the Transactions.

The Plaintiff brings derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the controllers for presenting and the board of directors
for approving the purportedly unfair Transactions, in which the
Company allegedly overpaid for the Allied assets by between $86.2
million and $198.8 million.  He also asserts direct breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the board regarding the alleged
disclosure violations in the transaction proxy, and against Lawal
for aiding and abetting the breach of the duty of disclosure.
The Plaintiff did not make demand on the board under Court of
Chancery Rule 23.1 before filing this action.  Instead, he argues
that he has alleged sufficient facts to raise a reason to doubt
that the decision to enter into the Transactions was a product of
a valid exercise of business judgment.  He claims that the board
acted in bad faith by allowing Lawal to hijack the process and
pressure the Company into a bad deal, making demand futile under
the second prong of Aronson.  And even if this behavior does not
amount to bad faith, the Plaintiff alleges that demand is futile
because one person -- Lawal -- acted in bad faith and,
alternatively, because the board was inadequately informed and
breached its duty of care.

The Defendants move to dismiss the derivative claims for failure
to make demand pursuant to Rule 23.1.  They Defendants argue that
demand is not excused as futile because the directors, other than
Lawal, are independent and disinterested and the Transactions were
a valid exercise of business judgment.  They contend that in
assessing demand futility, the Court must look to the whole
board's culpability, and in this case, the Plaintiff fails to
plead non-exculpated claims as to a majority of the board in light
of Erin's exculpatory charter provision.  The Defendants also move
to dismiss the direct disclosure claims under Court of Chancery
Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the alleged damages from the
disclosure claims flow to the Company and, thus, must be
dismissed.

Judge Montgomery-Reeves follows what she believes to be the weight
of authority in Delaware.  She holds that where directors are
protected by an exculpatory charter provision adopted pursuant to
8 Del. C. Section 102(b)(7), a plaintiff must allege that a
majority of the board faces a substantial likelihood of liability
for non-exculpated claims in order to raise a reason to doubt that
the challenged decision was a valid exercise of business judgment
under the second prong of Aronson.

Applying that law in the instant case, she holds that demand is
not excused as futile because the Plaintiff fails to plead non-
exculpated claims against Erin's director Defendants (other than
Lawal).  Further, the Plaintiff's direct disclosure claims fail
because the alleged injury is to the Company.  Thus, the Judge
granted the Motion to Dismiss the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ljJrcf from Leagle.com.

Stuart M. Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com -- and Michael J. Barry --
mbarry@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;
Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- and Craig J.
Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER
LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Jeremy Friedan -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com
-- Spencer Oster -- soster@fotpllc.com -- and David Tejtel --
dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, New York, New
York; Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Myron T. Steele -- msteele@potteranderson.com -- Arthur L. Dent --
adent@potteranderson.com -- and Jaclyn C. Levy --
jlevy@potteranderson.com -- POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP; David
T. Moran -- dmoran@manatt.com -- and Christopher R. Bankler --
cbankler@jw.com -- JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Dallas, Texas; Attorneys
for Defendants Kase Lukman Lawal and CAMAC Energy Holdings,
Limited.

Gregory V. Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON &
FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; J. Wiley George, ANDREWS KURTH
LLP, Houston, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants John Hofmeister, Ira
Wayne McConnell, and Hazel R. O'Leary.

David J. Teklits -- dteklits@mnat.com -- and Kevin M. Coen --
kcoen@mnat.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Oakes --
mark.oakes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Ryan Meltzer --
ryan.meltzer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, Austin, Texas; John Byron --
john.byron@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, Houston, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants Lee P. Brown,
William J. Campbell, J. Kent Friedman and Nominal Defendant Erin
Energy Corporation.


FAIRFAX SERVICING: Faces "Reizes" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairfax Servicing,
Inc.  The case is styled as Mendel Reizes, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Fairfax
Servicing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06411 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 3, 2017).

Fairfax Servicing, LLC, located at 8350 N Central Expy Dallas, TX
75206, is approximately three years old as recorded in documents
filed with Texas Secretary of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FCI LENDER: Faces "Diaz" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCI Lender Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Altagracia Diaz, on behalf of
plaintiff and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCI
Lender Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08686 (S.D.
N.Y., November 8, 2017).

FCI Lender Services, Inc. operates a loan servicing company
headquartered at 8180 E Kaiser Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92808.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLEXCARE LLC: Sued by Junkersfeld Over Improper Calculation of OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA JUNKERSFELD, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. FLEXCARE LLC; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-at-01024 (E.D. Cal., October 4, 2017), is a
California-wide class action and a nation-wide Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action against the Defendant for (1)
failing to include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime wages, and (2) failing to timely pay all
wages owing at termination of employment.

FLEXCARE is a California limited liability company that maintains
its principal place of business in Roseville, California.  The
Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants.

FLEXCARE is healthcare staffing company that employs hourly health
care professionals for short-term travel assignments at health
care providers throughout California and elsewhere.[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


FMS INVESTMENT: Faces "Corwise" Suit in E. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Investment Corp.
The case is styled as Cindy R. Corwise, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMS Investment
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06493 (E.D.N.Y., November 8,
2017).

FMS Investment Corp. is a Maryland corporation that provides
receivables management solutions to financial service institutions
in the government and private sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Molkandow" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Boris Molkandow, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06462
(E.D. N.Y., November 6, 2017).

Frontline Asset is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GALLERY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Sullivan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Gallery Automotive Group, LLC and Yusuke Miki, Case
No. 1784CV03467 (Mass. Super. Ct., October 30, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a company operating multiple car
dealerships in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raven Moseslinger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 338-9400
      E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


GENERAL CABLE: Kessler Named Lead Atty in "Doshi" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SATISH DOSHI, Individually And on behalf of
all other Persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
CABLE, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-025 (WOB-CJS)
(E.D. Ky.), Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division,
Covington, appointed (i) Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as the
Lead Counsel for the Class, and (ii) Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson
Trial Lawyers, as the Liaison Counsel for the Class.

The securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased General Cable securities between Feb. 23, 2012 and
Feb. 10, 2016.  The Plaintiffs allege that, beginning on Feb. 23,
2012, the Company made false or misleading statements in its
public filings, or failed to disclose information, regarding the
fact that the Company was violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act of 1992 by paying millions of dollars in bribes to foreign
officials in countries where it did business.  When the Company
disclosed information about its potential liability under the
FCPA, its stock price dropped, causing harm to shareholders.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action on Jan. 5, 2017, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  It was
transferred to this Court on Feb. 27, 2017.  The Complaint alleges
a claim against General Cable for violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, as
well as a claim against Defendants Kenny and Robinson for
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Currently before the Court are competing motions for appointment
as the Lead Plaintiff.  One is by The Employees Retirement System
of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ("PREPA"), and the
other is by William Edward Long, as Trustee of the UA 09-21-2001
William Edward Long & Bonnie Diane Long Living Trust ("Long
Trust").

Judge Bertelsman holds that although PREPA sold some of its stock
after the Sept. 22, 2014, corrective disclosure, that disclosure
caused only a 4.68% drop in General Cable's stock price.  In
contrast, the disclosure of Feb. 10, 2016 -- long after PREPA had
sold all its stock -- caused a 31.61% drop in the stock price.
Thus, the Plaintiffs who still held stock on the later date -- the
closing date of the Class Period -- were impacted far more greatly
than those affected only by the first disclosure.

Therefore, because PREPA can show no loss causation as to the
second, more harmful disclosure, it would be subject to a standing
defense and would have no incentive to pursue the claims based on
that subsequent disclosure.  For this reason as well, the Judge
concludes PREPA is not an appropriate Lead Plaintiff and will thus
designate the Long Trust as the Lead Plaintiff in the matter.

The Long Trust seeks the approval of the firm of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP as the Lead Counsel and Mehr, Fairbanks &
Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC as the Liaison Counsel for the class,
and it has submitted proof supporting these firms' qualifications
and experience in handling securities and other complex
litigation.  PREPA has not challenged the qualifications of these
firms.  Therefore, the Court will approve the appointment of these
firms as the Lead and the Liaison Counsel for the Class.

Accordingly, Judge Bertelsman denied PREPA's motion to Appoint
Counsel; denied as moot Satish Doshi's motion for appointment as
the Lead counsel; granted Long Trust's motion for appointment as
the Lead Counsel.  He appointed Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
as the Lead Counsel for the Class, and Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson
Trial Lawyers, PLLC as the Liaison Counsel for the Class.

The Judge denied as moot PREPA's motion for leave to file a
surreply.  He ordered that on or before Nov. 20, 2017, the parties
will confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and
defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or
resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures
required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery
plan.  Such proposed plan will be filed no later than Dec. 4,
2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Ygfknr from Leagle.com.

Satish Doshi, Plaintiff, represented by Hui M. Chang --
hchang@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Satish Doshi, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Richard S. Wayne, Strauss
& Troy, LPA, pro hac vice, Robert R. Sparks, Strauss & Troy Co.,
LPA, Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

General Cable Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason H.
Wilson -- jason.wilson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann --
karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Laura Hughes McNally -- lauramcnally@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Marc J. Sonnenfeld --
marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice & David F. Fessler, Fessler, Schneider & Grimme.

Gregory B. Kenny, Defendant, represented by Jason H. Wilson,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Hughes McNally,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Marc J. Sonnenfeld,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & David F. Fessler,
Fessler, Schneider & Grimme.

Brian J. Robinson, Defendant, represented by Jason H. Wilson,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Hughes McNally,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Marc J. Sonnenfeld,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & David F. Fessler,
Fessler, Schneider & Grimme.

Employees Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, Movant, represented by Ethan A. Busald, Busald, Funk &
Zevely PSC, Lawrence Donald Levit, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP, pro hac vice & E. Andre Busald, Busald, Funk & Zevely PSC.

William Edward Long, as Trustee of the - UA 09-21-2001 William
Edward Long & Bonnie Diane Long Living Trust, Movant, represented
by Erik David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers,
PLLC, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice
& Ryan T. Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice.


GOLD KEY CREDIT: Faces "Beyer" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Key Credit,
Inc.  The case is styled as Steven Beyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gold Key
Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06528 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 8, 2017).

Gold Key Credit, Inc. provides collections and receivables
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GRACIOUS HOME: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gracious Home LLC.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gracious
Home LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08582 (S.D. N.Y., November
6, 2017).

Gracious Home LLC is engaged in the retail sale of home-
furnishings such as china, glassware, and metalware for kitchen
and table use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAIR BAR: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrianna De Jesus, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Hair Bar NYC III, Inc., Hair Bar NYC, Inc.,
Hair Bar NYC II, Inc., Benys Unisex Salon, Inc., Beny's Hair
Salon, Inc., Case No. 159582/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 27,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate hair salons in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


HANNAFORD BROS: Class Entitled to OT Under FLSA, Gagnon Asserts
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIM GAGNON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00394-DBH (D. Me., October 5, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff
and the class are entitled to, inter alia:

    (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in
        a workweek, as required by law; and

   (ii) liquidated damages, interest, and reimbursement of
        attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
        Standards Act.

Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC, is a limited liability company that was
formed and organized under the laws of Maine, with its corporate
headquarters located in Scarborough, Maine.  According to the Web
site of its parent company, Ahold Delhaize, Hannaford operates 181
supermarkets, within the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. O'Meara, Esq.
          MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY
          75 Pearl Street
          P.O. Box 9785
          Portland, ME 04104
          Telephone: (207) 773-5651
          E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com
                  alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Donna L. Johnson, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  djohnson@headlawfirm.com


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc.  The case is styled as Saad Ahmad, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Immediate
Credit Recovery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06549  (E.D.
N.Y., November 9, 2017).

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. is a credit reporting agency in
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


INNATE INTELLIGENCE: 2nd Amended TCPA Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint in the case, LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).

Levine Hat filed the putative class action lawsuit against Innate
and Nepute Enterprises, LLC alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  On Jan. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff
amended the complaint to add an additional nine Defendants,
including the Bria defendants (Jeremy L. Bria, Bria Investments,
LLC, JLB, Inc., and Well-Adjusted Investments, LLC); the Eyler
Defendants (Gary Robert Eyler and Eyler Investments, LLC); and
Pure Family Chiropractic LLC ("Pure").  Those three groups of
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Limbaugh held that it could not exercise jurisdiction over
the moving Defendants based on their personal contacts with
Missouri and that it could only assert personal jurisdiction over
the moving them if Innate were their alter ego.  He allowed the
Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery to determine whether the
three sets of Defendants were subject to jurisdiction based on the
Plaintiff's claim that Innate was their alter ego or agent.  The
Judge allowed the parties until Sept. 18, 2017 to conduct
discovery limited to the issue of personal jurisdiction and
invited the Defendants to re-file their motions to dismiss after
the close of discovery.  The Bria Defendants, Eyler Defendants,
and Pure re-filed their motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Bria Defendants.  It did
not take any discovery during the allowed period, but it opposes
the Eyler Defendants' and Pure's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff first maintains that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Pure under the Missouri Long-Arm Statute and
because Pure has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.
Judge Limbaugh says this is precisely the argument the Plaintiff
made in its briefing on the Defendants' first motions to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Court has already
rejected those arguments.  The Court's ruling remains unchanged,
as he needs not revisit the determination that personal
jurisdiction does not exist on the present facts.

Again, the Plaintiff continues to rely on its argument from its
briefing on the Defendant's first motion to dismiss.  It contends
that Robert Eyler may be held personally liable for his actions,
which the Plaintiff says are sufficient to satisfy personal
jurisdiction requirements.  Again, the Judge say, this argument
was considered and rejected by the Court in the July memorandum
and order.  The Court has already rejected that argument.  And
although the Court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct discovery to
try to prove its alter ego arguments, the Plaintiff did not do so.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Limbaugh finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to allege sufficient facts that the Court may assume
personal jurisdiction over the Pure and Eyler defendants under
Missouri's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.  The
matter will be dismissed as to those Defendants.  Accordingly, he
granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint.  He dismissed Defendants Gary Robert Eyler,
Eyler Investments, and Pure Family Chiropractic.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Ug4EcG from Leagle.com.

Levine Hat Co., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg -
- alex@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC.

Levine Hat Co., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan A. Keane --
ryan@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC.

Innate Intelligence, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin Paul
Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C.
Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas A.
Brodnik, DONINGER AND TUOHY LLP.

Nepute Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Douglas Longo, LONGO BIGGS, LLC, Kevin Paul Green, GOLDENBERG
HELLER, PC & Mark C. Goldenberg, GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC.

ProFax, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren R. Cohen --
Lcohen@capessokol.com -- CAPES AND SOKOL & Mark E. Goodman --
goodman@capessokol.com -- CAPES AND SOKOL.


JOBEN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Brown" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joben Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Gailann P. Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Joben
Enterprises, Inc.., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06421 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 3, 2017).

Joben Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in women's apparel-retail in
New York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Amended "Capozio" FDCA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nitza I. Quinones-Alejandro of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MARK CAPOZIO, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 16-5235 (E.D. Pa.).

On Jan. 23, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection.  On Dec. 26, 2009, Citi Residential Lending, Inc.,
sold the Plaintiffs' mortgage, note, and service rights to the
Defendant.  When the loan was transferred to the Defendant, the
loan was in default.  On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiffs'
bankruptcy trustee sent the Defendant a Notice of Cure Payment.
The Defendant did not respond to the notice.  The Plaintiffs were
discharged from bankruptcy on Oct. 24, 2013.

By letter dated Dec. 28, 2015, the Defendant transmitted to the
Plaintiffs a separate loan modification agreement with the
initialed edits signed by the parties on Dec. 30, 2015.  On April
1, 2016, and thereafter, the Plaintiffs made monthly mortgage
payments which did not include an amount for insurance premiums
escrow.  On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent Defendant what the
Plaintiffs contend was a Qualified Written Request ("QWR") under
RESPA, to which they allege the Defendant did not respond fully
and timely.

On Dec. 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint against Defendant essentially claiming that the
Defendant has uniformly engaged in illegal and deceptive business
practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Laws Act ("UTPCPL"), the Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA"), and Section 524 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code, specifically the discharge injunction.  In essence, they
contend that the Defendant failed to honor the parties' negotiated
agreement that the Plaintiffs' future mortgage and escrow payments
would not include a sum for insurance premiums, and as a
consequence, the Defendant misapplied the Plaintiffs' monthly
mortgage payments resulting in the incurrence of late fees and
other penalties.

The Defendant filed the underlying motion to dismiss and argues
that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to
sustain their pleading burden for each of their claims.

In light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., which expressly abrogated
the holding of Federal Trade Commission v. Check Investors, Inc.,
Judge Quinones-Alejandro agrees with the Defendant that it is not
a "debt collector" as the term is defined in the FDCPA because it
is alleged to be the owner of the mortgage loan at issue and is
not "in any business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of any debts."

The Judge says the inclusion of the purported allegation would
merely affirm the Defendant's alleged status as the owner of the
loan and/or a "creditor" under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(4), and not
one of a debt collector.  Therefore, in light of the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Henson, the Plaintiffs have not
asserted facts sufficient to show that the Defendant is a "debt
collector" for purposes of the FDCPA.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim, the Judge finds that
the letter underlying the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim includes eight
separate requests for information pertaining to their mortgage
loan.  Their letter, however, does not anywhere state that they
believe that the escrow is in error or why they believe it is in
error.  In their response to the Defendant's argument, the
Plaintiffs concede that the letter on which their RESPA claim is
based fails to set forth the reasons why the account is in error.
Thus, in the absence of this required information, the Plaintiffs'
RESPA claim fails.

Judge Quinones-Alejandro also finds that the Plaintiffs' factual
allegations, including, in particular, the December 28 Letter from
the Defendant and the facts surrounding it, sufficiently plead a
waiver of the escrow of insurance premiums requirement as
permitted by the terms of the Mortgage.  In light of this alleged
written waiver, if in fact effective, the Defendant's alleged
misapplication of the Plaintiffs' monthly mortgage payments and
assessment of late fees and other charges could constitute unfair
trade practices under the FCEUA and/or UTPCPL.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices Claims is denied.

Because the Defendant's argument to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
"Regulation X" claim is solely on the basis of its disposed of
argument that the Plaintiffs were required to pay insurance
premiums into escrow, the Judge finds the argument is without
merit, at this stage of the litigation.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Quinones-Alejandro granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Counts
I, III, and IV are dismissed in their entirety.  Count II is
dismissed to the extent it relies upon the Defendant's alleged
status as a "debt collector" and/or a violation of the FDCPA only.
An Order consistent with her Memorandum Opinion follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Nk7Ggb from Leagle.com.

MARK CAPOZIO, Plaintiff, represented by STUART A. EISENBERG --
mccullougheisenberg@gmail.com -- MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC.

LINDA CAPOZIO, Plaintiff, represented by STUART A. EISENBERG,
MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, Defendant, represented by JOHN C.
GOODCHILD, III -- john.goodchild@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS
& BOCKIUS, L.L.P.


LOUISIANA: Court Limits Thomas Testimony in Angola Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana,
granted Defendant's Motion for Clarification of and Relief from
Ruling on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Thomas in the case
captioned JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL., v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil
Action No. 15-318-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.).

This is a putative class action brought by inmates at Louisiana
State Penitentiary (Angola). Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
the medical care delivered at Angola is medically deficient.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants routinely delay evaluation,
treatment, and access to specialty care; Defendants routinely deny
medically necessary treatment; Defendants fail to provide and
manage medication in accordance with prescriptions and medically
appropriate treatment courses; Defendants fail to maintain
adequate medical records to ensure adequate treatment and follow-
up care; Defendants create barriers or discourage access to care
through the use of a Malingering rule; and Defendants' medical
staffing falls below the acceptable standard of care.

The Court clarifies that Dr. Thomas was asked to provide opinions
regarding the care provided by the Louisiana State Penitentiary at
Angola. As to the delivery of medical care, Thomas concludes the
medical care at Angola is within the standard of care for
correctional medicine. The majority of Dr. Thomas' report is
comprised of conclusions or statements of fact upon which he bases
his ultimate standard of care opinion.

Under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a district court
has broad discretion to determine whether a body of evidence
relied on by an expert is sufficient to support that expert's
opinion.

The overarching goal of Daubert's gate-keeping requirement is 'to
ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony.'  Dr.
Thomas' report reveals that he draws upon his experience and
knowledge in the field of correctional medicine to reach his
conclusions. In other words, his proposed opinion testimony is
experience-based.  As recognized by the Supreme Court, there are
many kinds of experts and expertise, and the Daubert inquiry is
always fact-specific.  The Court's gate-keeping function is to
make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon
professional studies or personal experience, employs in the
courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes
the practice of an expert in the relevant field.

Throughout his report, Dr. Thomas relies on fact, without
identifying the source of the fact or providing any foundational
support for the fact. These facts then form the bases of his
conclusion as to the quality of care. The Defendants argue that
Dr. Thomas provides some opinions supported by testable
identifiable data which should be admitted. The Court addresses
below the specific opinions which Defendants contend are reliable
and thus admissible.

Opinions regarding the named Plaintiffs

Defendants argue that: Opinions regarding Plaintiffs are not
addressed in the order granting Plaintiffs' motion. It is
Defendants' belief that these opinions were not intended to be
excluded by the Court's order, as such opinions are not based upon
Dr. Thomas' interviews of unnamed inmates or his review of the
policies, procedures, guidelines, and directives.

Of the 18 named Plaintiffs, Dr. Thomas provides no opinion as to
whether the care delivered meets the applicable standard of care
as to 9 of them. By his own account, he was retained as a standard
of care expert, yet he fails to opine as to the standard of care
delivered to half the named Plaintiffs whose records he reviewed.
Nonetheless, Dr. Thomas is qualified by experience and education
to opine as to the level of care provided the named Plaintiffs and
whether, in his view, the care provided the named Plaintiffs
comports with the applicable standard of care.

Opinion regarding the Impact of Security Measures upon
Correctional Medicine Practice

While Dr. Thomas is qualified by experience to testify about the
practical considerations of the corrections environment and its
effect on healthcare delivery, this is a common sense observation
that an untrained layperson would be qualified to determine
intelligently and to the best degree the particular issue without
enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the
subject involved in the dispute.  While the observation that
security events may delay or truncate the delivery of medical care
is common sense and, thus, not particularly helpful to the trier
of fact, the Court will allow it.

Opinion regarding the Adequacy of DOC/LSP Policies and Directives

Defendants argue that the adequacy of the DOC policies and LSP
directives relating to medical care is at the very heart of this
litigation, yet Thomas cites not a single policy or directive as
the bases for his conclusion that "the care at LSP is well within
the standard of care for a correctional institution.  Nonetheless,
because this matter is set for a bench trial, the Court can
perform its gatekeeping function by ruling on objections at the
time of the testimony. Dr. Thomas will be permitted to testify
concerning policies and directives that are germane to the issues,
subject to and with reservation of all objections.

Opinion regarding Staffing Levels and Credentials of LSP
Physicians

Responding to the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Thomas
opines that unrestricted licensure of physicians is neither the
law nor the practice throughout correctional healthcare. Federal
courts have consistently held that legal opinions are not a proper
subject of expert testimony because they do not assist the trier
of fact in understanding the evidence, instead merely telling the
trier of fact what result to reach.  However, Dr. Thomas may
testify regarding routine practice within the correctional
healthcare field, subject to and with reservation of objections.

Opinion regarding the Utilization of Licensed Practical Nursing
Staff

Dr. Thomas opines that using LPNs interchangeably with RNs does
not violate the standard of practice in a correctional facility.
Dr. Thomas is qualified by experience and education to give this
opinion.

Opinion regarding the Utilization of EMTs

Dr. Thomas also reviewed EMT protocols but could not identify the
protocols he reviewed. Again, Thomas could not and did not supply
the facts or data upon which his conclusions and opinions rest.
However, since the Court is the trier of fact and jury confusion
is not a concern, the Court will defer ruling on reliability and
admissibility to the time of trial. All objections are reserved.

Opinion regarding the Utilization of Correctional Officers for
Pill Call

The distribution of medicine by corrections officers is only one
of many factors in Dr. Thomas' ultimate opinion that LSP delivers
medical care in accordance with the standard of care for
correctional medicine. Dr. Thomas is qualified by experience and
education to provide an opinion regarding whether pill call
delivery through corrections officers meets the applicable
standard of care.

Opinion regarding the Utilization of Inmate Orderlies

Objections to admissibility and the reliability of the foundation
for this opinion are referred to the time of the hearing or trial.

Opinion regarding the Operational Aspect of Medical Services at
LSP

While the Court has serious concerns about the reliability of the
foundations for Dr. Thomas' opinions, the adversarial process
provides an adequate means to test the reliability and relevance
of the opinions within the confines of a bench trial. The Court's
gatekeeping function can be performed at the class certification
hearing and at the trial of this matter. Since jury confusion is
not a concern, the Court will permit Dr. Thomas to testify. The
challenges to reliability, relevance, and admissibility are
deferred to trial.

The Court vacates in part its prior ruling.  The Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine is granted in part and denied in part.  The
Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to exclude the opinion testimony of
Dr. Thomas pertaining to the standard of medical care is denied,
and the Court's prior Ruling granting the motion to exclude
standard of care testimony is vacated.

The Plaintiffs Motion in Limine is granted in part, and Dr. Thomas
will be excluded from offering legal opinions and opinions
regarding security. All objections to the admissibility of opinion
testimony of Dr. David Thomas are reserved to the time of his
testimony at the Class Certification hearing and/or trial. The
Defendants' request for reconsideration and request for leave to
amend Dr. Thomas' expert report to cure deficiencies are denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 16, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7bnhsl4
from Leagle.com.

Kentrell Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes -- mercedesm@thejusticecenter.org -- The Promise of
Justice Initiative.

Kentrell Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, 636 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA
70113 pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana,
1340 Poydras St, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA, Daniel A. Small --
dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
1100 New York Avenue NorthWestSuite 500 West, Washington, DC
20005. pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of
Justice Initiative. 636 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113

Farrell Sampier, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar,
Promise of Justice Initiative.

Reginald George, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar,
Promise of Justice Initiative.

John Tonubbee, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The Promise of
Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of
Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of Justice
Initiative.

Otto Barrera, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The Promise of
Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of
Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of Justice
Initiative.

Clyde Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The Promise of
Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of
Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of Justice
Initiative.

Edward Giovanni, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar,
Promise of Justice Initiative.

Ricky D. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar,
Promise of Justice Initiative.

Lionel Tolbert, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The
Promise of Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar,
Promise of Justice Initiative.

Rufus White, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The Promise of
Justice Initiative, pro hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of
Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Miranda Tait & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of Justice
Initiative.

Stephanie Lamartiniere, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper,
Shows, Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana
Department of Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel, Louisiana Department
of Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General,
Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP, John Clifton
Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Michelle Marney White,
Louisiana Department of Justice & Patricia Hill Wilton, Louisiana
Department of Justice.

James M LeBlanc, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel, Louisiana Department of Justice,
Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin Andrew
Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General,
Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP, John Clifton
Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Michelle Marney White,
Louisiana Department of Justice & Patricia Hill Wilton, Louisiana
Department of Justice.

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows, Cali, & Walsh LLP,
Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of Justice, Angelique
Duhon Freel, Louisiana Department of Justice, Caroline Tomeny
Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of the
Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal Division, Elizabeth Baker
Murrill, Office of Attorney General, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali,
Berthelot & Walsh, LLP, John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali &
Walsh, L.L.P., Michelle Marney White, Louisiana Department of
Justice & Patricia Hill Wilton, Louisiana Department of Justice.

Darrel Vannoy, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, 628 St. Louis Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-
6159, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of Justice,
Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, 628 St. Louis
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-6159, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of
the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal Division, Jeffrey K.
Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP & John Clifton Conine,
Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., 628 St. Louis Street, Baton
Rouge, LA 70802-6159

Raman Singh, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows, Cali,
& Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Stacye Falgout, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Randy Lavespere, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Sherwood Poret, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Cynthia Park, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.


MAGNUM DRILLING: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Gafford" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN GAFFORD on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MAGNUM DRILLING SERVICES, INC., Case No.
7:17-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex., October 4, 2017), accuses the Defendant
of knowingly and deliberately failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and Class Members for their overtime hours based on the time and
half formula under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Magnum Drilling Services, Inc., is a limited liability company
organized under the law of Texas.  Magnum is an oilfield services
company that provides staffing services, whereby it places its
employees to work with its customers on their projects.  The
Defendant also provide its oilfield customers with "Flocculation"
or "Dewatering" Units, which recycle water and convert large
amounts of waste drilling fluids to a small volume solid, which
can be recycled.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


MALLINCKRODT ARD: Faces MSP Suit Over Acthar Gel-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Maomso Recovery II, LLC, MSP
Recovery, LLC, and MSPA Claims 1, LLC, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., f/k/a
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC, and  United
Biosource  Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-07928 (C.D. Cal., October
30, 2017), arises from the Defendants' scheme to inflate prices
and reduce competition for a drug known as Acthar Gel ("Acthar")
causing payers to pay more for drugs than they otherwise would
have paid.

The Defendants operate a specialty biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Staines-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Adam M. Foster, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI, & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 207-3233
      Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
      E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
              rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
              afoster@baumhedlundlaw.com
              pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

MDL 2406: "Chicoine" Suit Moved to Blue Cross Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Chicoine, et al. v. Wellmark, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00210, was transferred on October 5, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-01707-RDP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2406.

The cases in the litigation challenge the way that Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association licenses the rights to use its trademarks
to insurance companies within service areas specified in the
license.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a state-specific or
national class of those who allegedly overpaid premiums to a Blue
Plan, or seek to represent a class of providers, who provided
services to a person insured by a Blue Plan and allegedly received
sub-competitive reimbursement rates.  The cases raise the same or
similar antitrust claims against BCBSA and one or more Blue
Plans.[BN]

Plaintiffs Bradley A. Chicoine D.C.; Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C.,
P.C.; Mark A. Niles D.C.; Niles Chiropractic, Inc.; Rod R.
Rebarcak D.C.; Ben Winecoff D.C.; Steven A. Mueller D.C.; Bradley
J. Brown D.C.; Brown Chiropractic, P.C.; Mark A. Kruse D.C.; Dr.
Mark A. Kruse, D.C., P.C.; and Kevin D. Miller D.C. are
represented by:

          Glenn L. Norris, Esq.
          HAWKINS & NORRIS PC
          2501 Grand Ave.
          Des Moines, IA 50312-1791
          Telephone: (515) 288-6532
          Facsimile: (515) 288-9733
          E-mail: gnorris@2501grand.com
                  gnorrislaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: herbelaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Kara Marie Simons, Esq.
          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          Alison F. Kanne, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2501 Grand Ave., Suite B
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: kchristensen@2501grand.com
                  swandro@2501grand.com
                  akanne@2501grand.com

Defendants Wellmark Inc. doing business as: Wellmark Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Iowa, and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc.,
an Iowa corporation, are represented by:

          Benjamin Patrick Roach, Esq.
          Hayward L. Draper, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE PC
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283-8158
          Facsimile: (515) 283-3108
          E-mail: bproach@nyemaster.com
                  hdraper@nyemaster.com

Intervenor Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is
represented by:

          Joan M. Fletcher, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Krausman, Esq.
          DICKINSON MACKAMAN TYLER & HAGEN PC
          699 Walnut St.
          1600 Hub Tower
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3986
          Telephone: (515) 244-2600
          Facsimile: (515) 246-4550
          E-mail: jfletcher@dickinsonlaw.com
                  jkrausman@dickinsonlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Compels Arbitration in "Marcario"
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) and Dismiss Class Claims in the case captioned JOSEPH
MARCARIO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-414 (ADS)(ARL)
(E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff opened a credit card account with Credit One Bank.
The first credit card was mailed to the Plaintiff contained Credit
One Bank's Visa/MasterCard Cardholder Agreement, Disclosure
Statement and Arbitration Agreement (Arbitration Agreement).
According to the Arbitration Agreement, a consumer agreed to the
terms of the Arbitration Agreement by using his or her credit
card.

The Plaintiff's credit card account was sold to numerous
creditors, and was ultimately assigned to Midland Funding. Midland
Funding also obtained business records that contain the account
history and records of the various accounts it purchased,
including the Plaintiff's account. This includes a Bill of Sale
and Assignment, Affidavit of Sale and account statements. MCM
services the Plaintiff's credit card account on behalf of Midland
Funding, which owns the portfolio of accounts that contains the
Plaintiff's credit card account.

MCM mailed the Plaintiff a Pre-Legal Notification letter. The
letter lists the previous balance as $998.52 and the interest rate
at 23.90%.

The FAA states that a written provision in a contract to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.  It leaves no place
for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead
mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed
to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has
been signed.

The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants do not have
standing to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement
because the Defendants allegedly failed to demonstrate that they
are the true assignees of the Plaintiff's account. An arbitration
clause is generally held to apply to the assignee of a contract.
The Court notes that the Plaintiff cites an incorrect standard of
proof in his opposition memorandum. The New York State cases he
cites are not FDCPA cases; they are debt collection cases, where
the procedural posture of the parties requires a different
standard. This is not the first time a court in this Circuit has
noted Plaintiff's counsel's improper citations in this context.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' reliance on an
exemplar agreement is inadequate to demonstrate that an agreement
existed and that the terms contained in the Arbitration Agreement
are those that the Plaintiff agreed to when he opened his account.
The FAA does not require the Defendants to produce a signed copy
of the Arbitration Agreement.

The Defendants have presented a 2014 exemplar agreement, as well
as multiple affidavits that attest that this sample agreement
contained the same terms and conditions that governed the
Plaintiff's account when the account was active.

The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to contradict the
Defendants' declarations. Therefore, the Court holds that the
Defendants have provided sufficient evidence to conclude that the
"exemplar agreement" is a true and correct copy of the Arbitration
Agreement to which the Plaintiff agreed.

The Defendants have adequately established that the Plaintiff's
credit card account was assigned to them and they can thus enforce
the Arbitration Agreement as assignees.

The Court finds that this case clearly falls within the scope of
the Arbitration Agreement. The relevant provision defines Claims,
which according to the Arbitration Agreement may be submitted to
mandatory, binding arbitration by either party, as including
collections matters relating to your account.

Unquestionably, the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims arise out of the
Defendants' attempts to collect the Plaintiff's credit card
account debt. In his briefing, the Plaintiff has not advanced any
arguments to the contrary.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's individual FDCPA claim clearly falls
well within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.

The Court's conclusion that the Arbitration Agreement is valid and
enforceable compels this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's class-
wide claims. The Plaintiff expressly waived his right to pursue
his FDCPA claim on a class-wide basis as a class representative or
member of the class.

The Arbitration Agreement states, in relevant part, "if you or we
require arbitration of a particular Claim, neither you, we, nor
any other person may pursue the Claim in any litigation, whether
as a class action, private attorney general action, other
representative action or otherwise."  Such class action waivers
have recently been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss class
claims is granted in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court compels
the Plaintiff to arbitrate his remaining individual claim pursuant
to the terms set forth in the Arbitration Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2otf7efrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Marcario, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders,
Barshay Sanders, PLLC.

Joseph Marcario, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Barshay,
Sanders Law, PLLC.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ellen
Beth Silverman, Hinshaw & Cullertson & Matthew B. Corwin, Hinshaw
& Culbertson, LLP.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ellen Beth
Silverman, Hinshaw & Cullertson & Matthew B. Corwin, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP.


MMR SENIOR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wilson" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Wilson, Angela Wilson, and Lisa Thornton, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MMR Senior
Alliance Corp d/b/a Right at Home of Middle Tennessee and Bhavani
Muvvala, Case No. 3:17-cv-01412 (M.D. Tenn., October 27, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay caregivers
overtime wages for work over 40 hours in a given work week.

The Defendants operate a company that is an in-home care provider
for senior citizens and others who need in-home daily assistance
through employee caregivers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
      Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
      Callie Jennings, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
              joeyl@bjsfirm.com
              aorlandi@bjsfirm.com
              calliej@bjsfirm.com


MRS BPO LLC: Faces "Meisels" Suit in Eastern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C.. The
case is styled as Simon Meisels, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06414 (E.D. N.Y., November 3, 2017).

MRS BPO is a full service accounts receivable management firm
based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MUNGER-HORTIFRUIT: Faces "Castillo" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Munger-Hortifruit
North America, Inc. The case is styled as Floricelda Castillo
Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Munger-Hortifruit
North America, Inc., Munger Hortifrut North America, LLC, Munger
Farms, LLC, Munger Berry Farms, LLC, Naturipe Farms, LLC,
Hortifruit, S.A., Munger Hortifruit America, LLC and Monarch Nut
Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. BCV-17-102606 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 6, 2017).

Munger-Hortifruit North America, Inc. is a global berry
organisation with operations in Washington, Oregon and California
in the US as well as in Canada, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Europe, Africa and Asia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   G. Lee Cory, Jr., Esq.
   Troutman Sanders LLP
   301 S College St
   34th Fl
   Charlotte, NC 28202
   Mecklenburg County
   Tel: (704) 998-4050


MUTUAL APARTMENT: Faces "Carlone" Suit in Rhode Island
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mutual Apartment
Properties L.P.  The case is styled as Kristen Carlone and Thomas
Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Mutual Apartment Properties L.P., MAP Real Estate
Incorporated and Mutual Properties, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00519 (D.R.I., November 8, 2017).

Mutual Apartments, Inc. operates as a housing cooperative that
develops, owns, and operates residential properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas J Enright, Esq.
   Enright Law LLC
   696 Reservoir Avenue
   Cranston, RI 02910
   Tel: (401) 526-2620
   Fax: (401) 457-7117
   Email: tom@enrightlawoffice.com


NATIONAL AUTO: Chado Seeks to Recover Specialists' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IAN CHADO, NANCY NGUYEN and WILLIAM RUSH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. NATIONAL AUTO
INSPECTIONS, LLC T/A CARCHEX, Case No. 1:17-cv-02945-JKB (D. Md.,
October 5, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

National Auto Inspections, LLC, t/a CARCHEX, is in the business of
selling vehicle related insurance products.  The Defendant's
primary product consists of Extended Vehicle Protection Plans --
warranties that replace a vehicle's manufacturer's warranty once
it has expired.  The Defendant also offers roadside assistance
plans, pre-purchase vehicle inspections and assistance with
comparing insurance premiums.  The Defendant partners with
numerous companies, including CARFAX, Allstate and Edmunds.

To sell its products, the Defendant owns and operates a call
center.  The Defendant employs EVPP Specialists, also known as
Vehicle Protection Specialists," at its call center.  The
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were employed as
Specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Leonard, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Davis, III, 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: rleonard@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Markistic" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Aida Markistic, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Enterprise Systems, Inc. and Main Street Acquisition
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06502 (E.D. N.Y., November 8,
2017).

National Enterprise manages and collects past due debts and
accounts receivable for clients in various industries throughout
the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Torres" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nations Recovery
Center, Inc.  The case is styled as Miguel Torres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nations
Recovery Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06441 (E.D.
N.Y., November 6, 2017).

Nations Recovery provides collection performance for the banking,
commercial, medical and retail service Industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Cafiso" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc.  The case is styled as Stefano Cafiso, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06546 (E.D. N.Y., November 9,
2017).

Nationwide Credit, is a collection agency, providing customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Knotts" Suit in District of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Knotts, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-05049-SRN-SER (D.
Minn., November 7, 2017).

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amy Elizabeth Boyle, Esq.
   Halunen Law
   1650 IDS Center
   80 South 8th Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 333-3637
   Fax: (612) 333-1030
   Email: boyle@halunenlaw.com

      - and -

   Colin John Pasterski, Esq.
   Halunen Law
   80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 1650
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 400-3103
   Email: pasterski@halunenlaw.com

      - and -

   Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
   Halunen Law
   1650 IDS Center
   80 So. 8th Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 605-4098
   Fax: (612) 605-4099
   Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com


NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: Decertification Order Appeal Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLYN CORTINA, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
F074938 (Cal. App.), Judge Gene M. Gomes of the Court of Appeals
of California for the Fifth District granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss the appeal from the decertification order and
cost order, but denied it as to the appeal from the order
dismissing Janet Dora; and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.

In April 2007, Cortina filed a class action complaint against
NATC, alleging it violated the Labor Code and engaged in unfair
business practices when it failed to pay overtime, and provide
meal and rest breaks, to escrow officers it employed in
California.  The complaint was amended twice, adding first four
and then another seven representational Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs moved for, and obtained class certification in
August 2010.  Two classes were certified: (i) an "exempt" class
comprised of people employed in positions which, at the time of
employment, were classified by the Defendants as exempt from the
obligation to pay overtime; and (ii) a "non-exempt" class
comprised of people employed in positions which, at the time of
employment, were classified as not exempt, and therefore were
entitled to be paid overtime.  North American Services ("NAS") was
added as a Defendant in 2010, on the theory that it was a co-
employer of the class members.

In 2012, NATC filed a motion to decertify the class.  The trial
court denied the motion.  NATC challenged the denial via writ
petition, which the Appellate Court denied.

A bench trial commenced in September 2015 on only one cause of
action -- violation of the UCL, with the classes seeking to
recover restitution of unpaid wages resulting from uncompensated
overtime and work during meal periods.  The trial court issued its
final statement of decision on Oct. 20, 2016, finding it
inequitable to hold NAS liable.  It also rejected NATC's
affirmative defense that it properly deemed certain job titles to
encompass exempt status.

Noting that it had broad equitable powers to order restitution in
UCL cases, the trial court ordered restitution of unpaid overtime
wages earned during the class period to the exempt class members
and stated it would refrain from entering final judgment until an
amount was determined.  As for the referee's fee, the trial court
ordered that NATC will bear the cost of the reference and selected
the Hon. Patrick J. O'Hara (Ret.) as referee and set his maximum
hourly rate at $500.

Regarding the non-exempt class, the trial court explained that due
to this finding "on the absence of a class-wide policy,"
decertification of the class was required.  The trial court,
however, made clear that it saw evidence of unreported and unpaid
overtime, just not on a class-wide basis, and stated that its
decision should have no impact on any individual worker's attempt
to secure recovery on an individual basis.  It ordered that notice
of dismissal of the non-exempt class claims be sent to the non-
exempt class members.

On Dec. 16, 2016, NATC filed a notice of appeal from the currently
appealable portions of the Oct. 20, 2016 statement of decision,
including (i) the order dismissing Named Plaintiff Doran without
prejudice; and (ii) the order decertifying the Non-Exempt Class.
Four days later, NATC filed a petition for writ of prohibition in
the Appellate Court, seeking vacation of the trial court's
reference order.  On March 3, 2017, the Appellate Court issued an
order denying the petition.

On March 14, 2017, the Appellate Court issued an order in which it
advised it's considering dismissing the appeal based on NATC's
lack of standing as an aggrieved party and directed NATC to file a
letter brief setting forth the jurisdictional basis for the
appeal.  That same day, NATC advised Judge O'Hara that its appeal
included "within its scope" the trial court's decision that NATC
pay all of the fees and it would post a bond pursuant to section
917.1, staying execution of the trial court's Oct. 20, 2016
decision.

In its April 13, 2017 letter brief in response to order, NATC
argued the Oct. 10, 2016 orders dismissing Doran's claim without
prejudice, decertifying the class, and requiring NATC to pay the
referee's fees were appealable orders that aggrieved it.  On May
3, 2017, the Appellate Court issued an order allowing the appeal
to proceed, but advised that nothing in the order precluded the
question of standing from being raised in the appeal.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal
as being taken from nonappealable orders and because NATC does not
have standing to appeal.  They also seek sanctions and costs
against NATC pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
8.276(a)(1), for filing a frivolous appeal.  They also applied to
the trial court for an order to show cause why NATC should not be
held in contempt for failing to pay the referee.  The trial court
denied the request.

Judge Gomes granted the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal
from the decertification order and cost order, but deny it as to
the appeal from the order dismissing Janet Doran.  He held that
the death knell exception to the one final judgment rule does not
apply when the only issues left to be determined on the Named
Plaintiffs' claims are damages or restitution.  Accordingly, the
order decertifying the class was not appealable under the death
knell doctrine.

He also held that the cost order was not a grant of an injunction.
Instead, it simply was an order that NATC pay the reference fees
as part of the trial court's power to order a nonconsensual
reference to determine the restitution to which the class members
are entitled.  Characterizing the cost order as an injunction is
just a creative way of trying to shoehorn such an order into
something otherwise appealable.  In sum, the cost order is not an
appealable as either a collateral order or an injunction.

The Judge further held that the Plaintiffs are wrong that Doran's
dismissal order is not appealable because a judgment has not yet
been filed.  He said the dismissal of Doran was entered without
prejudice, in the form of a written order signed by the trial
court, was involuntary, and disposed of all of Doran's claims, it
constitutes a final judgment under section 581d, and is therefore
appealable.

Judge Gomes denied the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.  While he
has dismissed the appeal from the decertification and cost orders,
he cannot say the purported appeal from those orders was
necessarily frivolous.  NATC presented arguable issues as to their
appealability.  Moreover, he is mindful that if a judgment or
order is appealable, aggrieved parties must file an appeal or
forever lose the opportunity to obtain review.  The Judge agrees
with NATC that it could not risk forfeiting review of the orders
were they actually appealable.

The Judge directed the Plaintiffs to recover their costs on the
motion to dismiss the appeal.  He granted NATC's request for
judicial notice.  The stay issued on Sept. 19, 2017, is lifted and
the appeal from the order dismissing Doran will proceed.  The
Appellant's opening brief is due 30 days from the filing of the
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/sXCSpb from Leagle.com.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Barbara J. Miller --
barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- John D. Hayashi --
john.hayashi@morganlewis.com -- Thomas M. Peterson --
thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com -- Deborah E. Quick --
deborah.quick@morganlewis.com; Littler Mendelson, Michael E.
Brewer -- mbrewer@littler.com; Jackson Lewis and Bren K. Thomas --
Bren.Thomas@jacksonlewis.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian, Lawrence M. Artenian --
info@wagnerjones.com -- Laura E. Brown; Wanger Jones Helsley,
Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Patrick D. Toole -
- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com; Cornwell & Sample, Stephen R. Cornwell
-- inquiry@cornwellsample.com -- and Rene Turner Sample for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


NORTH DAKOTA: Faces "Hansen" Class Action
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of North
Dakota. The case is styled as Angela Hansen and B.D. by mother and
next friend, Angela Hansen, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. State of North Dakota, North Dakota State
Office of Court Administration, North Dakota County Court
Administrator, Wayne Stenhejem, In his individual and official
capacities as North Dakota Attorney General, Estate of Judge
Donald Jorgensen in his individual and official capacities as
Judge of the South Central Judicial District Court, Judge David E.
Reich In his individual and official capacities as Judge of the
South Central Judicial District, Presiding Judge Gail Hagerty in
her individual and official capacities as Presiding Judge of the
South Central Judicial District Court, Chief Justice Gerald
VandeWalle In his individual and official capacities as Chief
Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge Dale Sandstrom In
his individual and official capacities as Judge of the North
Dakota Supreme Court, Judge Carol Ronning-Kapsner In her
individual and official capacities as Judge of the North Dakota
Supreme Court, Judge Lisa Fair-McEvers In her individual and
official capacities as Judge of the North Dakota Supreme Court,
Judge Daniel Crothers In his individual and official capacities as
Judge of the North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge Richard Geiger In
his individual and official capacities as Judge of the North East
Judicial District Court, Sally Holewa In her individual and
official capacities as State Court Administrator, Donna Wonderlich
In her individual and official capacities as Court Administrator,
Ben C. Pulkrabek In his individual and official capacities as
attorney, Rodney I. Pagel, In his individual and official
capacities as attorney, Barb Oliger
In her individual and official capacities as parenting
investigator, Allison Mahoney, In her individual and official
capacities as Parenting Coordinator, Family Safety Center, Diane
Zainhofsky, In her individual and official capacities as Executive
Director of the FSC, Jamie (refuses to give her last name) In her
individual and official capacities as manager/employee of the FSC,
Michelle E. (refuses to give her last name) In her individual and
official capacities as Supervisor/employee of the FSC, Steve
Reiser, In his individual and official capacities as Director of
the Dakota Central Social Services, Sarah Fricke, In her
individual and official capacities as social worker of Dakota
Central Social Services, John/Jane Does of Dakota Central SS, In
their individual and official capacities as social workers of
DCSS, Alana Semchenko, In her individual and official capacities,
Dakota Central Social Services, North Dakota Department of Health
and Human Services, and Legal Services of North Dakota,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00236-CSM (D. N.D., November 3,
2017).

The Defendants are governments agencies and representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


OBAM MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zeas" Suit in Southern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Obam Management Inc.
doing business as: Pita Grill. The case is styled as Guillermo
Zeas and Carlos Alvaro Montiel Gutierrez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Obam Management
Inc. doing business as: Pita Grill, East Meets West LLC doing
business as: Pita Grill, Little Village Restaurant Inc. doing
business as: Pita Grill, 441 Partners Inc. doing business as: Pita
Grill, Ten28 Management Inc. doing business as: Pita Grill, John
Doe Corp. doing business as: Pita Grill, Ofer Biton, Bennett
Orfaly, John Doe 1, John Doe 2 and Juan Manuel Perez, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08540 (S.D. N.Y., November 3, 2017).

Obam Management Inc. doing business as: Pita Grill is a
Mediterranean Cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


OLIVINA NAPA: Faces "Evans" Suit in Eastern District of NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olivina Napa Valley
LLC. The case is styled as Patrick Evans, individually on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olivina
Napa Valley LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06450 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 6, 2017).

Olivina NAPA Valley LLC (trade name Olivina NAPA Valley) is in the
Cosmetics business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group P.C.
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Ste. 104
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Won't Dismiss Appeal in "Turman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER TURMAN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; KOJI'S JAPAN INCORPORATED et
al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. G051871 (Cal. App.), Judge
Richard D. Fybel of the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division Three, denied the Defendants' motion for
partial dismissal of the Plaintiffs' appeal.

Former restaurant employees sued their former employer, Koji's,
Koji's president, sole shareholder and director Arthur J. Parent,
Jr., and A.J. Parent Company, Inc., which is otherwise known as
America's Printer, of which Parent is also the president, sole
shareholder and director.  The Plaintiff employees alleged wage
and hour claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), claims under the unfair competition law, and
a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA").

In February 2013, the trial court certified the class as to Koji's
only as employer of the class and only as to those causes of
action derivative of the alleged meal and rest violations, namely
the first through fifth, ninth, and twelfth causes of action.  A
class was not certified as to the seventh or eighth causes of
action for violation of the wage order setting the minimum wage or
for violation of the FLSA.  The court also certified a tip-pooling
subclass defined as all persons who were employed by Koji's as
servers, hosts/hostesses, bussers, bartenders, and barbacks, at
any time from Nov. 16, 2006, through the date of the final
disposition in the action.

Following the court's ruling on the motion for class
certification, only the Named Plaintiffs' individual claims
against Parent (as a joint employer or alter ego of Koji's) and
against America's Printer (as an alter ego of Koji's) survived.

In a January 2014 minute order, the trial court denied the revised
motion to compel and awarded defendants $960 in sanctions against
the Plaintiffs' counsel for bringing the Motion which again fails
to meet the requirements of the Discovery Act and the court's
prior Order.

The Plaintiffs challenge four rulings: (i) the denial of their
revised motion to compel further responses to a set of document
requests; (ii) the concomitant issuance of discovery sanctions
against their counsel; (iii) an order only partially granting
their motion to certify a class action; and (iv) the trial court's
statement of decision determining that Parent and America's
Printer were not Koji's alter egos and Parent was not liable to
the Plaintiffs as a joint employer with regard to their state law
claims.

Parent and America's Printer filed a motion requesting that the
Court dismisses portions of this appeal they contend are not ripe.

Judge Fybal denied the Defendants' motion for partial dismissal of
the appeal.  He said the briefs and the record include the
necessary elements for a writ of mandate and there is no
indication the trial court would appear in a writ proceeding.  The
parties' counsel have agreed on the record that the trial court
rulings have in effect resulted in preventing a class action from
going forward because the remaining certified class claims are
against a single entity (Koji's) which is insolvent.  Requiring
the parties to wait for final judgment following litigation of the
remaining issues might lead to unnecessary trial proceedings.
Although the Defendants would like to dismiss portions of the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, on balance the circumstances
justify treating the Plaintiffs' appeal as a petition for a writ
of mandate.

Judge Fybel granted writ relief with regard to each challenged
ruling.  He held that the trial court erred by granting the motion
to certify a class as to the Plaintiffs' claims against only
Koji's because the court applied improper criteria in determining
Parent's potential liability as a joint employer on a class-wide
basis.  He also held that the trial court prejudicially erred by
denying the Plaintiffs' revised motion to compel further responses
to a set of document requests, and also by sanctioning the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

Because, he directed the trial court to vacate its order denying
the revised motion to compel further responses to discovery on
alter ego issues, he directed the court to also vacate its
findings that Parent and America's Printer were not Koji's alter
egos.  Even if he did not direct the trial court to vacate its
alter ego findings because of the court's error in denying the
revised motion compel, the Judge nevertheless ordered the court to
vacate those findings because the court applied incorrect legal
standards for alter ego liability.

Although the court's statement of decision correctly cites
Martinez v. Combs as setting forth the three alternative
definitions of employer applied in analyzing certain violations of
the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage
orders, the statement of decision misapplied those definitions.
In addition, Judge Fybel said the trial court failed to address
whether Parent might be a joint employer under the definitions of
the term employer applicable to the Plaintiffs' claims under the
unfair competition law, the tip misappropriation statute, and
PAGA.  The Petitioners will recover costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/cslbxY from Leagle.com.

Bryan Schwartz Law and Bryan Schwartz -- bschwartz@gvlaw.com;
Altshuler Berzon and Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -
- for Petitioners.

Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds and Timothy G. Williams for
California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Petitioners.

Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center, Katherine Fiester --
kfiester@legalaidatwork.org -- and Carole Vigne --
cvigne@legalaidatwork.org; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
and Jean H. Choi -- jchoi@laane.org; National Employment Law
Project and Anthony Mischel; Wage Justice Center, Zachary Ritter
and Matt Sirolly for Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los
Angeles, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus,
Centro Legal de la Raza, Legal Aid Society - Employment Law
Center, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, National
Employment Law Project, Wage Justice Center, Women's Employment
Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Law Office of Stephen A. Madoni and Stephen A. Madoni --
stevemadoni@aol.com -- for Real Parties in Interest.


PROCOLLECT INC: Faces "Cagle" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect, Inc. The
case is styled as Charles Cagle, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ProCollect, Inc. a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-
62194-DPG (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2017).

Procollect, Inc., is a Texas corporation that conducted business
in the state of California and in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert William Murphy, Esq.
   1212 SE 2nd Avenue
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
   Tel: (954) 763-8660
   Fax: 763-8607
   Email: rphyu@aol.com


PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the case, IN RE PSYCHEMEDICS
CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 17-10186-RGS (D.
Mass.).

The putative securities fraud class action was brought against the
Defendants by Plaintiff Mary Kathleen Hermann on behalf of all
other similarly situated holders of Psychemedics stock during the
proposed class period for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint
alleges that Psychemedics misled investors by failing to disclose
that its independent distributor in Brazil, Psychemedics Brasil,
had become secretly entwined in a cartel scheme with a competitor
in violation of Brazilian law, the eventual public disclosure of
which precipitated a steep drop in Psychemedics' stock price.

The prospective class consists of all purchasers of Psychemedics
common stock between Feb. 10, 2014, and Jan. 31, 2017.  The
Defendants now move to dismiss.  The Court heard oral argument on
Oc. 19, 2017.

Judge Stearns finds that the Complaint is devoid of any factual
allegations that would tend to support an inference (much less
direct evidence) that Psychemedics knew of the anti-competitive
cabal between Psychemedics Brasil and Omega Brasil prior to it
coming to light in the Brazilian lawsuit.  Instead, the Complaint
simply asks the court to assume knowledge on the part of
Psychemedics and to impute a concomitant duty of disclosure to
investors.  The common skein running through all the Plaintiff's
allegations is that Psychemedics knew, or must have known, of its
distributor's wrongdoing, yet there are no factual allegations
even suggesting that that was the case.

In sum, the Judge says the mere fact that the Defendants stood to
gain from the success of the company's planned expansion into
Brazil, and that they therefore may have had an incentive to hide
fraud (which they may or may not have known about), does not
support an inference of scienter that is as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.

Because the Complaint fails to allege any facts that give rise to
an inference that Psychemedics had any inkling of the Brazilian
scheme during the time period it is accused of failing to bring
its existence to light, and because the Plaintiff's other efforts
to establish scienter are speculative and unconvincing, Judge
Stearns granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He directed
the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/qp42p1 from Leagle.com.

Austin Baughman, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Theodore
M. Hess-Mahan -- thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com -- Hutchings,
Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP.

Austin Baughman, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Brenda
Szydlo -- bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

John Daly, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Daniel Holzer, Holzer
Holzer & Fistel LLC, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Tamar A.
Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Brenda Szydlo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall P. Dees --
mdees@holzerlaw.com -- Holzer & Holzer LLC, pro hac vice, Shannon
L. Hopkins, Levi Korsinsky LLP & Theodore M. Hess-Mahan,
Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP.

Pyschemedics Corporation, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia
-- JSylvia@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky &
Popeo, PC.

Raymond C. Kubacki, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia,
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

James Dykes, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia, Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Neil Lerner, Defendant, represented by John F. Sylvia, Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Mary Kathleen Hermann, Movant, represented by Theodore M. Hess-
Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP.

Psychemedics Investor Group, Movant, represented by Shannon L.
Hopkins, Levi Korsinsky LLP.

Alain Couet, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
Korsinsky LLP.

Brandon Weyer, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
Korsinsky LLP.

John Parrish, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
Korsinsky LLP.

Paul McBride, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
Korsinsky LLP.

Frank D'Ambrosio, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
Korsinsky LLP.


PURE BRAZILIAN: Faces "Khallili" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Brazilian, LLC.
The case is styled as Houman Khallili, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pure
Brazilian, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06425 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 5, 2017).

Pure Brazilian, LLC is engaged in producing pure coconut
water.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
   Levin-Epstein& Associates
   One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 792-0046
   Fax: (212) 563-7108
   Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Court Directs Amendment of Complaint in "Garvin"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting in part Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and Compel Arbitration Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act and Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6), and to Stay Discovery
Pending Determination of the Motions in the case captioned LEEZA
GARVIN, et al., Plaintiff, v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-25221-CIV-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.).

Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class/Collective Action Complaint
alleging that Defendants misclassified them as licensees instead
of employees.  Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of this
misclassification, Defendants failed to pay them minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Plaintiffs also allege a claim under Article X, Section
24, of the Florida Constitution for failure to pay minimum wages.

Plaintiffs initially alleged that the Court had both supplemental
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, and original
jurisdiction, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
over Plaintiffs' Florida claim.  Now that Plaintiffs have
dismissed their FLSA claim, Section 1367 no longer provides a
basis for supplemental jurisdiction and the Court must ascertain
whether it has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' purely state
law claim under CAFA.

CAFA provides for federal jurisdiction over class actions in which
the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, at least one member
of the class and one defendant are from different states, and the
class exceeds 100 members. Plaintiffs allege that (1) the class is
between 100 and 500 members; (2) the amount is controversy exceeds
$5,000,000; and (3) there is diversity between at least one
Plaintiff and/or member of the class and Defendants. However,
Plaintiffs only allege the residence of Garvin (New York) and
Farnsworth (Florida). It is well settled law that an allegation of
residence is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The
plaintiff must allege citizenship.
Tootsies, the location where Plaintiffs contend they worked but
were not properly compensated, is in Miami Gardens, Florida. It is
likely that more than two-thirds of the class members, dancers at
Tootsies, are citizens of Florida. In addition, Plaintiffs allege
that RCI and Miami Gardens Square One each do business in Miami,
Florida. The Amended Complaint is not clear as to the citizenship
of those Defendants.

If one of the Defendants is a Florida citizen, it is likely that
the local controversy exception would apply, thus requiring the
Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction.

The Court will address the local controversy and home-state
exceptions if and when Plaintiffs file an amended complaint which
adequately alleges subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration Pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act and Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6),
and to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of the Motions are
granted in part.

Plaintiffs are directed to file an Amended Complaint immediately.

In the event the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claim, the Court reserves
ruling on whether this matter must proceed in arbitration.

Defendants do not need to file additional briefing on issues
related to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration
provision and may incorporate their prior arguments into a brief
response -- raising any new defenses -- to Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint.

The Court will hear argument on the issues raised in Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration and in Defendants' Motion
for Sanctions, including:

   a. Whether the Court has, and should exercise, subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims;

   b. Whether the parties' agreements require an arbitrator, as
opposed to the Court, to determine whether the arbitration
encompasses Plaintiffs' claims;

   c. If the Court decides arbitrability, whether the parties'
agreement mandates arbitration of their wage claims;

   d. Whether the Court should refrain from ruling on the
enforceability of the arbitration provisions' class action waivers
until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, 137 S.Ct. 809 (Mem.) (2017); and

   e. Whether Plaintiffs should be subject to sanctions based on

      i. Plaintiffs' refiling of this matter after previously
dismissing the same claims to proceed in arbitration, and

     ii. Plaintiffs' filing FLSA claims despite knowing those
claims were time-barred.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8ngsbygfrom
Leagle.com.

Leeza Garvin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch, Morgan
& Morgan, 20 North Orange Ave, Suite 1600, Orlando, FL 32801

Jenell Farnsworth, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
Rene Resnick, Aaron Resnick Law Offices, 100 North Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 1607, Miami, FL, 33132, Jeffrey A. Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com
-Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Davidoff,
Davidoff Law Firm, PLLC, 60 E 42nd St #2231, New York, NY 10165,
USA & Racquel Crespi Weintraub -- rcw@msf-law.com -- Meister
Seelig & Fein, LLP, pro hac vice.

Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
Rene Resnick, Aaron Resnick Law Offices, Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Davidoff,
Davidoff Law Firm, PLLC & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig
& Fein, LLP, pro hac vice.

Eric Langan, Defendant, represented by Aaron Rene Resnick, Aaron
Resnick Law Offices, Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan Davidoff, Davidoff Law Firm, PLLC & Racquel
Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP, pro hac vice.


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Jackson" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC.  The case is styled as Deshawn
Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06515 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Receivables Performance is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel:(917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


REDMONT PROPERTIES: "Padilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Padilla v. Redmont Properties, LLC, Redmont Properties
E.G., LLC, Redmont Properties of Homewood, LLC, and Fred G.
Nunnelly III, Case No. 2:17-cv-01826-MHH (N.D. Ala., October 30,
2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated to recover damages for the Defendants' willful
conduct and continuous willful practice of not paying him, and
others similarly situated, the full earned wages and overtime
earned.

The Defendants are in the business of real property management in
various locations of Jefferson County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vicenta Bonet-Smith, Esq.
      BONET & SMITH, PC
      3499 Independence Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 870-2222
      Facsimile: (205) 870-3331
      E-mail: Vicenta@bonetsmith.com


RIVERDALE CAR: Court Approves $67.5K Settlement of FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Parties' Joint
Application to Approve their Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned OBDULIO ANTONIO CONTRERAS MATA, RAFAEL AVILES PINEDA and
FELIX LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIVERDALE CAR WASH & DETAIL CENTER, INC.
d/b/a RIVERDALE CAR WASH, MVP CAR WASH, LLC d/b/a MVP CAR WASH,
and PETER DELLA MURA and SALVADOR DELLA MURA, as individuals,
Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 9100 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.).

This is an action brought by three individuals who were employed
as car washers at defendants' car wash and detail shops and seeks
allegedly unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay. The
action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs also assert claims based on
defendants' alleged failure to maintain certain payroll records
and to provide certain notices as required by the Labor Law.

After a protracted discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
the parties' respective positions, the parties agreed to resolve
the dispute for a total amount of $67,500.00.

In determining whether [a] proposed [FLSA] settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court should consider the totality of circumstances,
including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the
plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which
the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated
burdens and expenses in establishing their respective claims and
defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the
parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product of
arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the
possibility of fraud or collusion.

First, after deduction of attorney's fees and costs, the net
settlement represents approximately 34.1% of the plaintiffs'
estimated unpaid wages. The amount of the settlement allocated to
plaintiff Mata represents 34.5% of his claimed unpaid wages, the
amount allocated to plaintiff Pineda represents 43.6% of his
claimed unpaid wages and the amount allocated to plaintiff Lopez
represents 29.1% of his claimed unpaid wages. Given the risks of
litigation, the settlement amount is reasonable.

Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and
aggravation of litigation. Although the parties have conducted
some discovery, additional discovery will be needed in order for
to prepare for trial. Settlement avoids the necessity of
conducting additional discovery and preparing for a trial.

Third, the settlement will enable plaintiffs to avoid the risks of
litigation.

Fourth, because the Court presided over the settlement conference
that lead to the settlement, it knows that the settlement is the
product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.
Both counsel represented their clients zealously at the settlement
conference.

Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybv9e2v5from
Leagle.com.

Obdulio Antonio Mata, Plaintiff, represented by James Patrick
Peter O'Donnell, Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C., 69-12 Austin
Street Forest Hills, NY 11375-4239

Obdulio Antonio Mata, Plaintiff, represented by Helen F. Dalton,
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C., 69-12 Austin Street, Forest
Hills, NY 11375-4239

Rafael Pineda, Plaintiff, represented by Helen F. Dalton, Helen F.
Dalton & Associates, P.C. & James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Helen
F. Dalton & Associates, P.C..

Obdulio Antonio Mata, Plaintiff, represented by James Patrick
Peter O'Donnell, Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. & Helen F.
Dalton, Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C..

Rafael Pineda, Plaintiff, represented by James Patrick Peter
O'Donnell, Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. & Helen F. Dalton,
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C..

Riverdale Car Wash & Detail Center, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Walter Francis Ciacci, Dellamura & Ciacci, LLP, 981 Allerton
Ave Bronx, NY, 10469-4336

MVP Car Wash, LLC, Defendant, represented by Walter Francis
Ciacci, Dellamura & Ciacci, LLP.

Peter Della Mura, Defendant, represented by Walter Francis Ciacci,
Dellamura & Ciacci, LLP.

Salvador Della Mura, Defendant, represented by Walter Francis
Ciacci, Dellamura & Ciacci, LLP.


SAFAVIEH INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safavieh, Inc.  The
case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Safavieh, Inc. and
Safavieh Carpets, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08681 (S.D.
N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Safavieh Inc. provides home products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Won't Certify Class in Polinsky Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem,
Helen Garter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; JESSIE POLINSKY
CHILDREN'S CENTER; and SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY, Defendants, Case No. 15cv1868-MMA (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiff contests the constitutionality of medical
examinations conducted on children at Polinsky Children's Center,
a 24-hour facility of San Diego County for the temporary emergency
shelter of children who are separated from their families.

On Aug. 22, 2014, the Plaintiff alleges he was taken to Polinsky
and upon his arrival, he was given a cursory wellness check by
staff and placed into the general population.  The next morning,
he contends he was subjected to a physical examination, including
an external examination of his genitalia and rectum.  He alleges
that his mother was not notified of the examination, was not
present for it, and did not consent to it.  The Plaintiff contends
that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the
examination, nor had the County or its agents obtained a court
order or warrant.

Based on the examination at Polinsky, Plaintiff D.C., a minor,
filed the putative class action through his guardian ad litem
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging the Defendants
violated his and putative class members' constitutional rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.  He contends that Defendant County is liable to him
and putative class members because Polinsky maintained a policy,
custom, and practice of subjecting all children admitted to
Polinsky to the same 22-point physical examination that the
Plaintiff was subjected to within 24 hours of their admittance.

The FAC states that the County's policy, custom, and practice
explicitly prohibited parents from attending the examinations, and
that County physicians routinely conducted the examinations
without first notifying the children's parents or legal guardians,
and without a court order, warrant, or the presence of exigent
circumstances.  The Plaintiff filed the FAC on Feb. 19, 2016, and
requests general damages, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of all children
who had not yet reached 20 years of age as of Aug. 24, 2015 and
who were placed at A.B. and Jessie Polinsky Children's Center and
subjected to a physical examination without the presence of their
parent or legal guardian, without the consent of their parent or
legal guardian, without an individualized order of the court
authorizing their examination, and without exigent circumstances.
Defendant County of San Diego filed its response in opposition,
and the Plaintiff replied.

The Plaintiff also moves to strike the Declaration of Jennifer L.
Davis in its entirety, which the Defendant submitted in support of
its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Judge Anello denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Davis
Declaration.  The Judge finds that filing the Davis Declaration
three days late is insufficient to strike the entirety of the
declaration.  He disagrees with the Plaintiff's contention that
the topics discussed in the Davis Declaration are irrelevant to
class certification and grossly mischaracterizes Dr. Davis' four-
hour deposition testimony.  He also finds that Dr. Davis does not
contradict testimony that the primary purpose of nursing
assessments is to detect contagion; rather, Dr. Davis merely
declares that doctors also check for contagion.

Judge Anello also denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  He says while the Plaintiff has met the
requirements of Rule 23(a), the Plaintiff has failed to carry his
burden of demonstrating predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).  The
Plaintiff has similarly failed to show that individualized damages
issues do not predominate over common issues.

Regardless of whether presumed damages are applicable to the
alleged constitutional violations, individualized damages issues
predominate over common questions.  If presumed damages are
applicable, the Plaintiff concedes that the class members'
injuries would not be fully compensated because the Plaintiff
states that the individual members would be permitted to seek
individualized damages in addition to the presumed damages award.
Further, presumed damages and compensatory damages both must
compensate for the injury, which here is dependent upon the
individual.  Either option requires individualized inquiry which
would overwhelm the common damages questions, if any common
damages questions exist at all.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WEi2HD from Leagle.com.

D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Donnie R. Cox, Law Offices of
Donnie R Cox.

D.C., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Gilbert Cooper --
kcooper@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
pro hac vice, Paul W. Leehey, Law Office of Paul W Leehey, Rachele
R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
and Herz, Carree K. Nahama, Law Office of Carree K. Nahama &
Jeffrey G. Smith -- smith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP.

County of San Diego, Defendant, represented by Christina Isabel
Vilaseca, San Diego County Counsel & David L. Brodie, Office of
the County Councel.

A.B. and Jessie Polinsky Children's Center, Defendant, represented
by Christina Isabel Vilaseca, San Diego County Counsel & David L.
Brodie, Office of the County Councel.

San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Defendant,
represented by Christina Isabel Vilaseca, San Diego County Counsel
& David L. Brodie, Office of the County Councel.

Helen Garter, Guardian Ad Litem Party, represented by Donnie R.
Cox, Law Offices of Donnie R Cox, Jeffrey G. Smith, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.


SCANA CORPORATION: Violates Securities Laws, "Evans" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH EVANS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCANA CORPORATION, KEVIN B. MARSH, and JIMMY E.
ADDISON, Case No. 3:17-cv-02683-MBS (D.S.C., October 5, 2017),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

SCANA, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to retail and
wholesale customers in South Carolina.  The Company is
incorporated in South Carolina and its principal executive offices
are located in Cayce, South Carolina.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance S. Boozer, Esq.
          THE BOOZER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1400 Laurel Street, Suite 4A
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 608-5543
          Facsimile: (803) 926-3463
          E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


SCI PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Schaefer" Suit in Eastern District of Pa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCI Pennsylvania
Funeral Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Marjorie Schaefer
and Caroline Bernstein, an individual, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCI Pennsylvania
Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation International, Inc.
doing business as: shalom memorial park and forest hills cemetery,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM (E.D. Pa., November 3,
2017).

SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. offers Funeral Service and
Crematories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   BRYAN R. LENTZ, Esq.
   BOCHETTO & LENTZ PC
   1524 LOCUST ST
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 735-3900
   Email: blentz@bochettoandlentz.com

      - and -

   JOSEPH G. SAUDER, Esq.
   McCune Wright Arevalo LLP
   555 Lancaster Avenue
   Berwyn, PA 19312
   Tel: (610) 200-0580
   Email: jgs@mccunewright.com


SEAMAN SCHEPPS: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seaman Schepps & Co.
Inc.  The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Seaman Schepps & Co. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08606 (S.D.
N.Y., November 7, 2017).

Seaman Schepps Co. Inc designs, manufactures, and markets jewelry
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHEA PROPERTIES: Class Certification Denial in "Reynolds" Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District
Court denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned JASON REYNOLDS et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. SHEA PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendant
and Respondent, No. B268949 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs allege that Shea improperly deducts fees for cleaning
and painting from tenants' security deposits after tenants vacate
their apartments.  Plaintiffs allege that the fees are improper
because they are governed by policies requiring that the tenant be
charged for (1) all cleaning costs and (2) some or all painting
costs depending solely on the duration of the tenancy rather than
on an assessment of the actual condition of the paint.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the following class: All
California residents who were tenants in properties managed by
Shea, and who from four years preceding the filing of the
Complaint until January 5, 2015, were charged out of their
security deposit by Shea for a third-party vendor cleaning or
painting fee.  Plaintiffs argued that Shea charged departing
tenants a flat-rate fee for cleaning based on the number of
bedrooms in the unit whenever the cleaning was performed by a
third-party vendor. Plaintiffs argued that Shea imposed such a fee
regardless of the level of uncleanliness.

The court found that plaintiffs had established that the class was
sufficiently numerous and ascertainable and that the class
representatives and class counsel were adequate. However, the
court found that plaintiffs had failed to establish (1)
commonality, (2) typicality, and (3) superiority. The court
stated, the bottom line is that adjudication of a certified class
action on the merits would require a highly individualized
analysis of the condition of each putative class member's
apartment at move-out to determine whether or not defendant is
liable to each such class member for improper collection of
cleaning and/or painting charges.

Plaintiffs contend that (1) common issues of fact or law
predominate over individual issues with respect to the class
claims; (2) their claims are typical of the class claims; and (3)
a class action is the superior method to resolve this dispute.

The Cal. App. addressed only the first contention, which is
sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

Class Certification Legal Principles

A party moving for class certification must show (1) a
sufficiently numerous, ascertainable class, (2) a well-defined
community of interest among class members, and (3) that
certification will provide substantial benefits to litigants and
the courts, meaning that a class action is superior to other
methods of conducting the litigation. The community of interest
requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common
questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or
defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who
can adequately represent the class.

The Cal. App. reviewed the order granting or denying class
certification for abuse of discretion.

The Cal. App. finds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that common issues do not predominate.  The
Cal. App. said it is mindful that a class certification motion is
not a license for a free-floating inquiry into the validity of the
complaint's allegations; rather, resolution of disputes over the
merits of a case generally must be postponed until after class
certification has been decided [citation], with the court assuming
for purposes of the certification motion that any claims have
merit  At the same time, whether common or individual questions
predominate will often depend upon resolution of issues closely
tied to the merits, so courts may peek' at the merits to the
extent necessary to resolve class certification.

Here, plaintiffs' argument that common issues predominate is based
entirely on the contention that Shea uniformly applies certain
policies concerning painting and cleaning charges. The argument is
unavoidably intertwined with plaintiffs' theory of liability,
plaintiffs allege that Shea's conduct is unlawful because Shea
uniformly applies the policies at issue without evaluating and
taking into account the condition of each unit. Thus, because the
propriety of certification depends upon disputed threshold legal
or factual questions, the trial court may, and indeed must,
resolve them.

Plaintiffs have not shown that the trial court abused its
discretion in determining that adjudication of a certified class
action on the merits would require a highly individualized
analysis of the condition of each putative class member's
apartment at move-out to determine whether or not defendant is
liable to each such class member for improper collection of
cleaning and/or painting charges. Because plaintiffs have not
shown any abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination
that common issues do not predominate, we must affirm the order
denying class certification.

The Cal. App. therefore need not address plaintiffs' remaining
arguments.

The order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s October 23, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yawzksl6from Leagle.com.

Kabateck Brown Kellner, Brian Kabateck, Christopher B. Noyes,
Shant A. Karnikian; Law Offices of Alexander J. Perez and
Alexander J. Perez for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, J. Warren Rissier and Jordan McCrary for
Defendant and Respondent.


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Mallh"
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted Showtime Networks Inc.'s motion to
compel arbitration the case, VICTOR MALLH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHOWTIME
NETWORKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 17cv6549(DLC) (S.D. N.Y.).

On Aug. 26, 2017, Mallh paid $99.95 to view the boxing match
between Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Conor McGregor as a live stream
via www.showtimeppv.com.  To purchase the live stream, Mallh --
like all users of Showtime's website streaming service -- had to
agree to Showtime's terms of use ("TOU").  The TOU contained the
following arbitration clause and class action waiver.  In
addition, the TOU contains a choice of law provision selecting
California law.

Mallh contends that he did not realize that by signing up to watch
the Event he was being asked to submit claims against Showtime to
arbitration on an individual, non-class basis.  He asserts that he
was unable to watch a substantial portion of the Event because
Showtime's service continually logged him out.  During the periods
in which he was able to watch the Event, the pictures were
delayed, cutting out, or otherwise incomplete.  Mallh asserts
further that he has tried to obtain a refund but has not
succeeded.

Mallh filed the putative class action on Aug. 28, 2017, and
asserts claims for breach of contract, consumer fraud and/or
unconscionable or unfair practices, violations of New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and unjust enrichment.  The
complaint asserts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

On Oct. 11, 2017, Showtime moved to compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, to dismiss the complaint in part and/or to strike the
class allegations.  Mallh opposed Showtime's motion to compel
arbitration on Oct. 27, 2017.  The motion became fully submitted
on Nov. 3, 2017.

Judge Cote finds Mallh's arguments unavailing.  The Website is not
cluttered.  The purchase page is neatly organized and requires the
user to supply a limited amount of information in order to
complete the purchase.  It does not contain photos, links to
promotional materials, or other extraneous material.  Nor are the
arbitration clause and class action waiver buried behind the
hyperlinks.  They appear in the hyperlinked TOU, which is the
first linked document.  While the grey text of the titles to the
hyperlinked documents is smaller than other text on the page, the
titles are underlined and clearly visible against the black
background of the Website.

Once a user accesses the TOU, the arbitration clause and class
action waiver are reasonably conspicuous.  They are contained in a
separate section entitled "Disputes; Arbitration" that extends
over three paragraphs.  Under these circumstances, a purchaser of
the Event would be on reasonably conspicuous notice of the
arbitration clause and class action waiver.

Judge Cote further finds that Mallh's manifestation of assent is
also unambiguous as a matter of law.  Mallh does not dispute that
he affirmatively clicked on a box agreeing to the TOU.  Because
notice of the arbitration clause and class action waiver was
reasonably conspicuous and Mallh unambiguously manifested assent,
the Judge granted Showtime's motion to compel arbitration.  He
stayed the action pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/oabBwk from Leagle.com.

Victor Mallh, Plaintiff, represented by Orin Robert Kurtz --
mgardy@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Showtime Networks Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Shaun
Hochstadt -- eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
& Yehudah Lev Buchweitz -- yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com -- Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP.


SLEEPY HOLLOW: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Villasin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Sleepy Hollow Country, Case No. 611534/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., October 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay employees' gratuities at the Sleepy Hollow Country
Club.

The Sleepy Hollow Country operates a country club located at 777
Albany Post Road, Scarborough, New York 10510. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHEAST ALABAMA: Court Refuses to Reopen "Carrigan"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Reopen Case and for an Order Staying the Effect of the
Court's Remand Order Pending Appeal in the case captioned DAWN
COBB CARRIGAN and JANET GATES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHEAST ALABAMA RURAL
HEALTH ASSOCIATES; GREENWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC; GREENWAY EHS, INC.;
SUNRISE TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS; and LEE INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-114-WKW (M.D. Ala.).

The District Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
remanding the action to the Circuit Court of Pike County, Alabama,
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.  The same date the Clerk of the District
Court furnished a copy of the remand order to the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Pike County.  The Greenway Defendants requested
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the District Court's decision as provided in 28 U.S.C. Section
1453(c)(1), and that request is pending in the circuit.

The Greenway Defendants have obtained a stay of the state-court
proceedings the same relief they seek in the District Court from
the Circuit Court of Pike County, where the action is pending.
Further relief from this court appears to be unnecessary.
Moreover, given the unsettled jurisdictional issue and the fact
that the Circuit Court of Pike County has stayed the action, this
court in its discretion declines to rule on the merits of the
motion and deems the motion moot.

Accordingly, the District Court orders that the Greenway
Defendants' Motion to Reopen Case and for an Order Staying the
Effect of the Court's Remand Order Pending Appeal is denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ya5v85rhfrom Leagle.com.

Dawn Cobb Carrigan, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Davenport
Hudson, Penn & Seaborn, LLC, 5 Court SquarePost Office Box, 688
Clayton, AL 36016

Dawn Cobb Carrigan, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Diane Crow
-- ccrow@jinkslaw.com -- Jinks Crow & Dickson, PC, Grady Andrew
Reeves, Cervera, Ralph Reeves Baker & Hastings, LLC, Box 325.
Troy, AL 36081 0325, Larry Shane Seaborn, Penn and Seaborn, LLC,
PO Box 688. Clayton, AL 36016 0688, Lynn Wilson Jinks, III, Jinks
Crow & Dickson, PC, Matthew Michael Baker, Cervera Ralph Reeves
Baker & Hastings, LLC, Po Box 325, Troy, AL, 36081-0325,, Myron
Cordell Penn, Penn & Seaborn LLC, 5 Court SquarePost Office Box,
688 Clayton, AL 36016,  & Nicholas Joseph Cervera, Cervera Ralph
Reeves Baker & Hastings, LLC, Box 325. Troy, AL 36081 0325,

Janet Gates, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Davenport Hudson,
Penn & Seaborn, LLC, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks Crow & Dickson,
PC, Grady Andrew Reeves, Cervera, Ralph Reeves Baker & Hastings,
LLC, Larry Shane Seaborn, Penn and Seaborn, LLC, Lynn Wilson
Jinks, III, Jinks Crow & Dickson, PC, Matthew Michael Baker,
Cervera Ralph Reeves Baker & Hastings, LLC, Myron Cordell Penn,
Penn & Seaborn LLC & Nicholas Joseph Cervera, Cervera Ralph Reeves
Baker & Hastings, LLC.

Southeast Alabama Rural Health Associates, Defendant, represented
by David A. Cole, dcole@fmglaw.com Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP, pro
hac vice, Joseph Lamar Cowan, II -- jcowan@handarendall.com --
Hand Arendall & Roger Lee Bates -- rbates@handarendall.com -- Hand
Arendall, LLC.

Greenway Health, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald H.
Crawford, II -- dcrawford@czcfirm.com -- Cope Zebro & Crawford,
pro hac vice, Robert D. Zebro, Cope Zebro & Crawford PL, 14020
Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 802, Clearwater, FL 33762, Sara
Elizabeth C. Matthews, Matthews Law Firm & William B. Matthews,
Jr., Matthews Law Firm. 141 East Reynolds Street, P.O. BOX 1145,
Ozark, Alabama 36361

Greenway EHS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald H. Crawford,
II, Cope Zebro & Crawford, pro hac vice, Robert D. Zebro, Cope
Zebro & Crawford PL, Sara Elizabeth C. Matthews, Matthews Law Firm
& William B. Matthews, Jr., Matthews Law Firm.

Sunrise Technology Consultants LLC, Defendant, represented by
Elbert Allen Dodd, Jr., Scruggs, Dodd & Brisendine, Attorneys,
P.A. 207 Alabama Avenue Southwest, Fort Payne, AL 35967

Lee Investment Consultants LLC, Defendant, represented by Elbert
Allen Dodd, Jr., Scruggs, Dodd & Brisendine, Attorneys, P.A.


STAAR SURGICAL: Court OKs $7MM Settlement in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment approving Class Action Settlement and
Dismissing the Action in the case captioned EDWARD TODD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. STAAR SURGICAL COMPANY, BARRY G. CALDWELL, and JOHN
SANTOS Defendants, Case No. CV 14-5263 MWF (GJS) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Edward Todd (Lead Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and
the Class Members, Defendants STAAR Surgical Company, Barry G.
Caldwell, and John Santos (Defendants) have agreed to settle the
class action suit on the following terms:

   * The Settlement Amount is $7 million.  The Court finally
approves the Settlement in all respects as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
pursuant to Rule 23(e). The Settlement was not a product of fraud
or collusion, and the Court finds it satisfies Rule 23(e) after
considering (i) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of
the Action; (ii) the stage of the proceedings and amount of
discovery completed; (iii) the factual and legal obstacles to
prevailing on the merits; (iv) the possible range of recovery; (v)
the respective opinions of the parties, including Lead Plaintiff,
Class Counsel, Defendants, and Defendants' Counsel; and (vi) any
objections submitted by Class Members.

   * Plaintiff's Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount
of $7 million and expenses, including experts' fees and expenses,
in the amount of $350,000, such amounts to be paid from out of the
Gross Settlement Fund no later than five (5) business days
following the entry of this Order.

   * Lead Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $10,000, as reasonable
costs and expenses directly relating to the representation of the
Class as provided in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), such amounts
to be paid from out of the Gross Settlement Fund no later than
five (5) business days following the entry of this Order.

All of the claims asserted in the Action by Lead Plaintiff and the
other Class Members against Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice. The Parties will bear their own costs and expenses,
except as otherwise expressly provided in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Judgment
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yawpwdj4from Leagle.com.

Edward Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.
Edward Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Marc I.
Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Kevin F.
Ruf -kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Staar Surgical Company, Defendant, represented by Dan E.
Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP
& Kai S. Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP.

Barry G. Caldwell, Defendant, represented by Dan E. Marmalefsky,
Morrison and Foerster LLP & Kai S. Bartolomeo, Morrison and
Foerster LLP.

John Santos, Defendant, represented by Dan E. Marmalefsky,
Morrison and Foerster LLP & Kai S. Bartolomeo, Morrison and
Foerster LLP.


STARWOOD WAYPOINT: Bushansky Questions Merger w/ Invitation Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. STARWOOD WAYPOINT HOMES, STARWOOD WAYPOINT
HOMES PARTNERSHIP, L.P., FREDERICK C. TUOMI, BARRY S. STERNLICHT,
THOMAS M. BOWERS, RICHARD D. BRONSON, MICHAEL D. FASCITELLI, RENEE
LEWIS GLOVER, JEFFREY E. KELTER, THOMAS W. KNAPP, and J. RONALD
TERWILLIGER, Case No. 1:17-cv-02936-JFM (D. Md., October 4, 2017),
seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Starwood and Invitation Homes Inc. and their respective
affiliates, will combine in a merger-of-equals.

On August 9, 2017, Starwood Waypoint Homes ("SFR") and Starwood
Waypoint Homes Partnership, L.P. ("SFR LP), entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with INVH, Invitation Homes Operating
Partnership LP, and IH Merger Sub, LLC.  Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, each common share of SFR will be converted
into the right to receive 1.6140 newly issued shares of common
stock of INVH.

SFR is a Maryland real estate investment trust and maintains its
principal executive offices in Scottsdale, Arizona.  SFR LP is a
Delaware limited partnership.  A wholly-owned subsidiary of SFR is
the sole general partner of SFR LP, and SFR conducts substantially
all of its business through SFR LP.  The Individual Defendants are
officers and/or trustees of SFR's Board of Trustees.

Starwood is an internally managed Maryland real estate investment
trust that has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal
Revenue Code.  The Company began operations in March 2012
primarily to acquire, renovate, lease and manage residential
assets in select markets throughout the country.  As of June 30,
2017, Starwood's portfolio consisted of 34,379 owned properties,
including 33,571 rental properties and 808 properties that
Starwood does not intend to hold for the long term.

INVH is a Maryland corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Dallas, Texas.  INVH LP is a Delaware limited
partnership and is wholly-owned by INVH.  REIT Merger Sub is a
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of INVH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  bstewart@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces "Devitt" Suit in E.D. of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc.  The case is styled as Thomas Devitt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-06520 (E.D. N.Y., November 8, 2017).

Synergetic Communication Inc. is a debt collection firm in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Ellison" Suit Included in Chinese Drywall MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned BRYAN ELLISON, et al., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO. LTD.
f/k/a SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO. LTD., Case No. 4:16-cv-01839 was
transferred on October 5, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).  The Louisiana
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-09827-EEF-JCW to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation styled
In re: Chinese-manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW.

The matter arises from the manufacture, distribution, sale, and
installation of Chinese-manufactured drywall, which is contained
in homes owned or occupied by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs have
filed suit against the manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and
installers of the Chinese drywall, as well as others in the chain
of commerce, and their insurers, alleging this drywall emits foul
odors and damages metal and electronic elements and devices in
their homes.[BN]

Plaintiff Bryan Ellison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (205) 332-1362
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com


TEEKAY CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, MAEVE
INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. TEEKAY CORP.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. C16-1908 MJP (W.D. Wash.), and the
Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.

Teekay is a provider of international crude oil and gas marine
transportation services whose primary assets are two daughter
companies: Teekay LNG Partners L.P. ("TGP") and Teekay Offshore
Partners L.P. ("TOO").  Teekay, as the general partner in the
daughter companies, receives cash distributions from them which it
passes on to shareholders as dividend payments.  At the outset of
the class period in this litigation (February 2015), Teekay
identified a backlog of approximately $7 billion in vessel
construction and other capital projects.

In September 2014, Teekay announced the approval of a new dividend
policy whereby it planned to increase its annualized cash dividend
by approximately 75% to 80% above its current rate, and that it
expected to further increase its dividend payment by approximately
20% per annum for the next three years.  On June 30, 2015, Teekay
declared a quarterly cash dividend which reflected the increase it
had previously announced, payable on July 31, 2015.  The company's
second quarter earnings announcement on August 6, 2015 stated its
target to further increase the dividend, and that intention was
repeated on the investors' call the next day.

Despite the fact that the value of TGP and TOO shares had been
declining steadily since late 2014, on Nov. 15 and 18, 2015 Teekay
stated that it was "targeting" future dividend increases over the
next three years.  However, on Dec. 16, 2015, Teekay announced
that it would reduce its quarterly dividend beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2015.

On the investors' call the following day, the company advised that
TGP and TOO required capital to fund their growth and therefore
Teekay intended to reallocate the daughter companies' cash
distributions to pay equity installments on committed growth
projects.  Teekay's share price plummeted 58% that day.

The Plaintiffs have filed a class action lawsuit against the
Defendants, asserting a fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Rule
10b-5, as well as a claim for control-person liability against
Defendants Evensen and Lok, Teekay's President/CEO and CFO,
respectively.  They claim that Teekay's statements about the
ability of TGP and TOO to obtain sufficient financing to fund
their growth projects while continuing to pay increased dividends
were false and misleading because it was known that they would in
fact be unable to obtain such financing and would be forced to
retain cash ordinarily distributed as dividends.

Before the court are the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended
Class Action Complaint and the Defendants' Request for Judicial
Notice.

Since the Plaintiff filed no objection to the Defendants' Request
for Judicial Notice, Judge Pechman granted it.

Judge Pechman finds that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead the falsity of the statements it alleges as elements of its
securities fraud claim, and has further failed to adequately plead
facts which create a strong inference of scienter on the part of
the Defendant.  Nor has Plaintiff plead sufficient facts to rebut
the assertion that the alleged misstatements by the Defendant are
forward-looking statements protected under the PSLRA's safe harbor
provisions.  Having failed to satisfactorily meet the pleading
requirements as regards the defendant organization, it follows
that the individual, control-person liability claims are likewise
subject to dismissal.

The only question remaining is whether the dismissal should be
with or without prejudice; i.e., whether it would be futile to
permit the Plaintiff to amend.  At oral argument on the motion,
the Judge says the Plaintiff's counsel conceded that the
Plaintiff's amended complaint contains all the allegations it
could marshal in support of its claims and that, were the Court to
find them insufficient, there was no point in permitting an
opportunity to further amend.  With that understanding, Judge
Pechman granted the 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's
amended complaint with prejudice.  She directed the clerk to
provide copies of the Order to all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dDV2rj from Leagle.com.

Maeve Investment Company Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,
represented by Geoffrey C. Jarvis -- gjarvis@ktmc.com -- KESSLER
TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice.

Maeve Investment Company Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,
represented by Margaret E. Onasch -- mmazzeo@ktmc.com -- KESSLER
TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Teekay Corp., Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Berenstain --
RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Sean C. Knowles --
SKnowles@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE, pro hac vice.

Peter Evensen, Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Berenstain,
PERKINS COIE & Sean C. Knowles, PERKINS COIE, pro hac vice.

Vincent Lok, Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Berenstain,
PERKINS COIE & Sean C. Knowles, PERKINS COIE, pro hac vice.


TRANS UNION: Court Denies Bid for New Trial in "Ramirez"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-00632-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied Trans Union's Motion for Judgment as a Matter
of Law or a New Trial.

Ramirez filed the class action alleging that Trans Union violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") through its OFAC Name
Screen Alert.  The OFAC Name Screen Alert or OFAC Alert is a
service Trans Union provides to its customers which identifies
persons whose names match individuals (known as Specially
Designated Nationals or SDNs) on the United States government's
list of terrorists, drug traffickers, and others with whom
Americans are prohibited from doing business.

Following a weeklong trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of
the Plaintiff and the class and awarded over $60 million in
statutory and punitive damages.  The jury found in the Plaintiff's
favor on all three claims under the FCRA: that over a six-month
period in 2011 Trans Union violated three FCRA requirements: (i)
that credit reporting agencies establish "reasonable procedures"
to ensure the "maximum possible accuracy" of information provided
about consumers under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b); (iii) that
credit reporting agencies "clearly and accurately" disclose all
information in the consumers file at the time of a request under
Section 1681g(a); and (iii) that credit reporting agencies provide
a statement of consumer rights with each such disclosure under
Section 1681g(c).

The Plaintiff argued, and the jury apparently agreed, that Trans
Union's name-only matching protocol was not a reasonable procedure
designed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer
information, and that Trans Union's disclosure of OFAC information
to consumers violated Section 1681g by failing to disclose OFAC
information to consumers simultaneously with their consumer
reports and by failing to provide a statement of consumer rights
with the separately furnished OFAC disclosure.  The jury also
concluded that Trans Union's conduct was willful.

Trans Union challenges the jury's verdict on multiple grounds.
First, Trans Union contends that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law because the evidence does not support a finding of a
willful violation of any of the three FCRA prongs at issue in the
case.  Next, it argues that it is entitled to a new trial because
the Plaintiff's counsel made improper and prejudicial arguments
and statements during trial.  Finally, it insists that the
statutory and punitive damages verdicts must be set aside because
they are excessive and unconstitutional.  Trans Union moved for
judgment as matter of law, or in the alternative, for new trial.
An oral argument was held on Oct. 5, 2017.

Judge Corley denied Trans Union's motion for judgment as a matter
of law.  Substantial evidence supports the jury's conclusion that
Trans Union willfully violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681e(b),
1681g(a), and 1681g(c).  For example, the evidence supports that
Ramirez requested a copy of his Trans Union file, and received his
file or personal credit report which identified itself as the
response to his request, and contained no reference whatsoever to
OFAC and that the form of the personal credit report was the same
for all class members in 2011, and like the form sent to Ms.
Cortez in 2005, omitted OFAC information.

The Judge also denied Trans Union's motion for a new trial based
on the Plaintiff's counsels' conduct at trial.  She says a new
trial is available only in extraordinary cases and Trans Union has
made no such comparable showing here.  Trans Union has also failed
to meet the high threshold necessary to justify a new trial based
on counsel's statements made during closing argument.

With respect to Trans Union's argument that the statutory and
punitive damages awards must be set aside, or at a minimum,
reduced, Judge Corley finds that the award is within the statutory
range; indeed, it is not even the maximum award possible under the
FCRA.  The award is also proportionate to the harm shown by the
trial evidence.  There is thus no basis to set aside the statutory
damages award.  Trans Union's objection to the punitive damages
award is essentially an argument that punitive damages should not
be allowed on a class-wide basis in FCRA cases.  But that is not
the law.  The Judge thus denied Trans Union's request for a
remittitur or new trial with respect to punitive damages.

Finally, as for Trans Union's renewed objections regarding class
certification, the Judge says the Court has repeatedly rejected
these objections and does so again.  If anything, the trial
evidence demonstrated that class treatment of these claims is even
more appropriate than appeared at the class certification stage.
Trans Union falsely identified every class member as a potential
match and every class member received an incomplete disclosure
which failed to properly advise them of their rights to challenge
the OFAC information in their file.  However, she granted Trans
Union's unopposed request to amend the form of the judgment to
conform to the language of Rule 23(c)(3)(B).

The Plaintiff will file an amended proposed form of judgment which
complies with Rule 23(c)(3)(B) by Nov. 13, 2017.  The Judge sua
sponte extends the dates for the parties' briefing regarding the
Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees by 10 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qMYmZ1 from Leagle.com.

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie --
andy@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer.

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Carol McLean Brewer -
- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, David A.
Searles -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C.,
James A. Francis, Francis and Mailman, P.C. & John Soumilas,
Francis and Mailman, P.C..

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce Steven Luckman -
- bluckman@shermansilverstein.com -- Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose
and Podolsky, Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Stephen Julian Newman --
snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Brian C.
Frontino -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
& Jason S. Yoo -- jsyoo@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP.


TRANS UNION: Ramirez Gets $75K Service Award in FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-00632-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted Ramirez a discretionary service award of
$75,000.

Ramirez filed the class action suit against the Defendant in 2012
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  In
particular, the Plaintiff challenged the legality of a service
Trans Union provides to its customers which identifies persons
whose names match individuals (known as Specially Designated
Nationals or SDNs) on the United States government's list of
terrorists, drug traffickers, and others with whom Americans are
prohibited from doing business.  The service is known as an OFAC
Name Screen Alert or OFAC Alert.  At particular issue in the case
are Trans Union's business practices with respect to this product
during a six-month period from January to July 2011 during which
time Trans Union used a name-only matching protocol.

Following a week-long trial, a jury found in favor of the
Plaintiff and the class and awarded over $60 million in statutory
and punitive damages.  Ramirez now seeks a service award to
compensate him for his service to the class.  Trans Union does not
oppose the Plaintiff's request.  Having considered the Plaintiff's
arguments and having had the benefit of oral argument on Oct. 5,
2017, Judge Corley granted the Plaintiff's motion for a service
award.  The Plaintiff is awarded $75,000 which is less than 1% of
the total damages award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Rt0Xoi from Leagle.com.

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie --
andy@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer, Carol McLean
Brewer -- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP,
David A. Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis &
Mailman, James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis and Mailman, P.C., John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C. &
Gregory Joseph Gorski -- ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis
and Mailman PC.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce Steven Luckman -
- bluckman@shermansilverstein.com -- Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose
and Podolsky, Julia B. Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP,
Stephen Julian Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Brian C.
Frontino, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Jason S. Yoo, Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP.


UNITED STATES: Faces Electric Welfare Trust Suit in C.F.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is
styled as Electric Welfare Trust fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01732-NBF (COFC, November 3, 2017).

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Howard Meltzer, Esq.
   Kessler, Topaz, et al., LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com


US BANCORP: Settlement in "Wert" Labor Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA R. WERT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANCORP, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-3130-BAS-AGS
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Parties' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Wert, on behalf of herself and other class members, filed claims
against the Defendants, claiming they failed to provide compliant
itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
Section 226, and the Plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of
civil penalties for this violation under the Private Attorneys
General's Act ("PAGA").  Additionally, the Plaintiff requested
civil penalties under the PAGA, alleging that Defendants violated
California Labor Code Section 512 when they failed to comply with
California's meal period requirements.

In the Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative Complaint
in the case, the Plaintiff alleges first that the Defendants
failed to provide compliant itemized wage statements because the
wage statements failed to: (i) show total hours worked by the
employee; (ii) adequately show deductions from wages, (iii)
itemize the dates in prior pay periods in which adjustments were
made, and (iv) itemize the inclusive dates of the pay period,
including the pay period begin date.  In addition, she alleges
that the Defendants failed to provide its employees required meal
periods.

On May 5, 2017, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying the proposed settlement class, preliminarily approving
the proposed class action settlement, over the objections of
Charles Rodriguez, and setting a hearing for final approval.

Now pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Lonnie Tiran's Objections to
the Proposed Settlement.  The Final Approval hearing was held on
Nov. 6, 2017.

Judge Bashant granted the parties' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.  She certified the class, for settlement
purposes, which consists of four subclasses defined as:

     a. Exempt Paystub Class: all individuals employed by either
the Defendant in California as exempt employees who received one
or more paper paychecks and/or paper wage statements at any time
between Nov. 13, 2012 and July 17, 2014 (without regard to the
fact that such individuals had access to Employee Self Service).

     b. Non-exempt Paystub Class: all individuals employed by
either the Defendant in California as non-exempt, hourly paid
employees at any time from Nov. 13, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2014.

     c. Meal Period Provision Class: all individuals employed by
either the Defendant in California as non-exempt, hourly paid
employees at any time between Nov. 13, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2016 and
who, during that time frame, received pay under the Other Pay
Code.

     d. Meal Period Pay Computation Class: all individuals
employed by either the Defendant in California as non-exempt,
hourly paid employees at any time between Nov. 13, 2009 and Dec.
31, 2016 and who during that time frame received pay under the
Other Pay Code.

The Judge confirmed Wert as the Class Representative and granted
the request for a $10,000 incentive award.  She also confirmed
Matthew S. Dente and Diane E. Richard of Dente Richard LLP, George
C. Aguilar and Brian Robbins of Robbins Arroyo LLP, and London D.
Meservy of Meservy Law P.C., as the Class Counsel to represent the
Class.  She further confirmed Rust Consulting as the Settlement
Administrator and awarded the Settlement Administrator $60,000 for
the costs of administering the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Bashant overruled the objections of Lonnie Tiran.  She
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
awards Class Counsel $19,401.02 in costs and $2,100,000 in
attorneys' fees.  She ordered that all the class members are bound
by the Settlement Agreement except the 68 Class Members who timely
and validly excluded themselves from the Class.  The Parties are
ordered to carry out the Settlement Agreement in the manner
provided in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/W6F46a from Leagle.com.

Monica R. Wert, Plaintiff, represented by George C. Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP; London D.
Meservy -- london@meservylawpc.com -- at Meservy Law, P.C.;
Matthew S. Dente -- matt@denterichard.com -- Diane Elizabeth
Richard -- diane@denterichard.com -- at Dente Richard LLP.

Defendants, represented by Emilie C. Woodhead --
ewoodhead@winston.com -- Joan B. Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com
-- Emily C. Schuman -- Jennifer Zhao -- at Winston & Strawn LLP.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Emilie
C. Woodhead, Winston & Strawn LLP, Joan B. Tucker Fife, Winston &
Strawn, Emily C. Schuman, Winston and Strawn LLP & Jennifer Zhao,
Winston & Strawn.


VIRGINIA: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Abusive Conditions at SVJC
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, by and through his next friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and all persons similarly situated v. SHENANDOAH VALLEY
JUVENILE CENTER COMMISSION, Case No. 5:17CV00097 (W.D. Va.,
October 4, 2017), is a civil action to vindicate the rights of
immigrant youth detained at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.

John Doe is a 17-year-old Latino immigrant, who is confined to the
SVJC.  He is one of approximately 30 unaccompanied immigrant
minors under detention in the facility.  He is confined solely
because he crossed the United States border seeking to escape
violence in Mexico without proper authorization and the Office of
Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services has determined to detain him, according to the complaint.

Mr. Doe and other similarly situated young people in SVJC are
subjected to unconstitutional conditions that shock the
conscience, including violence by staff, abusive and excessive use
of seclusion and restraints, and the denial of necessary mental
health care, the complaint states.

Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission is a commission
composed of members from seven jurisdictions in the Shenandoah
Valley, including the Cities of Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton
and Waynesboro, and the Counties of Rockingham, Augusta, and
Rockbridge.  The Commission owns and operates SVJC, a secure
residential detention facility in Staunton, Virginia, for use by
each of the member jurisdictions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine T. Dinan, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Smith, Esq.
          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
          E-mail: christine_dinan@washlaw.org
                  jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
                  matthew_handley@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Theodore A. Howard, Esq.
          WILEY REIN LLP
          1776 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 719-7120
          E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com


WILSON SPORTING: Bid to Dismiss "Alea" Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE ALEA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILSON SPORTING GOODS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 17 C 498 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Wilson's
motion to dismiss and strike.

In March 2015, Wilson purchased the rights to the Louisville
Slugger brand.  Approximately a year later, after reviewing
Wilson's online marketing materials, Alea bought a 2016 Louisville
Slugger Prime 916 BBP9163 BBCOR baseball bat for his son.  The
marketing materials did not mention that the Prime 916's handle
would rotate independently of the barrel, and Alea would not have
purchased the bat had he known that the bat would behave in that
particular way.  Shortly after Alea purchased the Prime 916, his
son noticed that the barrel and the handle moved independently
when he hit a ball.  Alea tried the Prime 916 and noticed the same
thing.  The movement appeared to weaken the bat's power, and
Alea's son stopped using the bat because it felt "dead."

Alea contacted Wilson, but was told that the movement was normal
and that the warranty would not cover a replacement.  The Prime
916's one-year express warranty, which Wilson referenced in its
marketing materials, warranted that the bat was free from
"manufacturer's defects."

Alea, on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleges that
Wilson marketed, sold, and refused to honor its warranty on a
defective baseball bat in violation of state law and the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA").  He moves under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss some of Alea's individual claims and
under Rule 12(f) to strike his class allegations.

In his amended complaint, Alea brings individual claims under
state consumer protection law (Count I), state warranty law (Count
II), state unjust enrichment law (Count III), and the MMWA (Count
IV).  Alea also seeks to represent two classes.  The "State
Class," which seeks relief under state law in Counts I-III,
consists of all persons residing in the states of Florida,
California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri and Washington, who purchased a
Bat from April 1, 2015 through the present.  The "National Class,"
which seeks relief under the MMWA in Count IV, consists of all
persons residing in the United States who have purchased a Bat
from April 1, 2015, through the present.  The essence of all
claims is the same: Wilson warranted the Prime 916 bats as free of
defects but the bats were in fact defective, and, when pressed,
Wilson did not honor the warranty but instead attempted to pass
off the defect as an intended element of the bat's design.

Wilson seeks dismissal of Alea's individual warranty and unjust
enrichment claims -- but not his individual state consumer fraud
and MMWA claims -- and also argues that the class allegations
should be stricken because the state law and MMWA claims are
inappropriate for class treatment.

Judge Feinerman finds that the warranty was reflected in Wilson's
advertisements and easily accessible on its websites, and thus was
clearly directed toward the end-purchaser.  The complaint alleges
that Alea purchased the Prime 916 after reviewing marketing
materials online.  Those marketing materials state that the
Louisville Slugger Prime 916 is backed by a 12-month
manufacturer's warranty.  These allegations yield the reasonable
inference that Alea viewed Wilson's express warranty and then
purchased the bat.  Accordingly, given Alea's allegation that he
relied on Wilson's express warranties regarding the qualities and
benefits of the Bats, applying the privity requirement to his
express warranty claim would be inappropriate.  After all, Wilson
communicated the terms of the warranty directly to Alea through
the link provided on Louisville Slugger's website.  The express
warranty claim thus survives dismissal.

The Judge also finds that although Alea has pleaded the existence
of an express contract, he has not yet proven its existence.  And
it is possible to imagine circumstances where Alea could not prove
the existence of a contract, but where he could nonetheless
demonstrate that Wilson has unjustly retained a benefit conferred
upon it by him in inequitable circumstances, which would prove an
unjust enrichment claim under Florida law.

With respect to state class claims, Judge Feinerman says Wilson's
challenge to Alea's standing does not address any of the
components of standing, but instead rests on the premise that he
does not have a viable claim under the consumer laws of States
other than Florida.  Wilson's second argument that given the
differences among state consumer protection, warranty, and unjust
enrichment law, class treatment is facially inappropriate, fails
as well.  Neither argument persuades.  The class certification
analysis is necessarily contextual, and the context -- including
whether and how to create subclasses -- is in this instance better
explored under Rule 23, on a more developed record, than under
Rule 12(f).  For these reasons, Wilson's motion to strike the
State Class allegations is denied, without prejudice of course to
Wilson raising its arguments in opposition to any Rule 23 motion
filed by Alea or at some other appropriate juncture.

Finally, the Judge finds that Alea's Florida law implied warranty
claim fails for lack of privity, so his MMWA implied warranty
claim fails on the same ground.  And because Alea has no MMWA
implied warranty claim, he cannot represent an MMWA implied
warranty class.  By the same token, because Alea has a viable
Florida law express warranty claim, he also has a viable MMWA
express warranty claim, and therefore is an appropriate
representative for an MMWA express warranty class.  Wilson's
argument that the MMWA class allegations may be stricken on the
pleadings fails for the reasons set forth.

For these reasons, Judge Feinerman granted in part and denied in
part Wilson's motion to dismiss and strike.  Alea's implied
warranty claims under Florida law and the MMWA are dismissed
without prejudice.  In all other respects, Wilson's motion is
denied.  If Alea would like to replead the dismissed claims, he
must file a second amended complaint by Nov. 21, 2017.  If Alea
does not amend his complaint, Wilson will answer the surviving
portions of the amended complaint by Nov. 29, 2017.  If Alea
amends his complaint, Wilson will answer the non-amended claims,
and answer or otherwise plead to the amended claims, by Dec. 6,
2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/qfDMwv from Leagle.com.

George Alea, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

George Alea, Plaintiff, represented by William Harold Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael
Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Ismael Tariq Salam --
isalam@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Katrina
Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC
& Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC.

Wilson Sporting Goods Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffery
A. Key, Key & Associates & Michael D. Hayes --
michael.hayes@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP.


WINCO FOODS: Court Allows Filing of SAC in "Perez"
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulation for
Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned
ISIDRO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, and
DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 1-17-cv-01279-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Sanchez and his counsel have agreed to amend the
complaint to limit the class period for his claims for unpaid
minimum wages, rest break violations and unreimbursed business
expenses for which he seeks to represent a class of similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendant to the period
after the end of the Brummell class period, May 19, 2015 through
the present.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiffs are
entitled to voluntarily dismiss their claims subject to the
provisions of Rule 23(e) and any statute of the United States,
without order of the court at any time before service by the
adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment; or
all parties may so stipulate.

Plaintiff Sanchez must file the Second Amended Complaint
immediately and the Defendant may file a responsive pleading or
answer within the time permitted under the Rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7reoa9cfrom Leagle.com.

Isidro Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Ari E. Moss --
ari@mossbollinger.com -- Law Offices Of Ari Moss.
Isidro Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy F. Bollinger --
jeremy@mossbollinger.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP.

Winco Foods, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julie Grace Yap --
jyap@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kristina Marie Launey --
klauney@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael Warner Kopp --
mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Duwayne Andre Carr --
dacarr@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Winco Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Grace Yap,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kristina Marie Launey, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Michael Warner Kopp, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Duwayne Andre Carr,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


WINCO FOODS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Central District of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winco Foods, LLC.
The case is styled as Alfred Johnson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Winco Foods, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company, Winco Holdings, Inc. and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288
(C.D. Cal., November 9, 2017).

WinCo Foods is a privately held, majority employee-owned American
supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho with retail stores in
Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
and Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Julie G Yap, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   400 Capitol Mall Suite 2350
   Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
   Tel: (916) 448-0159
   Fax: (916) 558-4839
   Email: jyap@seyfarth.com


WM. WRIGLEY JR CO: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Martin"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Sharon K. Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in
Missouri, Plaintiff, v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00541-NKL (W.M. Mo.).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, alleging that Wrigley employed deceptive, unfair,
and false merchandising practices in connection with the packaging
of the ECLIPSE(R) Gum 18-piece 2-Pack.  Ms. Martin purchased the
gum package for $1.09 for personal or familial use and for
evaluative purposes of this lawsuit.  Ms. Martin claims, inter
alia, that the gum packaging is opaque and conceals the fact that
the gum sheet includes non-functional empty tabs that, from
without, give the appearance of being additional gum pieces.
Wrigley removed the action to this Court on the basis of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005. Ms. Martin has not challenged the
removal. Wrigley now moves to dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim.

Wrigley argues that the action should be dismissed for three
reasons: first, Plaintiff's claims fail to conform with federal
law concerning slack-fill, which pre-empts state law on the
subject, and therefore have no legal merit; second, Plaintiff
fails to allege a causal connection between her loss and the
allegedly deceptive packaging; and finally, plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim fails because it is derivative of her other
claims, which fail, and because plaintiff fails to allege that she
has no adequate remedy at law.

Applicable Law and Regulations Concerning Slack-Fill

Plaintiff's first claim is for violation of Section 407.020 of the
MMPA, which prohibits the act, use or employment by any person of
any deception, fraud, false pre-tense, false promise,
misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment,
suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with
the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.

FDA regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 343 of the NLEA
specify that a misleading container is one that, inter alia, does
not allow the consumer to fully view its contents.

The FDA further stated that the entire container does not need to
be transparent to allow consumers to fully view its contents. At
the same, time, however, devices, such as a window at the bottom
of a package, that require consumers to manipulate the package,
turning it upside down and shaking it to redistribute the
contents, do not allow consumers to fully view the contents of a
container.

The FDA therefore has advised that displaying a portion of the
contents in such a way as to give consumers an erroneous
impression of the quantity of contents in a package, whether
through misleading packaging or through misleading filling
practices, constitutes misbranding. It follows, both from the
FDA's regulations and explanations and from common sense, that a
container that readily permits a consumer to see the level of fill
would not be misleading, and therefore would not violate the MMPA
or constitute a misrepresentation.

The ECLIPSE(R) 18-Piece 2-Pack 18 pieces in two blister packs
means 9 pieces of gum in each blister pack. Given the odd number
of pieces in each blister pack, the reasonable consumer could not
expect evenly spaced rows of gum without any empty space in each
rectangular sheet. With an odd number of pieces in each sheet,
Wrigley could not position its gum tablets in the rectangular pack
without leaving a little gumless space somewhere. Wrigley chose to
make use of that necessarily empty space by incorporating grips
into the blister packs for ease of use.
Wrigley provides 18 pieces of gum, substantially more than the
competing packages Plaintiff references provide in twin blister
packs, and it made these facts patently obvious on the face (and
back, and sides) of every package, through both plain and
conspicuous language and through the thumb-size cut-out and open
side.

No reasonable consumer could have been misled by the packaging.
The instant packaging is different from the non-transparent
packaging that has been the subject of other complaints that
survived motions to dismiss.  In fact, the Court searched in vain
for a slack-fill case in the United States alleging that packaging
that is either transparent or has a window is misleading.

Having reviewed the images of the packaging that the parties have
presented (and which were embraced by the petition), the Court
must conclude that plaintiff cannot state a plausible claim that
the packaging of the ECLIPSE(R) 18-piece 2-pack is misleading.
Because, as a matter of law, it is not plausible that a reasonable
consumer would be misled by the gum package, the package is not
misleading and cannot form the basis of a claim for violation of
the MMPA or a negligent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiff's first
and second claims must be dismissed for failure to state a
plausible claim.

Whether Plaintiff States a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

To state a claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must plausibly
allege that (i) Wrigley received a benefit, (ii) at the
Plaintiff's expense, and (iii) allowing Wrigley to retain the
benefit would be unjust.

The Court has already concluded that the Eclipse(R) 18-piece 2-
pack packaging is not misleading, because a reasonable consumer
could not expect more gum in terms of either number or size than
the package provides.

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Wrigley's
retention of the purported benefit was unjust a critical element
of her unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment therefore is dismissed for failure to state a plausible
claim.

Wrigley's motion to dismiss the petition is granted, with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 23, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycmfndsmfrom Leagle.com.

Sharon K. Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Reza John Azimi-
Tabrizi, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613.

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., Defendant, represented by Carrie Phillips --
carriep@germanmay.com -- German May, PC, Mara W. Murphy --
mmurphy@wc.com -- pro hac vice & Jeremy M. Suhr --
jeremys@germanmay.com -- German May, PC.


WPA INTELLIGENCE: Faces "Mey" Suit in District of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WPA Intelligence.
The case is styled as Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WPA Intelligence,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02350 (D.D.C., November 7, 2017).

WPA Intelligence is a research firm specializing in impacting
behavior by integrating innovative predictive analytics with
advanced statistical communications modeling.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Lifts Asbestos Warning for Mobile Home Park
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Local reported that federal inspectors lifted an asbestos
warning for the wildfire-ravaged Journey's End Mobile Home Park,
but the residents of about 20 undamaged homes will not be allowed
to move back in until the utilities are restored, officials said.

The park was once a senior citizens' community with about 180
homes, but early the morning of Oct. 9, flames ripped through the
neighborhood. About 160 homes were reduced to rumble.

Residents had been allowed to return to collect their belongings
from the destroyed homes and also to check on the homes that
escaped the flames. However, hours later they were escorted out of
the park after federal EPA inspectors warned of asbestos in the
debris.

Further testing and a cleanup operation was conducted over the
last several days.

"The EPA contacted the SRFD (Santa Rosa Fire Department) and
advised staff that the asbestos has been cleaned ahead of schedule
and they have completed their sampling," officials said in a press
release. "The asbestos was isolated to an area where the communal
laundry room was located which was destroyed in the fire."

But officials were not yet ready to give a green light for
residents to move back in.

"Although the restricted access to the mobile home park will be
lifted by the City of Santa Rosa, the structures in the mobile
home park will remain uninhabitable due to a lack of utilities,"
officials said in the release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Co. Fined After Exposing Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Housing News reported that a Paisley-based utility
services company has been fined for exposing four of its employees
to asbestos during work at Anderson Tower in Motherwell in 2014.

Hamilton Sheriff Court heard that four electricians employed by
IQA Operations Group Ltd had been drilling through door transom
panels to fit electric cables into each property within the tower
block as part of the installation of a new low voltage
distribution system.

The company had identified that an asbestos survey was carried out
ahead of the works starting but did not include a survey of the
transom panels above each flat entrance door.

The four electricians started work on the site on 23 June 2014 and
drilled holes in the door transom panels in all 44 flats. The
electricians were not aware that the panels contained asbestos so
no measures were in place to control exposure to airborne asbestos
fibres.

On 2 July 2017, a resident raised a concern that the panels were
asbestos, work was stopped and the panels tested. The samples
tested positive for asbestos. Immediate action was taken to
decontaminate the flats which involved the local council making
arrangements for the residents to leave their properties while the
work was being done.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found
that IQA Operations Group Ltd had failed to provide and maintain a
safe system of work to identify the presence of asbestos in the
transom panels and failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient
assessment of risk to their employees from asbestos when carrying
out cable routing work.

IQA Operations Group Ltd of 101 Abercorn Street, Paisley, has been
fined รบ6000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 2 (1) of
the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, Gerry Muir HM inspector of health and
safety said "This incident could have easily been avoided if the
company had in place a system of work to ensure that the asbestos
survey it requested to be carried out covered all of the intended
work areas. Failing to do this resulted in 44 asbestos panels
being drilled into with no measures in place to control the risk
of exposure to the resultant asbestos fibres."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Attempts to Ban Mesothelioma for 6th Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that
many Americans mistakenly believe that the use of asbestos has
been banned in the United States since the 1970s, ever since the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed the dangers of the
mineral that causes asbestosis, mesothelioma and other serious
diseases. Unfortunately, this is not true: every time that the
Congress has tried to ban the carcinogen, powerful forces working
on behalf of the chemical industry have backed their efforts.
Despite the frustration, a group of several Senators has joined
with Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley to co-sponsor a bill, the Alan
Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2017, which would ban the toxic
material's use.

It has been decades since science has proven that asbestos causes
mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer, as well as
asbestosis and other deadly and life-altering diseases. The
material is one of the ten being reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act, and
health advocates had hoped that would lead to its ban. But the
Trump administration under EPA Director Scott Pruitt has indicated
that it will soften the anticipated approach to asbestos, so the
senators have decided to take a different approach that would
bypass the EPA and eliminate asbestos use without the agency's
assistance. The bill would:

   * Place restrictions on the use of asbestos within 18 months,
with the intention of cutting human and environmental exposure to
the material.

   * Force the Environmental Protection Agency to provide details
regarding all known uses of asbestos in the country, assessing the
impact of each example.

   * Stop commercial asbestos from being manufactured, processed,
used or distributed outside of the uses currently included in the
EPA's exception rule.

The action has support of health advocates throughout the country,
who are concerned about the continued risk of mesothelioma to the
American public. Speaking to the Montana Standard, a newspaper
published in the state that has been among the most damaged by
mesothelioma, thoracic surgeon Dr. Raja Flores of the Mt. Sinai
Hospital in New York said, "Don't get me started. Asbestos is a
killer. The evidence is clear. This bill is a life-saving bill. It
can save more lives than I can with my knife. Any politician who
doesn't get that is protecting some group that would lose money if
asbestos were banned."

If you or someone you love has been affected by asbestos and you'd
like to learn more about the resources available to mesothelioma
victims, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net. You
can reach us at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northern Calif. Wildfires Leave Asbestos Behind
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that ash from
fires in Northern California may contain asbestos and other toxic
substances. Although the fires have been contained by
firefighters, dangers now and into the future will continue to
persist.

According to Sonoma County Director of Environmental Health
Christine Sosko, "There can be chemicals and asbestos and lead,
plus plastic particles and other dangerous substances loose at the
sites of burned homes."

This is because many of the homes probably contained asbestos
products. Historically, insulation, roof materials, drywall,
ceiling tiles, flooring, and asphalt are all materials commonly
known to contain the hazardous substance.

When these products are ignited with fire, the smoke made of
carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, fine particulate
matter, hydrocarbons, and other organic and non-organic substances
can include the minute asbestos fibers.

In Santa Rosa, California's Office of Emergency Services (COES)
will haul away materials from burned homes, however, some families
are handling the matter on their own for insurance purposes.

For those individuals, the California Air Resource Board says to
cover bare skin, wear a mask, and try not to get ash in the air by
sweeping gently, mopping often, and not using machinery such as
vacuum cleaners or leaf blowers.

According to the board, "If ash is wet, use as little water as
possible." Montana State University's Department of Earth Sciences
stated, "Over 90% of emissions from fires are small enough to
enter the respiratory system and particles in the air are able to
travel deep into the respiratory tract."

"For how many structures that were burned in fairly small areas in
these fires, I think that's a first-of-its-kind event," said
Associate Director of Environmental Health for the U.S. Geological
Survey Geoffrey Plumlee.

"Depending on how combusted the ash is, it'll have different
chemical compositions. And that'll mean the ash will mix either
better or worse with underlying soil," said Plumlee.

The ash could run into nearby waterways carrying asbestos with it.
Other fire remains might turn into fields of limestone or huge
algae blooms that strip oxygen from rivers. It is also a serious
danger to firefighters fighting the blazes, who have a higher risk
of developing cancer than people in most other occupations.

According to Plumlee, "Water won't stick to more hydrophobic ash,
so rainfall might run off faster, carrying away the surrounding
soil as sediment. More hydrophilic ash might mix into the water
and wash into nearby streams."

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Environmental Protection
Agency, COES, and numerous other government agencies are working
to cleanup from the fires. They expect it to be the largest fire
recovery drive in the state's history.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Talc Case Could Open Litigation for J&J
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for North California Record, reported
that a jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court could open
a new chapter in asbestos litigation as plaintiff's attorneys
argue that Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products are to blame
for their client's lung-related cancer.

Attorneys for plaintiff Tina Herford are presenting medical
testimony in a Pasadena courtroom that attempts to link Herford's
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer that affects lining of
the lungs, to her use of J&J's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower
products over several decades.

J&J has been on the losing end of several jury trials that ended
in damages verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The
plaintiffs argued that they contracted ovarian cancer as a result
of using the products on their genital areas. The Herford case,
however, is one of the first to link cosmetic uses of talc to
mesothelioma.

"I think it could be a new chapter depending on the outcome of
this lawsuit . . . " Robert Field, a professor of both law and
health management at Drexel University in Philadelphia, told the
Northern California Record. "The question is whether causation can
be shown to a legally sufficient degree."

One thing the plaintiffs have going for them is that the link
between asbestos and lung ailments is well-established in the
court system and in medical research, Field said. And plaintiff's
attorneys say they have documents showing J&J knew about asbestos
fibers being detected in some samples of talcum powder over the
years.

"The science is pretty clear," he said. "We know asbestos can
cause these diseases, even in small quantities . . . . They've got
a lot of the building blocks in place."

But air pollution and smoking have been linked to lung-related
diseases as well, Field said. And in the Herford case, J&J
attorneys are attempting to show that radiation treatments Herford
received for breast cancer are the likely cause of her
mesothelioma, not her regular use of the talcum powder products.

"The plaintiff will have to show that the cause of cancer was the
asbestos and not some other exposure," he said.

Chris Panatier of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC in Dallas,
the plaintiff's attorney who gave the opening statement in the
Herford case, said that the well-established health dangers from
asbestos point strongly to the culpability of the defendants,
including J&J's talc supplier, Imerys Talc America Inc.

"They were well aware of the link between asbestos and disease,"
Panatier said in an email to the Record. "Thus, when they learned
their talcs contained asbestos, they had all the information they
needed to stop selling them. They chose to continue, and people
are now getting mesothelioma as a result."

Panatier expects to see many more cases that attempt to establish
a link between the talc and mesothelioma, which he said is caused
almost exclusively by asbestos.

"I do expect an increase in litigation against talc manufacturers,
insofar as I have yet to see a source of talc that hasn't shown
contamination," he said.

Panatier declined to express an opinion about whether J&J might
eventually look to settle such cases.

"I won't guess on J&J's litigation strategy," he said.

Panatier's law firm last year won an $18 million verdict against a
talc supplier, Whittaker Clark & Daniels, which was found 30
percent at fault for California political aide Philip Depoian's
development of mesothelioma, according to a statement from the law
firm.

J&J maintains that its talcum powder products have always been
processed to the highest purity standards possible.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires specific testing
to ensure that cosmetic talcum powder is free of asbestos," J&J
spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in an email to the Record. "We are
confident that our talc products are, and always have been, free
of asbestos, based on decades of monitoring, testing and
regulation."

Since 1977, the company has specified that its talc products had
to be asbestos-free, Goodrich said.

"Historical testing of samples by the FDA, numerous independent
laboratories and numerous independent scientists have all
confirmed the absence of asbestos in our talc products," she said.

J&J could be viewed as an easy mark if it tried a strategy to
settle such cases, according to Field. But if the legal floodgates
open wide enough in the future, the company might go for a
structured approach to consolidate and settle cases, based on
reasonable damages criteria, he said.

One key issue that arises in these kinds of cases, according to
Field, is the question "Did the defendant know about the risk and
try to conceal it?" If the plaintiff presents evidence along these
lines, it can help to persuade juries and meet the standard of
liability, he said.

In turn, the plaintiff can paint the defendant as having breached
its duty to provide a reasonably safe product, Field said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Panel Told to Nix Deceased Judge's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady, writing for Law360, reported that a Texas county
pressed a state appeals court to sink a lawsuit brought on behalf
of a district court judge who died of mesothelioma after spending
his career inside a courthouse that had asbestos, with the county
arguing the judge's estate should have instead brought an
administrative claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Representing Jefferson County, attorney Quentin Dean Price told a
panel of the First Court of Appeals that the lawsuit lodged by the
widow of former Jefferson County District Court Judge James
Farris, who died in November 2004, is barred by both the Workers'
Compensation Act and the Texas Tort Claims Act. In June, a Harris
County district judge rejected the county's argument that the
court couldn't hear the case because the judge's widow, Ellarene
Farris, failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the
workers' compensation statute.

Ellarene Farris had brought a premises defect claim under the
Texas Tort Claims Act, seeking damages against the premise owner,
Jefferson County, in 2006.

Because Judge Farris was a county employee, and therefore was
statutorily provided workers' compensation benefits, a claim
cannot be brought against the county directly for his alleged
injuries, Price argued. Instead, a claim should have been filed
seeking benefits before any lawsuit was filed, he said, which
didn't happen.

Judge Michael C. Massengale asked Price whether, in order to get
the case dismissed, the county had to show that Farris actually
received worker's compensation coverage. Price said the county
didn't have to prove there was coverage because it's statutorily
required that county employees receive coverage, but he conceded
that extending coverage to elected officials--like Judge Farris--
is optional.

"Once it's determined he's an employee, he's covered," Price
argued, telling the panel the only question it needed to address
was whether Judge Farris was an employee.

Representing Ellarene Farris, attorney Justin Jenson told the
court that Judge Farris, as an elected official, wasn't a county
employee, and therefore the county didn't have to provide workers'
compensation insurance coverage. And while the county could've
elected to provide such coverage, there was no real evidence that
it followed through on any such decision, Jenson argued.

Jefferson County has backed its arguments with a 1977 resolution
from its governing body that extended workers compensation
coverage to election officials, but that wasn't enough, according
to Jenson.

"[The county] has to show coverage was actually provided," Jenson
said. "Simply passing a resolution does not establish as a matter
of law that coverage was provided."

Judges Terry Jennings, Michael C. Massengale and Jennifer Caughey
sat on the panel for the First Court of Appeals.

Jefferson County is represented by Kathleen Marie Kennedy and
Quentin Dean Price of the Jefferson County District Attorney's
Office.

Judge Farris is represented by Jason Kyle Beale, Aaron Heckaman
and Justin Jenson of Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman PLLC.

The case is Jefferson County, Texas v. Ellarene Farris et al.,
case number 01-17-00493-cv, in the First Court of Appeals of the
State of Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scituate Town Hall Vacated Due to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that officials say the Scituate Town
Hall is being vacated over mold and asbestos concerns.

WJAR-TV reports officials announced the plan during a meeting.
Town employees will move to the building and zoning office and to
the highway garage as Town Hall is vacated.

Town Council President John Mahoney says employees have been
asking for repairs "for decades." He says the fact that it got to
this point is "an absolute disgrace."

Mahoney says it will cost about $330,000 to repair the building.

An environmental management consultant blames the issue on the
lack of ventilation in the attic and basement. He says the mold
should be removed by Nov. 25.

Town officials have yet to say when the building will reopen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Settles Claims Over Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reported that Colgate-Palmolive Co.  agreed to settle a
lawsuit claiming its talcum-powder products caused a Pennsylvania
woman to develop mesothelioma, a fatal lung disease tied to
asbestos exposure.

New York-based Colgate-Palmolive moved to resolve Carol
Schoeniger's lawsuit to avoid a trial in a New Jersey state court,
according to court filings. Financial terms of the deal weren't
made public.

The settlement comes as a growing number of talc users accuse
manufacturers such as Colgate-Palmolive and Johnson & Johnson of
failing to warn consumers that their body powders pose a cancer
threat. Some suits contend the talc-based products are
contaminated with asbestos, a mineral often found in talc
deposits.

J&J is facing more than 5,500 claims that its iconic Baby Powder
caused ovarian cancer in women, according to court filings.
Colgate-Palmolive said it faces more than 170 cases accusing it of
selling asbestos-laced powder, according to filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. So far this year the company
said 43 cases have been resolved.

Tom Dipiazza, a Colgate-Palmolive spokesman, said he couldn't
immediately comment on the Oct. 30 settlement of Schoeniger's
mesothelioma suit. Dan Rene, a spokesman for Imerys Talc America,
which mines talc sold by companies, also said he couldn't
immediately comment.

"Defendants manage their litigation in different ways," Chris
Panatier, one of Schoeniger's lawyers, said in an emailed
statement. "Colgate settles some and tries other" cases alleging
injury from asbestos-laced talc, he added.

California Settlement

After a California jury ordered the consumer-products maker in
2015 to pay a woman $13 million over her mesothelioma claims tied
to Cashmere Bouquet, the company agreed to a confidential
settlement.

In her suit, Schoeniger alleged she used Cashmere Bouquet for more
than 20 years before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The
company failed to warn her of the "risks, dangers and harm'' to
which she would be exposed through "inhalation or ingestion of the
asbestos dust'' in the body powders, according to the 2016 suit.

A California jury in Los Angeles currently is hearing evidence in
a lawsuit in which a woman who used Johnson & Johnson's Baby
Powder for more than 30 years claims she developed mesothelioma
from inhaling talc dust laced with asbestos.

The case is Schoeniger v. Brenntag North America Inc., No. L-5869-
16-A3, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division-Middlesex
County. The California case is Herford v. Johnson & Johnson, No.
BC64631, Superior Court for the State of California (Los Angeles).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Diseases to Remain High in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klopa Robin, writing for Deathrattlesports.com, reported that
asbestos-related diseases will continue to be prominent in
Australia for decades, a study has found.

In two separate studies, researchers from Perth's Sir Charles
Gardiner Hospital, Monash University and Curtin Medical School,
found that the lack of data about occupational lung diseases is
limiting the identification of hazardous materials.

As a result, they said, the rate of asbestos-related mesothelioma
in Australia was likely to remain relatively high for at least the
next 40 years.

"Currently, very little information is collected regarding actual
cases of occupational lung diseases in Australia. Most assumptions
about many occupational lung diseases are based on extrapolation
from overseas data," lead author Ryan Hoy wrote in the study which
was published by the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA).

Hoy, along with co-author Fraser Brims, found that there was
"minimal systematic collection of data" about occupational lung
diseases such as asthma, cancer, bronchiolitis and obstructive
pulmonary disease.

"Current data sources, such as workers' compensation statistics,
provide little insight into the problem and are insufficient to
target prevention activities," they wrote.

"There is a pressing need to gather systematic data on the causes,
prevalence, incidence and impact of occupational lung diseases,
such as through a national occupational disease registry."

In a separate study also published in MJA, researchers led by Bill
Musk from Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital wrote that mesothelioma
would remain prominent for "some decades."

"The numbers of new cases . . . have probably now reached their
peak values in Australia, as in other most affected countries,"

"Given the continuing legacy of asbestos-containing materials in
many Australian homes and buildings, there is increasing concern
about people being exposed to asbestos when performing domestic
tasks and renovations, and it is likely that the elevated
prevalence of malignant mesothelioma in Australia will persist for
some decades."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Tri-Carb Worker Has Asbestos Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison County Record, reported
that a couple are suing for alleged failure to warn regarding the
harmful effects of asbestos fibers.

Dallas Lowe and Brenda Lowe filed a complaint on Oct. 26 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Armstrong International
Inc., Armstrong Pumps Inc., Aurora Pump Co., et al. alleging
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
1966 and 1984, Dallas Lowe was secondarily exposed to asbestos-
containing products through his wife, Brenda Lowe and brother, who
both worked at Tri-Carb Corp/Excalibur Tool Co. with the plaintiff
for a period of time. Dallas Lowe claims these asbestos-containing
products were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the
defendants, which resulted in him developing lung cancer. He
alleges he first became aware of the disease on Aug. 23.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to conduct tests on
the asbestos containing products manufactured, sold, delivered or
installed in order to determine the hazards to which workers might
be exposed while working with the products.

The plaintiffs seek judgment for a sum of more than $50,000, which
will fairly and reasonably compensate for the injuries. They are
represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-632


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Angelina College to Remove Asbestos in Floors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khyati Patel, writing for KTRE.com, reported that Angelina College
is taking steps to remove asbestos found in its buildings.

Several months ago, talks began of remodeling the Math and Science
Building officials said they located flooring material
contaminated by asbestos.

"Anytime there's a remodeling, we'll do a study," said Steve
Capps, physical plant director.

Results concluded evidence of asbestos found in the Math and
Science Building along with the president's house after a study
was initiated.

"It's mainly at the floor tile, the mastic that the floor tile is
glued down with is actually encapsulated with in the mastic, so
it's not a huge risk," Capps said.

In other words, because the multiple fibers of asbestos were found
intact, it posed no significant health risk to students and staff.

Vice President of Business Affairs Chris Sullivan said anytime
there are renovations, buildings are examined to determine
presence of asbestos.

"Generally any building of this age, it was built in an era where
they used asbestos materials," Sullivan said. "Those materials are
not harmful unless they're disturbed. So all the building where
those materials may exist, they're fine until we disturb it. We
disturbed them, and now they have to be re-mediated."

Now the abatement period begins to remove the material from the
buildings.

"When they're prepared to do the actual abatement, they will
create a containment area and create a negative pressure inside of
it, and there will be air samples every 10 minutes to check the
air, so pretty safe," Capps said.

This will bring the Math and Science Building up to state and
federal regulations. During that time, most math and science
classes have been moved to different parts of the campus.

The abatement for asbestos containing materials is scheduled
to begin on the week of November 27.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foley & Mansfield Expands NY Asbestos Team
-----------------------------------------------------------
The national defense firm of Foley & Mansfield on November 13
announced that Stephen Novakidis has joined its national asbestos
defense team. Novakidis will assume the role of a lead toxic tort
and asbestos trial attorney in NYCAL and other venues requiring
his trial prowess.

Novakidis has extensive experience in federal and New York state
courts defending exposure claims for numerous companies, including
Fortune 100 entities. In 2016, Novakidis tried a case on behalf of
a boiler manufacturer in a New York City asbestos matter,
receiving an incredibly rare defense verdict, and the only such
result for a boiler manufacturer in at least a decade. He has also
served as liaison counsel in NYCAL and other complex, multi-
defendant litigation. His clients include numerous Fortune 100
companies, including manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and
contractors in the power, oil, military defense, chemical and
railroad industries. He is recognized as a Premier 100 Mass Tort
Trial Attorney by the National Academy of Jurisprudence.

"Steve has vast knowledge and experience in the NYCAL arena," says
James Lotz, Managing Partner of Foley & Mansfield's New York City
office. "We are exciting to have him on board to further
strengthen our team and serve our clients," he added. The firm
plans to move its Madison avenue office to new space in lower
Manhattan by the end of this year to accommodate growth and be
closer to the courts.

Foley & Mansfield is a national defense firm with offices in 13
U.S. cities. Firm attorneys have successfully defended thousands
of asbestos cases nationwide and have tried numerous multiparty
asbestos cases to defense verdicts.

Mr. Novakidis can be reached at:

     Stephen Novakidis, Esq.
     FOLEY & MANSFIELD
     485 Madison Avenue, Suite 1600
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212-421-0436
     Email: snovakidis@foleymansfield.com

PR Contacts:

     Liz Hersey, Esq.
     FOLEY & MANSFIELD
     Tel: 612-216-0323
     Email: lhersey@foleymansfield.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peter Angelos Wants Lawmakers Help
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
ostensible purpose of a Maryland Senate hearing was to discuss
solutions to the stubborn backlog of more than 30,000 asbestos
lawsuits in the Baltimore courts. But plaintiff lawyers spent more
time asking for a legislative fix to a single legal decision that
could eliminate thousands of those lawsuits from the docket at
once.

On Dec. 1, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest
court, is scheduled to hear an appeal of Duffy v. CBS, a 2015
decision that applied Maryland's 20-year statute of repose to an
asbestos lawsuit. If the decision is upheld, thousands of
plaintiffs claiming they were injured by breathing asbestos dust
before 1970 will have their cases dismissed.

Most of those plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of
Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who controls more than
17,000 of the 30,977 asbestos lawsuits pending in Baltimore
courts. Lawyers with the Angelos firm say every one of their cases
is viable, but there is no feasible way to try each one in front
of a judge. At last month's hearing before the Maryland Senate's
Judicial Proceedings Committee, Angelos attorney Armand J. Volta
argued for a massive consolidation of those lawsuits -- a tactic
Baltimore has tried twice before -- to goad defendant companies
into settling.

"It's been shown that when these cases are consolidated the
parties themselves get together and usually work out resolutions,"
Volta told the Senate committee, which was chaired by Bobby
Zirkin, who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day 2016 for
Angelos' baseball team. Failing that, Volta said, the legislature
should hire more judges so the firm's thousands of cases can be
teed up for trial.

"Firm trial dates create resolutions," Volta said. Defendants, he
said, will only enter settlement negotiations "at the trial door."

Volta declined to comment to Legal Newsline on the backlog or the
law firm's strategy. But one reason plaintiff lawyers might be
pushing so hard for consolidation in Maryland is they are worried
they'll lose in Duffy. With tens of thousands of lawsuits pending
in Maryland courts, those lawyers possess a powerful bargaining
chip to spur settlement negotiations with companies that otherwise
would be content to let the trial process play out slowly.

The big question hanging over last month's hearing was whether
that backlog even exists, however. Venable Partner Ted Roberts,
testifying for the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, said
the courts should focus on weeding out dubious cases and pushing
plaintiff lawyers to set the remaining ones for trial. Angelos
lawyers have failed to take advantage of 2,088 trial dates in the
supposedly overwhelmed Baltimore court system since 2008, Roberts
said, while adding 4,500 new lawsuits to the docket over that same
period.

More than 7,600 cases are plaintiffs suing new defendants over
injuries for which they've already been compensated, it was
argued.

"This docket isn't 20,000 plaintiffs who have not been
compensated," said Roberts, who declined to comment to Legal
Newsline beyond his public statements at the hearing. Many of them
are "coming around a second time for further compensation."

There's also no reason all 30,000 cases need to be heard in
Baltimore, Roberts said. If they were truly worried about getting
to trial quickly, Maryland residents could sue in other state
courts with less crowded dockets, he said.

"There is nothing that requires a plaintiff to file a claim in
Baltimore City," he said. "Plaintiffs have chosen to file all
their claims in Baltimore City and not set them for trial."

Defendant companies argued for an expedited system for examining
case files to see if they have enough supporting evidence to go to
trial. In addition to plaintiffs who have already sued and settled
asbestos claims, defendants suspect thousands of cases lack
medical evidence, work histories and lists of witnesses who can
testify the plaintiff handled or worked around the defendant
company's products.

In a 2013 court filing, Union Carbide accused the Angelos firm of
making heavy use of a few disputed medical experts, including
Orioles team physician Dr. William Goldiner, who in 1995 diagnosed
1,157 people with asbestos diseases -- including 77 on a single
day.

That filing emerged as Union Carbide and other defendants opposed
Angelos' proposal to consolidate 11,000 asbestos lawsuits in the
Baltimore courts to be tried together.

Angelos made his fortune on two previous rounds of consolidation
in the early 1990s, in which more than 8,000 cases were combined
into a single trial against multiple defendants to determine basic
questions of liability. The consolidation program spurred
thousands of settlements as well as numerous bankruptcies but
failed to trim the docket as Angelos and other firms added new
cases nearly as quickly as they were settled. Many went to the so-
called "inactive" docket, essentially placeholder lawsuits by
people who believe they were exposed to asbestos but have no
symptoms of disease.

Defendant companies protested that the consolidation scheme
violated their due process rights, but the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals rejected those arguments. After two rounds,
however, the Baltimore courts halted consolidations.

Angelos tried to revive the scheme in 2012, but in a 2014 opinion,
Judge John Glynn rejected it. He said plaintiff lawyers wanted him
to accept consolidation "on faith rather than facts," relying on
"baseless assurances that this proposed consolidation will drive
mass settlements and not require massive resources."

"This court has little faith that the ill-defined proposal of the
movants would improve the operation of the asbestos docket," Glynn
wrote.

The current plan in Baltimore is to try cases in groups; six at a
time for mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos exposure,
and 10 at a time for lung cancer and asbestosis. At the same time,
judges have required plaintiff lawyers to present evidence at
status conferences during which batches of cases are either set
for trial or relegated to the inactive docket. That process is
intended to trim the number of cases that can be set for trial
because at 500 cases a year, it would take 39 years to eliminate
the backlog.

Volta, at the Senate hearing, complained that plaintiff lawyers
are being asked to supply an onerous amount of information
including medical records, lists of witnesses and products their
client was exposed to before moving on to a trial date. Lawyers
are also ordered to provide documentation showing their clients
still approve of the lawsuits filed in their names.

"This is something we believe is unheard of in tort litigation,"
Volta said. But the plan is actually modeled on a similar weeding-
out process ordered by U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in
Pennsylvania, who oversaw national multidistrict litigation of
federal asbestos lawsuits. Robreno rejected aggregation and
consolidation in favor of a case management plan that required
asbestos plaintiffs to supply medical reports and exposure
histories or have their cases dismissed. Between 2008 and 2013,
the court reduced the backlog by 183,545 cases in the MDL to less
than 3,000.

At the same time as lawyers for Angelos and other asbestos firms
debate how to reduce the backlog of cases in Baltimore, Duffy v.
Westinghouse threatens to remove a large swath of those cases
entirely. In a 2016 decision, an intermediate appeals court in
Maryland held that Section 5-108 imposed a 20-year statute of
repose on a lawsuit alleging exposure to asbestos installed on a
Westinghouse turbine in 1970 (Westinghouse was later purchased by
CBS).

The statute of repose was intended limit liability for injuries
resulting from a defective or unsafe condition in an "improvement
to real property" made more than 20 years earlier.

Plaintiff lawyers argued dust arising from the installation of
asbestos insulation isn't an "improvement," and indeed Maryland
lawmakers passed an amendment to the law in 1991 specifically
eliminating protection for asbestos manufacturers. But the appeals
court ruled it would violate the state Constitution to
retroactively strip defendants of protection they possessed prior
to 1991, meaning the statute of repose still applies to exposures
before the original law was passed in 1970.

That could endanger as many as 25,000 cases, Volta told lawmakers
at the hearing in October, plus another 25,000 claims by spouses
and other family members. He proposed a "clarification bill" that
would state asbestos is not an improvement to real property,
without explaining how that would get around the constitutional
objections to retroactively assigning liability to asbestos
companies.

As one of the biggest lobbying spenders in Maryland, the Angelos
firm certainly has the clout to get legislative attention to this
issue. In the meantime, it continues to add asbestos lawsuits to
the Baltimore docket in hopes of another round of mass
settlements. Whether Maryland's highest court makes its own
contribution to trimming that docket remains to be seen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 93 Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. still defends itself against 93 cases
alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, 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 were a co-defendant in approximately 93
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 187 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 11 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3.0 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
compensatory damages for the fourth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have
been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple
defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not
attributed to individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not
believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are
meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the
amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the
plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/SPlMoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuit vs. E-Source Still Pending in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary still faces an asbestos-related
lawsuit related to a facility in Jefferson County, Texas,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a
defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a
lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson
County, Texas, on April 22, 2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole
Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-
Source and Motiva.  The claims include Breach of Contract and
Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and
remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's
facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas.  The plaintiff
alleges it is due monies earned.  Defendants have denied any
amounts due to plaintiff.  The suit seeks damages of approximately
US$864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by
defendants and reimbursement of legal fees.  E-Source has asserted
a counterclaim against Whole for the filing of a mechanic's lien
in excess of any amount(s) actually due, as well as a cross-claim
against Motiva.  Under the terms of E-Source's contract with
Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to any sub-contractors of
E-Source.  In management's opinion, any monies due to Whole,
should be paid by Motiva.  E-Source seeks to recover the balance
due under its contract with Motiva of approximately US$1,000,000.
The case is set for trial in the fall of 2017.  We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the
complaint.  The Company has no basis of determining whether there
is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims
and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/D4RFqB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Jun 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to face less than 500 active and inactive
cases by claimants alleging health problems as a result of
exposure to asbestos, 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, "For many years we have been and continue to
be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket
of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.  A
small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in
industries other than automotive.  We believe, based on scientific
and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to
asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would
not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on
their work with these products.  Further, many of these cases
involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases
exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries.
Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify
any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for
damages.  As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to
go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an
increased number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.
In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to
earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.
To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable
resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently believe that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on
our future consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VmsjsD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in
certain wire and cable, 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.

Houston Wire states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance that,
to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with
these claims.  In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of
the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/83qkiC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Still Defends 725 PI Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company still defends itself against approximately 725
asbestos-related personal injury 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, "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation.  Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants.  To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of June 30, 2017, there were approximately 725 lawsuits.  We
believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims.  We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously.  Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases.  We do not expect the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or
liquidity.  In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on our results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/nOTBtF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 221 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. continues to face 221 pending asbestos-
related 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, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.  In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss
to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through June 30, 2017 for
cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$1.2 million, of
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses; US$1.1 million have been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$27,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 221 cases pending
against the Company as of June 30, 2017 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2016.  During the six months ended June 30, 2017, 27
new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from 30 cases and settled five cases.  Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial.  The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts.  However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage.  The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases
will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PSqbcD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,966 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,966 asbestos-related claims
pending at 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, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products of predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Those subsidiaries,
and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number
of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 480 and 427 claims as
of June 30, 2017, and 2016, respectively, classified in various
jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal
judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to
as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kekwGD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $158.9MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$158.9 million reserve at June
30, 2017 for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, 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, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2016, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2026.  The methodology
used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the operating
subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential
future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the
same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates,
relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2014, to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1,
2014, to September 9, 2016, to determine the average settlement
value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of
filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors.  These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.  In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2026.  Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

"Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026
was US$171,181, of which approximately 70% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2026 and future defense costs.  The reserve at June 30,
2017, was US$158,915.  While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2026.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2026.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was US$115,945 (US$106,936 at June 30, 2017)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kekwGD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 93 Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in
around 93 asbestos-related personal injury cases, 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 were a co-defendant in approximately 93
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 187 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 11 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3.0 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
compensatory damages for the fourth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have
been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple
defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not
attributed to individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not
believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are
meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the
amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the
plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xZr3FT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amec Foster Has GBP420-Mil. Liability at Jun 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amec Foster Wheeler plc disclosed in its Form 6-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for August 10, 2017 that
it recognizes asbestos-related liabilities of GBP420 million at
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain of the company's subsidiaries in the
UK and US are subject to claims by individuals who allege that
they have suffered personal injury alleged to have arisen from
exposure to asbestos primarily in connection with equipment
allegedly manufactured by certain of our subsidiaries during the
1970s or earlier.

"As at 30 June 2017, the Group recognised a total net liability in
respect of asbestos as follows:

   * asbestos-related liabilities of GBP420m, which included
estimates of indemnity amounts and defence costs for open and yet
to be asserted claims expected to be incurred in each year in the
period to 2050; and

   * insurance recoveries of GBP110m

"The net liability of GBP(310)m in respect of asbestos-related
obligations is presented on the balance sheet within other non-
current receivables (GBP97m); trade and other receivables
(GBP13m); trade and other payables (GBP(34)m) and provisions
(GBP(386)m).

"There was a net cash outflow of GBP18m during H1 2017 due to the
excess of indemnity payments and defence costs over insurance
proceeds."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://is.gd/gdpxu4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Leathers" to Proceed Against Pneumo Abex
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
denies Pneumo Abex's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
styled IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. RAYMOND K. LEATHERS, Plaintiff,
v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-11-224
ASB, (Del. Super.).

The Court finds that under the Rhode Island standard, Raymond
Leathers' claims can survive summary judgment as there are still
factual determinations which are more appropriately determined at
trial.

Raymond Leathers claims that he was exposed to asbestos from
Defendant Pneumo Abex's products. Mr. Leathers submitted evidence
that Abex manufactured asbestos-containing brake products, like
brake shoes and linings, from 1927 through 1987. Mr. Leathers'
testified that he did four brake jobs per week, and worked as a
mechanic at Oak Lawn in Cranston, Rhode Island from 1963-1965, and
then again in 1967.

Mr. Leathers testified that he worked with Bendix, Grizzly, and
Abex products while at Oak Lawn. Mr. Leathers testified that all
the replacement brakes he used during his career were fully
assembled brakes. Mr. Leathers contends that the process of
removing and installing Abex's asbestos products caused him to
develop mesothelioma.

Mr. Leathers provided evidence demonstrating that Abex
manufactured asbestos-containing automotive friction products from
1927 through 1987. Additionally, prior to the 1980s, "the vast
majority of brake linings that Abex sold for passenger car, light
and heavy truck were asbestos-containing."

Abex contends that throughout its manufacturing history, some, but
not all, of its friction products contained asbestos. Abex also
contends that it did not manufacture fully assembled brake shoes
which could be installed directly onto vehicles.

Additionally, Abex argues that Mr. Leathers' only identification
of their product was through "an impermissible leading question,"
as Mr. Leathers did not identify Abex as a product he recalled
using initially. Finally, Abex argues that even assuming Mr.
Leathers worked with an asbestos containing product manufactured
by Abex, Mr. Leathers is unable to prove causation under Rhode
Island substantive law. Next, Abex argues that Mr. Leathers'
testimony was contradictory during questioning by Abex's counsel.

The Court maintains that whether the testimony is contradictory is
an issue of fact to be decided by the factfinder.

The Court notes that in Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 2013 WL
3010419, (R.I. Super. June 13, 2013), the Rhode Island Superior
Court discussed the different standards of causation. The
Sweredoski court determined that the "frequency, regularity,
proximity test is the proper standard of proving causation in
asbestos cases" in Rhode Island.

Based on these reasons the Court will apply the test proffered in
Sweredoski. As part of this test, the court noted that "in the
asbestos context, plaintiffs must present both product
identification and exposure evidence to satisfy the causation
element," and the court decided to "apply the 'frequency,
regularity, proximity test' as the proper causation standard for
asbestos cases." "To satisfy the 'frequency, regularity,
proximity' test, plaintiffs must present evidence showing '(1)
exposure to a particular product; (2) on a regular basis; (3) over
an extended period of time; and (4) in proximity to where the
plaintiff actually worked." Additionally, "mere proof that the
plaintiff and a certain asbestos product are at the same location
at the same time, without more, does not prove exposure to that
product." The "plaintiff must prove more than a casual or minimum
connection with the product."

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/y8yv7qvvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Ruling in "Leathers"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
grants Union Carbide's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
styled IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. RAYMOND K. LEATHERS, Plaintiff,
v. UNION CARBIDE, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-11-224 ASB,
(Del. Super.).

The Court finds that Raymond K. Leathers, cannot satisfy the
summary judgment criteria. Mr. Leathers worked at Rowe Brothers
Construction in Cranston, Rhode Island from 1967 through 1974.
During this time, Mr. Leathers' job involved hanging sheetrock,
applying joint compound and sanding walls in new homes. Mr.
Leathers stated that he worked with two joint compounds: Georgia
Pacific and National Gypsum "Gold Bond" joint compounds.

According to Mr. Leathers, Georgia-Pacific used Union Carbide's
Calidria from 1970 through May 9, 1977 and Georgia-Pacific used
"Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos fibers in every formula of
Ready-Mix joint compound it manufactured and sold from its Akron,
New York plant" from 1970 through May 1977. In is Mr. Leathers'
contention that Union Carbide is liable for his injuries through
Union Carbide's asbestos fiber supplied to these joint compound
companies.

As stated in its Motion, Union Carbide supplied manufacturers with
an asbestos fiber under the name "Calidria." However, according to
Union Carbide, it sold Calidira to the Georgia-Pacific Akron, New
York facility which distributed Georgia-Pacific products to the
New York and New England area from April 1974 to April 1977.

The Court finds that Mr. Leathers has met his burden
demonstrating, beyond mere speculation, that he may have been
exposed to asbestos from Union Carbide's Calidria. However, the
main issue on this Motion is whether Union Carbide owed Mr.
Leathers a duty to warn.

Union Carbide argues that summary judgment is appropriate because
it did not have a duty to warn Mr. Leathers under Rhode Island
law. Union Carbide argues that Rhode Island adopted Section 5 of
the Restatement (Third) of Torts and argues that the comment of
this section relieves Union Carbide of liability. Section 5
provides:

"One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing
product components who sells or distributes a component is subject
to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a product
into which the component is integrated if:

      (a) the component is defective in itself, as defined by this
Chapter, and the defect causes the harm; or

      (b) (1) the seller or distributor of the component
substantially participates in the ingeneration of the component
into the design of the product; and (2) the integration of the
component causes the product to be defective, as defined by this
Chapter; and (3) the defect in the product causes harm."

Because Rhode Island substantive law applies to this case, and
Rhode Island has adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts Section
5, the Court finds that a Rhode Island court would consider Union
Carbide's asbestos fiber a raw material.

Union Carbide "mined and milled" this "short-fiber, tremolite-
free, chrysotile asbestos fiber," it cannot be "defectively
designed" or manufactured because it is a raw unadulterated
material. Because the material was not defective, the Court finds
that Union Carbide did not owe Mr. Leathers a duty to warn.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/ya4z8bkwfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Union Carbide in "Aveni"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
rules that the Plaintiff, Constance L. Aveni, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Vincenzo J. Aveni,
deceased, cannot satisfy the summary judgment criteria on the
issues of product identification.

The Plaintiff alleges that Vincenzo Aveni developed lung cancer
from using Defendant Union Carbide Corporation's products.
Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Aveni was exposed to Union Carbide's
products while he worked in the construction industry performing
personal home construction. Mr. Aveni's son, Joseph Aveni, is the
only product identification witness in this action.

Union Carbide alleges that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it
is responsible for Mr. Aveni's injuries. In its Motion, Union
Carbide states that from 1963 through 1985 it mined and milled a
"unique short-fiber, remolite-free, chrysotile asbestos fiber
known as Calidria." Subsequently, Union Carbide sold Calidria to
manufacturers who used it during certain times and at certain
locations while manufacturing their own product.

Union Carbide sold Calidria to Georgia-Pacific's Chicago, Illinois
plant from 1970 to April 1977. Union Carbide also sold Calidria to
USG from 1971 to 1975, and to the manufacturer of Gold Bond joint
compound, National Gypsum, from 1967 to 1975. According to Union
Carbide, it was not the sole supplier to these companies.

Union Carbide avers that it was impossible for Mr. Aveni to have
been exposed to asbestos from Union Carbide's Calidria because the
product allegedly used by Mr. Aveni, a Georgia-Pacific joint
compound, was manufactured after April 1977.

Union Carbide argues that Georgia-Pacific compound became entirely
asbestos-free in 1977, which was before Mr. Aveni allegedly used
the compound in his home. Additionally, before 1977, Georgia-
Pacific manufactured both asbestos and non-asbestos containing
joint compounds, and USG and Gold Bond joint compounds
manufactured after 1975 did not contain Calidria.

Finally, Union Carbide alleges that Plaintiff has not proven that
Calidria, as opposed to an asbestos product from another supplier,
was present in the joint compound Mr. Aveni used.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's case fails for lack of
product identification. The Court points out that the only link
between the Plaintiff and an asbestos product related to Union
Carbide is Calidria that Union Carbide sold to Georgia-Pacific.
The Court, however, finds no evidence that Mr. Aveni worked with
an asbestos containing Georgia-Pacific product.

The Plaintiff also argues that Union Carbide was an exclusive
supplier of asbestos to Georgia-Pacific's Chicago plant until May
1977, and during this time frame Mr. Aveni used Georgia-Pacific
compound. Yet the Court finds no support in the record for this
statement.

Similarly, as Union Carbide discuses in its papers, Georgia-
Pacific made both asbestos containing and non-asbestos containing
compound during the time period identified by Joseph Aveni. Thus,
the Court maintains that there is no evidence that the mix Mr.
Aveni used contained asbestos, let alone asbestos provided by
Union Carbide.

Additionally, the Court finds no identification of what Georgia-
Pacific product Mr. Aveni used. Joseph Aveni testified that he
recalled his father using a product by Georgia-Pacific that came
in plastic buckets. The Court concludes that a reasonable jury
could not determine that Union Carbide was responsible for Mr.
Aveni's injuries, beyond pure speculation, that the product
contained asbestos and the asbestos was provided by Union Carbide.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CONSTANCE L. AVENI,
individually and as Executor of the Estate of VINCENZO J. Aveni,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. N14C-06-037 ASB, (Del. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/yda9mcs9 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Ford Motor in "Aveni"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled In Re: Asbestos Litigation. Constance L. Aveni,
individually and as Executor of the Estate of Vincenzo J. Aveni,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. N14C-06-037 ASB, (Del. Super.), Judge Calvin L. Scott,
Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware rules that the Plaintiff,
Constance L. Aveni, individually and as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Vincenzo J. Aveni, deceased, cannot satisfy the
summary judgment criteria on the issues of product identification.

The Plaintiff alleges that Vincenzo Aveni developed lung cancer
from using Defendant Ford Motor Company's products. The Plaintiff
offered Mr. Aveni's son, Joseph Aveni, as the product
identification witness. The Plaintiff offered evidence that all of
Ford's drum brake shoes for consumer applications prior to the
1980s were asbestos containing. The Plaintiff argues that she
presented sufficient evidence under Ohio substantive law to meet
the standard. Joseph Aveni testified that he helped his father
with automobile work around 1974 and 1975.

Joseph Aveni recalled that his father worked on Ford Ecoline vans,
a Ford F-150, three Pintos, a Ford Granada, and a 1971 Comet.
Joseph Aveni testified that the Ford vans were purchased new, and
his father changed the oil, brakes, and muffler on the vans.
Joseph Aveni could not identify the manufacture of the brakes.

Ford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that it is
entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot show
sufficient product identification. Ford argues that the product
identification witness, Mr. Aveni's son, cannot testify to the
manufacturer of the brakes he removed. Ford argues that under Ohio
law, the Plaintiff has not established that Ford's product was a
substantial factor in causing Mr. Aveni's injury. Ford argues that
Joseph Aveni testified to his father's non-occupational work on
vehicles, and he stated that he did not know the manufacturer of
the brakes his father removed. Additionally, Ford argues that
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation because the expert
report is too generic.

The Court agrees with Ford, and summary judgment is appropriate.
The only product identification witness in this case is Joseph
Aveni. Although his testimony is clear that some of the Ford
vehicles his father worked on were purchased new, that is not
enough to demonstrate that his father was exposed to asbestos from
Ford's products.

The Court also points out that although the Plaintiff submitted
evidence demonstrating that all of Ford's drum brakes contained
asbestos prior to 1980, it is pure speculation that Mr. Aveni
replaced Ford products that contained asbestos. Joseph Aveni
testified that he did not recall the manufactures of brakes and
gaskets for the cars, except for Bendix. The only Ford product he
identified were Ford hoses for the 1981 Ford Pinto. As such, the
Court concludes that a reasonable jury could not infer that Ford's
asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Aveni's
injuries.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/y7mmasjr from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors ArvinMeritor in "Ardis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware
grants Defendant ArvinMeritor Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment
In the case In Re: Asbestos Litigation. Tawnya Ardis, Plaintiff,
v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N13C-10-020
ASB, (Del. Super.), because Plaintiff, Tawnya Ardis, fails to
connect ArvinMeritor Inc.'s (as successor to Rowell International
Corp.) product to her husband, James Ardis' injury.

The Plaintiff contends that her Mr. Ardis was exposed to asbestos
while working as a mechanic at Coca-Cola Bottling Company in
Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Ardis was exposed to
asbestos from performing brake work on some of the trucks while
employed at Coca-Cola. The Plaintiff contends that Mr. Ardis was
exposed to asbestos from ArvinMeritor's brakes.

The Plaintiff offered Theodore Stutts, a former co-worker of Mr.
Ardis, as the product identification witness. Mr. Stutts
identified working with Rockwell brand brakes.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, ArvinMeritor argues that
Plaintiff's pre-1979 claims are barred under Alabama substantive
law because under Alabama law all claims for pre-1979 exposure
must be filed within one year of the date of last exposure.

Since the Plaintiffs do not contest this argument, the Court
concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on the pre-1979
claims.

As to the post-1979 claims, ArvinMeritor argues that the
Plaintiff's claims fail because the Plaintiff cannot establish
medical causation evidence. The Plaintiff argues that Dr.
Primavera's opinion is sufficient because "his considered opinion
that Mr. Ardis' occupational exposure to asbestos containing
products including Rockwell brakes was a significant factor and
cause of Mr. Ardis' lung cancer." The Court, however, finds that
the Plaintiff's claims fails for lack of medical causation.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/y7nnxc9t from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors BorgWarner in "Gloyne"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff, Gary Gloyne filed action against BorgWarner Morse
Tec, LLC. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GARY GLOYNE, as
personal Representative of the Estate of Kathleen Gloyne, and GARY
GLOYNE, individually, Plaintiff, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, LLC et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. N13C-09-059 ASB, (Del. Super.).

The Plaintiff alleges that his wife, Kathleen Gloyne, contracted
lung cancer as a result of secondary asbestos exposure. The
Plaintiff contends that Ms. Gloyne was exposed to asbestos from
BorgWarner's products.

However, the Plaintiff did not prove that Ms. Gloyne was exposed
to BorgWarner's asbestos containing product as there is no
evidence that Ms. Gloyne ever worked around or worked with an
asbestos product manufactured or sold by BorgWarner.

The Plaintiff is the only product identification witness in this
case, and he testified to using BorgWarner products along with
other manufacturers. However, the Court finds no evidence that the
Plaintiff used an asbestos product manufactured by BorgWarner, and
that Ms. Glyne was exposed to that product.

Accordingly, Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of
Delaware grants BorgWarner's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/yb533mutfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Pneumo Abex in "Murphy"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware finds
that summary judgment is appropriate in in the case styled IN RE:
ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GEORGE MURPHY SR., as personal Representative
of the Estate of Mary Murphy, and GEORGE MURPHY SR., individually,
Plaintiff, v. PNEUMO ABEX, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N13C-11-
322 ASB., (Del. Super.) because there is no evidence of decedent,
Mary Murphy's, specific exposure to Pneumo Abex's product.

The Plaintiff George Murphy Sr., filed suit against numerous
Defendants, claiming that his wife, Mary Murphy contracted lung
cancer from asbestos incorporated in Defendant Pneumo Abex's
product.

The Plaintiff contends that Ms. Murphy was secondarily exposed to
asbestos from washing the Plaintiff's dusty clothes and assisting
Plaintiff while he was performing brake jobs.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/ya3duadofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Disputed Discovery in "Barabin" Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled GERALDINE BARABIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ASTENJOHNSON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C07-1454JLR,
(Dist. Wash.), a representative for Plaintiff Geraldine Barabin
contacted the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington to request a discovery conference regarding: (1) Ms.
Barabin's ability to retake a deposition of Defendant
AstenJohnson, Inc., and  (2) the scope of that deposition.

Accordingly, District Judge James L. Robart requires the Parties
to file statements further explaining the nature of the disputed
discovery, no later than November 10, 2017. He further requires
the Parties to appear at a telephonic hearing on November 14,
2017, at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/yb6rwycefrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Henry Barabin and Geraldine Barabin are represented by:

               Gilbert L. Purcell, Pro hac vice
               James P. Nevin, Pro hac vice
               BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
               222 Rush Landing Road
               Novato, CA 94945
               Phone: 415-898-1555
               Fax: 415-898-1247

               -- and --

               Hannah E. Shangraw, Pro hac vice
               Meredith B. Good, Esq.
               BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
               806 SW Broadway, Suite 1100
               Portland, OR 97205
               Toll Free: 888-560-7120
               Phone: 503-295-4931
               Fax: 503-241-2573

               -- and --

               Cameron O. Carter, Esq.
               SHAW LAW GROUP
               425 University Avenue, Suite 200
               Sacramento, CA 95825
               Tel: (916) 640-2240
               Fax: (916) 640-2241

AstenJohnson Inc is represented by:

               Forrest Ren Wilkes, Pro hac vice
               COSMICH SIMMONS & BROWN, PLLC
               650 Poydras Street, Suite 2215
               New Orleans, LA 70130
               Phone: 504.262.0040
               Office: 504.799.0512
               Fax: 504.262.0041
               Email: ren@cs-law.com

               -- and --

               Martha Rodriguez-Lopez, Esq.
               K&L GATES LLP
               925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
               Seattle, WA 98104-1158
               Phone: 206.370.7663
               Fax: 206.370.6334

               -- and --

               J. Scott Wood, Esq.
               James P. Brady, Esq.
               FOLEY & MANSFIELD
               999 Third Avenue, Suite 3760
               Seattle, WA 98104
               Main: 206-456-5360
               Fax: 206-456-5361
               Email: swood@foleymansfield.com
                      jbrady@foleymansfield.com

Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. is represented by:

               H. Lane Young, II, Pro hac vice
               S. Christopher Collier, Pro hac vice
               HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP
               303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4000
               Atlanta, GA 30308-3243
               Tel: 404.614.7400
               Fax: 404.614.7500
               Email: lyoung@hptylaw.com
                      ccollier@hptylaw.com

               -- and --

               Robert B. Gilbreath, Pro hac vice
               HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP
               4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500
               Dallas, TX 75205-5412
               Tel: 214.780.5100
               Fax: 214.780.5200
               Email: rgilbreath@hptylaw.com

               -- and --

               Eliot M. Harris, Esq.
               Nicole R. MacKenzie, Esq.
               WILLIAMS KASTNER
               Two Union Square
               601 Union Street, Suite 4100
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Phone: 206-233-2977
               Fax: (206) 628-6611
               Email: eharris@williamskastner.com
                      nmackenzie@williamskastner.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Needed to Prove Product Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The issue presented in the appealed case captioned WAYNE BAGLEY ET
AL., v. ADEL WIGGINS GROUP ET AL., SC 19835, (Conn.) is whether,
in an action brought pursuant to Connecticut's Product Liability
Act, under strict liability and negligence theories, expert
testimony was necessary to prove that a defective, asbestos
containing product caused a worker who came in contact with that
product to contract a fatal lung disease.

The jury awarded the Plaintiff damages for the wrongful death of
her husband, Wayne Bagley (decedent), and for loss of consortium
after concluding that the Decedent's death was caused by the
Defendant Wyeth Holdings Corporation's negligence and by its sale
of an unreasonably dangerous product to the Decedent's former
employer, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.

Wyeth Holdings Corporation appeals from the judgment of the trial
court rendered following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff
Marianne Bagley.

The Defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied its
motion for a directed verdict and its motion to set aside the
verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the
Plaintiff failed to prove both that the product at issue was
unreasonably dangerous and that it was a legal cause of the
Decedent's fatal lung disease.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut agrees with the Defendant, and
accordingly, the Court reverses the judgment of the trial court.
The Court explains that proof that FM-37 emitted respirable
asbestos fibers was essential for the Plaintiff to prevail on
either of her theories of recovery under well-established law that
existed at the time of trial. The Court further explains that such
proof required the assistance of an expert because the subject
matter was technical in nature and beyond the field of ordinary
knowledge of a lay juror. Because the Plaintiff did not produce an
expert, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff failed to prove her
case.

The Decedent was employed at Sikorsky from 1979 until shortly
before his death in 2012. For approximately ten months in 1979 and
1980, he worked as a manufacturing engineer in the composite blade
manufacturing and development department (blade shop), where
various helicopter blades were manufactured.

The Decedent's office was located on a mezzanine overlooking the
area where the blade production took place. According to a
coworker, however, the decedent often entered the production areas
to assist in resolving the various issues that arose during the
manufacturing process. During the time that the Decedent worked in
the blade shop, Wyeth Holdings manufactured and sold to Sikorsky
an adhesive product known as FM-37.

FM-37 was used in the blade shop to bind together interior
components of helicopter blades. It was made of modified epoxy
material, supplied in sheet form with strippable release paper,
and contained 8.6% asbestos. However, the product information
sheets that the Wyeth Holdings supplied for FM-37 did not indicate
that it contained asbestos and further stated that the product
could be sanded after curing. The Decedent was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on or about August 10, 2011.

The trial court charged the jury, instructing it as to general
negligence principles and, in regard to the strict liability
claim, as to the ordinary consumer expectation test. While the
jury was deliberating, it sent a note to the court asking whether
the dust or powder from FM-37 had ever been tested. The trial
court responded that there was no evidence one way or the other on
that topic. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in the
Plaintiff's favor on both her negligence and strict liability
claims, as well as on her loss of consortium claim. It awarded
total damages of $804,777.

On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court improperly
denied its motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the
verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the
Plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony establishing that FM-
37 was a defective product. The Defendant argues that such
testimony was necessary due to the specialized and technical
nature of the product at issue and to prove, among other things,
the product's dangerousness and the risks inherent in its use.

In the Defendant's view, the Plaintiff's failure to produce expert
testimony pertaining to FM-37 was fatal to both her strict
liability claim and her negligence claim because each type of
claim necessarily requires proof of an unreasonably dangerous
product. The Defendant claims additionally that the Plaintiff
failed to prove that asbestos released from FM-37 was the
proximate cause of the Decedent's mesothelioma because there was
no direct evidence that he worked in the vicinity of FM-37 or any
evidence that he was exposed to any asbestos released from that
product.

The Plaintiff, in response, maintains that expert testimony was
unnecessary to prove the existence of a defective product, under
either a strict liability theory or a negligence theory. As to
strict liability, the Plaintiff contends that FM-37 is not a
complex product, and, therefore, the ordinary consumer expectation
test, which does not require expert testimony and on which the
jury was instructed, applies. Specifically, she claims, it is
within the ken of ordinary jurors to understand that sanding a
product creates dust, and, in the present case, the product at
issue contained asbestos that, as the evidence introduced at trial
established, is dangerous to inhale. In the Plaintiff's view, "it
is easy to see that sanding a product containing asbestos would
create dust containing asbestos."

The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff failed to
prove that respirable asbestos fibers were released from FM-37
during sanding in the blade shop. Without such proof, the Court
explains that there was insufficient evidence to show either that
FM-37 was dangerous or that it was a legal cause of the Decedent's
mesothelioma. Because lack of proof on these matters was fatal
both to the plaintiff's strict liability claim and to her
negligence claim, the Court concludes that the trial court
improperly denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict
and its motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

The Court notes that the Plaintiff has adequately established,
through the testimony of Michael Petrucci -- a coworker of the
Decedent, that the Decedent had been exposed to dust from the
sanding of FM-37. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Plaintiff
presented experts to assist the jury in understanding that: the
inhalation of asbestos fibers is dangerous, and that this hazard
has been known by manufacturers of industrial products, such as
the defendant, for a very long time; the inhalation of asbestos
fibers is, essentially, the only cause of mesothelioma, and the
precise disease process is well understood; respirable asbestos
fibers, once released into the air, can drift or be carried on an
individual's clothing for some distance; and the decedent, who had
worked with or near a number of asbestos containing products,
including FM-37, during his lifetime, had contracted mesothelioma.

The Court finds, however that an important link in the chain of
causation was missing -- the Plaintiff failed to prove that FM-37,
when sanded, emitted respirable asbestos fibers that the decedent
could have inhaled. Because the Defendant did not concede this
point and it is not a matter within the common knowledge of lay
jurors, the Court holds that the Plaintiff was required to prove
it with competent expert testimony.

The Court notes that none of the experts who testified, including
Jerrold L. Abraham (a pathologist and expert in pulmonary
pathology), or any other witness, had done any testing or
examination of FM-37 or a similar product to establish that
respirable asbestos fibers are emitted when the product is sanded.
Moreover, the Court determines that there is no indication in the
record that Abraham possesses any specialized knowledge, from his
familiarity with published studies or research or otherwise, about
how modified epoxy adhesives containing asbestos behave when they
are utilized as they were under the conditions in Sikorsky's blade
shop.

The Court maintains that the Plaintiff bore the burden of proving
that the Defendant's failure to test or conduct research on FM-37
or to remove it from the marketplace was unreasonable and was a
legal cause of the Decedent's mesothelioma. The Court further says
that the Plaintiff could not do this without showing that, had the
Defendant performed testing or research, it would have learned
that sanding FM-37 emitted respirable asbestos fibers.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 8, 2017, is available
at http://tinyurl.com/ybdhovsbfrom Leagle.com.










                             *********


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  * * *