CAR_Public/171124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, November 24, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 233



                            Headlines

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Kuri" Suit
AIRBNB INC: Attorney Calls Policies Virtual Jim Crow
BED BATH: Przytula's Bid to Certify Heard; Dec. 20 Hearing Set
BHRAGS HOME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Antoine" Suit Says
CITIBANK: January 23 U.S. Libor Settlement Approval Hearing Set

DAYTON, MN: Orduno Appeals From D. Minn. Ruling to Eighth Circuit
ELI ZABAR BREAD: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S. Dist. New York
EMERALD HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Reyes" Suit
FLEXFORM US: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York

FLOOR AND DECOR: Falsely Marketed Tile Product, "Fuch" Suit Says
FRATELLI ROSSETTI: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
HERMAN MILLER: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
HOME ESSENTIALS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Coffee Mugs
HONEYWELL INT'L: Pacheco Suit Seeks to Enforce Healthcare Plan

IXYS CORPORATION: Horwitz Challenges Merger With Littelfuse Unit
IXYS CORP: "Groce" Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Sanchez Supplements Bid for Class Certification
LALIQUE NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
MACY'S INC: "Hawes" Suit Alleges Warranty Act Violations

MDL 2244: J&J Ordered to Pay $247MM for Defective Hip Implants
MEDIC HOME CARE: Contreras Sues Under FLSA on Behalf of Providers
MELODY LANES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Faces "Glasgo" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
MID WILSHIRE: Faces "Messerlian" Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads

MOLLIE KALLEN: "Jones" Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sells Defective Roundup Herbicide, Koons Claims
MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Sued by Pap's Cafe Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
NBA: Retired Player Seeks Pension Boost for Class
NEW FRENASIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Jin" Suit Claims

NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stallworth" Suit
OIL-TECH CONSTRUCTION: "Ajayi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
OREGON: Parents Sue Over School's Transgender Bathroom Policy
PAUL L MARKS: Accused by "Johnson" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
PNGI CHARLES: "Barrick" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

PRA GROUP: "Hepfner" Suit Seeks Redress From Illegal Collections
PRECISION MOTOR: Ratliff's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Hearing on Dec. 19
RADIAL INSIGHT: Made Illegal Automated Phone Call, Mey Says
RTI INTERNATIONAL: Accused by "Mey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
RUBY TUESDAY: Gives Misleading Info, Shareholder Class Suit Says

SAN DIEGO, CA: Accused of Discrimination by Homeless RV Owners
SEECO INC: Arnett Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
SILVER SPRING: Geller Challenges Proposed Merger With Itron Inc.
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces "Foreman" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
SONIC NOTIFY: Must Face Class Action Over Fan App Recordings

ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
STATE FARM: Faces Spine Care Class Suit Over Insurance Claims
STONEMARK MANAGEMENT: Rumph Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TDJ OILFIELD: Seeks Okay of Stipulated Notice in "Barnhill" Suit
TRIAD MEDIA: Invades Class Members' Privacy, "Sloatman" Suit Says

TRIVAGO NV: Faces "Oliva" IPO-Related Class Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Paid Hackers to Keep Quiet About Data Breach
US COLD STORAGE: Sued by McGinnis to Stop Use of Biometric Data
VENTURE EXPRESS: Ratliff's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Jan. 30 Hearing Set
VERSAR INC: Consoli Files Suit vs. BOD Over Sale to Kingswood

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Misclassifies Workers, "Divine" Suit Says
WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Class Action Claims Sexual Abuse
WENNER MEDIA: Sullivan Seeks Prelim. Approval of $1.1-Mil. Deal
WILLIE LAMAR: "Haynes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action

ZABAR'S & CO: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Southern District New York
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Konatar" of Violating FDCPA


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56,400 Claims Pending v. American Optical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Suits at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Jul 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Continues at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Still Defends A&F Lawsuit at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 42 PI Lawsuits at July 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little, et al., Must Respond to Kaneb Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watson May Pursue Asbestos Claims Under FELA

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim v. Bestwall in "Mullinax" Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim v. Bestwall in "Lineberger" Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Siemens in "Lineberger" Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim vs. Bestwall in "Brown" Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Lift Stay in Carilli Asbestos Suit




                            *********


ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Kuri" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Julie A. Robinson granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of class claims
under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the
lawsuit entitled CRYSTAL KURI, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORAL CHANGE HEALTH GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02685-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.).

The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
Plaintiff's claims under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for this class
of persons:

     All nurses who were employed by Defendant, on an hourly
     basis, from November 9, 2014 to the present and who were not
     paid for all straight time and overtime premiums for all
     hours worked in excess of forty per work week.

The Plaintiff's motion to approve her form of notice is denied
without prejudice, to be reasserted after the parties have
conferred and removed the provisions identified by the Court.  The
parties shall submit a joint amended proposed notice and consent-
to-join form to the Court for approval within 14 days of the
Court's order, according to the Court's Memorandum and Order.

Plaintiff Crystal Kuri is designated class representative and her
counsel, Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq., is designated class counsel.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f4vrqLlz


AIRBNB INC: Attorney Calls Policies Virtual Jim Crow
----------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Airbnb offers black renters 16 percent fewer places to stay than
white customers -- the online equivalent of a separate, back door
for black people, class-action attorneys told a federal judge
November 14.

Lead plaintiff Patricia Harrington, who sued Airbnb for housing
discrimination in March, says the company requires hosts and
renters to set up profiles with their photos, which allows racial
discrimination. Harrington said Airbnb knew about the racial
effect of its policy and did not take steps to ensure equal access
to its services.

Harrington's attorney Yoona Park, Esq. -- ypark@stollberne.com ---
-- with Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter, told U.S.
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You on November 14 that Harrington
wrote a letter to the company asking for access to the same
breadth of rental options as white renters. Airbnb denied her
request, Park said, saying that Harrington was welcome to use the
platform as it was configured.

Airbnb filed for dismissal in September. It did not deny that
black customers see fewer offerings than white customers, but said
Harrington lacked standing to sue because she faced only
theoretical discrimination and had not personally been harmed by
Airbnb's policy.

But Airbnb's attorney Jeremy Sacks, Esq. -- jeremy.sacks@stoel.com
-- with Stoel Rives, said the company took the issue seriously.

"Plaintiffs know the problem exists because they are citing from a
report that Airbnb commissioned," Sacks said. Airbnb wrote in its
motion to dismiss that "regrettably, discrimination exists in our
world today."

Park said that wasn't good enough. She told Judge You that
Airbnb's view of discrimination differs enormously from
Harrington's.

"It's our position that discrimination is not just regrettable,
it's wrong," Park said. "It's also illegal. And yet it's happening
every day on Airbnb's website.

"There has to be something more that they can do to offer the same
service to black people as they offer to whites."

You said she would take Airbnb's motion to dismiss under
advisement.

The case is PATRICIA HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AIRBNB, INC., Defendant,
Case No.: 3:17-CV-00558-YY (D. Ore.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Joshua L. Ross, Esq.
     Yoona Park, Esq.
     STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Telephone: (503) 227-1600
     Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
     Email: jross@stollberne.com
            ypark@stollberne.com

        -- and --

     Nicholas A Kahl, Esq.
     NICK KAHL, LLC
     209 SW Oak St., Suite 400
     Portland OR 97204
     Telephone: (971) 634-0829
     Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
     Email nick@nickkahl.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Jeremy D. Sacks, Esq.
     Reilley D. Keating, Esq.
     Taryn K. Williams, Esq.
     Kennon Scott, Esq.
     STOEL RIVES LLP
     760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
     Portland, OR 97205
     Telephone: 503.224.3380
     Facsimile: 503.220.2480
     Email: jeremy.sacks@stoel.com
            reilley.keating@stoel.com
            taryn.williams@stoel.com
            kennon.scott@stoel.com


BED BATH: Przytula's Bid to Certify Heard; Dec. 20 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 13, 2017, in the case
styled Mary Przytula, et al. v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-05124 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Edmond E. Chang.

According to Court's minute entry, status and motion hearing was
held on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.  The
Defendant's out-of-town attorney appeared by telephone and the
local counsel appeared in Court for both sides.

The minute entry also states that:

   -- As discussed during the hearing, Defendant's response to
      the motion is due on December 20, 2017;

   -- Plaintiffs' reply is due on January 9, 2018;

   -- With regard to discovery allegedly needed in order to
      respond, Defendant shall confer with Plaintiffs as to what
      topics the defense proposes for a deposition;

   -- If the parties reach a good-faith impasse, then Defendant
      shall file a motion to compel by November 30, 2017;

   -- Plaintiffs' response is due on December 8, 2017;

   -- Defense reply is due on December 13, 2017;

   -- Fact discovery shall close on July 27, 2018, as originally
      proposed by the parties;

   -- The fact discovery deadline includes all discovery needed
      on the merits of the named Plaintiffs' claims and to file a
      final collective certification motion and a motion to
      certify class; and

   -- Status hearing is set for December 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

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


BHRAGS HOME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Antoine" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Antoine, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BHRAGS Home Care, Corp., and BHRAGS, Inc.
and/or any other related entities, Case No. 159965/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., November 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours.

The Defendants are engaged in providing home health aide services
at the residences of their clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com
              mdostanitch@vandallp.com
              mmoreno@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      517 Brighton Beach Ave., 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


CITIBANK: January 23 U.S. Libor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Owned a U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Instrument Between August
2007 and May 2010 You May Be Eligible for a Payment from
a $120 Million Settlement

There is a Settlement with Barclays that impacts individuals and
institutions that entered into over-the-counter financial
derivative and non-derivative instruments directly with Barclays
or a Non-Settling Defendant that received payments tied to
U.S. Dollar LIBOR.  Citibank, Barclays, and the Non-Settling
Defendants (Credit Suisse, Bank of America, JPMorgan, HSBC,
Lloyds, WestLB, UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, Norinchukin,
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, HBOS, SocGen, and RBC) are U.S.
Dollar LIBOR Panel Banks.  The instruments include certain
interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, asset swaps,
collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, inflation
swaps, total return swaps, options, and floating rate notes.

The litigation claims that the banks manipulated the U.S. Dollar
LIBOR rate during the financial crisis, artificially lowering the
rate for their own profit, which resulted in purchasers receiving
less interest payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments from the banks as they should have.  Plaintiffs assert
antitrust, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims.

Citibank denies all claims of wrongdoing.

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlement if you (individual or entity):

   -- Directly purchased certain U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments from Citibank or any Non-Settling Defendant (or their
subsidiaries or affiliates) in the United States; and owned the
instruments at any time between August 2007 and May 2010.

What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement will create a $130 million Settlement Fund that
will be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid
claims.  Additionally, Cititbank will cooperate with the
Plaintiffs in their ongoing litigation against the Non-Settling
Defendants.

How can I get a payment?
You must submit a Proof of Claim to get a payment.  You can submit
a Proof of Claim online or by mail.  The deadline to submit a
Proof of Claim is March 29, 2018.  You are entitled to receive a
payment if you have a qualifying transaction with Citibank,
Barclays or a Non-Settling Defendant.  At this time, it is unknown
how much each Class Member who submits a valid claim will receive.

What are my rights?
Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue Citibank
for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning the Settlement.  This Settlement will not result in a
release of your claims against any Non-Settling Defendant, and the
litigation against Non-Settling Defendants is
ongoing.  If you want to keep your right to sue Citibank, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by January 2, 2018.  If
you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement
by January 2, 2018.

The Court will hold a hearing on January 23, 2018, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses.  You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

1-888-568-7640 www.USDollarLiborSettlement.com


DAYTON, MN: Orduno Appeals From D. Minn. Ruling to Eighth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Samantha Orduno filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Samantha Orduno v. Richard Pietrzak, et al.,
Case No. 0:14-cv-01393-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Orduno
filed the putative class action on May 2, 2014, alleging
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  She has
served as City Administrator for the City of Dayton, Minnesota
from 2005 until she was terminated in 2013.

According to the Plaintiff, during her tenure with the City, Mr.
Pietrzak served as the Dayton Chief of Police.  She alleged that
while he was employed as Chief of Police, Mr. Pietrzak accessed
from the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services database (the "DVS
Database") her personal information and that of at least 850
others for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA.  She further
alleged that the City of Dayton, through its supervisors, knew of
his unlawful accesses and failed to monitor and prevent the
accesses.

The appellate case is captioned as Samantha Orduno v. Richard
Pietrzak, et al., Case No. 17-3437, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

According to the Appellate Docket, the originating court document
filed by Ms. Orduno consists of Notice of Appeal, Order (Doc. 24)
filed 10/28/14, Order (Doc. 54) filed 11/10/15, Letter Order (Doc.
76), Judgment (Doc. 229) filed 05/25/17, Order (Doc. 313) filed
09/29/17, Amended Judgment (Doc. 315) filed 10/04/17, Second
Amended Judgment (Doc. 317) filed 10/16/17, and docket entries.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before December 18, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on December 28, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant Samantha Orduno is due on December 28,
      2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Samantha Orduno, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lorenz F. Fett, Jr., Esq.
          Sonia Miller-Van Oort, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Strauss, Esq.
          Robin M. Wolpert, Esq.
          SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 756-7100
          E-mail: larryf@sapientialaw.com
                  soniamv@sapientialaw.com
                  jons@sapientialaw.com
                  robinw@sapientialaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Mae Holden, Esq.
          Marcia Kay Miller, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq.
          SIEBENCAREY, P.A.
          901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-4500
          E-mail: susan.holden@knowyourrights.com
                  marcia.miller@knowyourrights.com
                  jeffrey.montpetit@knowyourrights.com

Defendants-Appellees Richard Pietrzak, in his individual capacity
as the Chief of Police of the City of Dayton, and City of Dayton
are represented by:

          Stephanie A. Angolkar, Esq.
          Jon K. Iverson, Esq.
          Susan Marie Tindal, Esq.
          IVERSON REUVERS CONDON
          9321 Ensign Avenue, S.
          Bloomington, MN 55438-0000
          Telephone: (952) 548-7200
          E-mail: stephanie@irc-law.com
                  jon@irc-law.com
                  susan@irc-law.com

               - and -

          Margaret A. Skelton, Esq.
          RATWIK, ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A.
          300 U.S. Trust Building
          730 Second Avenue, S.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-0060
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0038
          E-mail: mas@ratwiklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Michael Campion, in his individual capacity
as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
Ramona Dohman, in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, are represented by:

          Oliver J. Larson, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          1800 Bremer Tower
          445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134
          Telephone: (651) 297-2040
          Facsimile: (651) 297-1235
          E-mail: oliver.larson@ag.state.mn.us


ELI ZABAR BREAD: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eli Zabar Bread LLC.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eli Zabar Bread LLC and
Elizabar.com, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09075 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 20, 2017).

Eli Zabar Bread LLC operates as a bakery. It sells its products
through hotels, restaurants, food stores, caterers, and corporate
commissaries, as well as its stores and restaurants. The company
was founded in 1985 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EMERALD HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Byers, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Emerald Health Services Local LLC; Tempus,
LLC; and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. BC682787 (Cal. Super.
Ct., November 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime wages and failing to timely pay all
wages owing at the termination of employment.

The Defendants operate a healthcare staffing company that employs
hourly health care professionals for short-term travel assignments
at health care providers throughout California. [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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Reyes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Demeta Reyes filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Demeta Reyes v. Experian Information Solutions,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00563-AG-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Plaintiff sought certification of two classes under the FCRA.

The appellate case is captioned as Demeta Reyes v. Experian
Information Solutions, Case No. 17-56699, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 8, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 8, 2018;

   -- Appellant Demeta Reyes' opening brief is due on
      February 16, 2018;

   -- Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on March 19, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DEMETA REYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., is
represented by:

          Ann Theresa Rossum, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          E-mail: atrossum@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Adam W. Wiers, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 782-3939
          E-mail: awwiers@jonesday.com


FLEXFORM US: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flexform US, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flexform US, LLC and
Flexform N.Y. LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09070 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 20, 2017).

Flexform N.Y. is an Italian manufacturer of luxury furniture,
offers designs which have beauty, quality and simple elegance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLOOR AND DECOR: Falsely Marketed Tile Product, "Fuch" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicky Fuchs, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Floor And Decor Outlets of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2017-CH-14866 (Ill. Cir. Ct., November 8, 2017), seeks
redress for Defendant's sale of tile products that were falsely
advertised and labeled as having product dimensions that were not
the actual dimensions of the products sold.

Floor And Decor Outlets of America, Inc. operates at least six
retail locations in Illinois, including a store in Cook
County, located at 3300 Oakton Street, Skokie, IL 60076. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin Sr., Esq.
      EUGENE TURIN LAW
      102 N. Milwaukee, S 312
      Deerfield, IL 60015
      Telephone: (847) 656-3323
      E-mail: attorney@eugeneturinlaw.com


FRATELLI ROSSETTI: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fratelli Rossetti
New York, Ltd. The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fratelli
Rossetti New York, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09084 (S.D.
N.Y., November 20, 2017).

Fratelli Rossetti New York, Ltd. is an American outpost of the
Italian manufacturer of high-end men's & women's shoes, jackets &
bags.[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


HERMAN MILLER: Faces "Norman" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herman Miller, Inc.
The case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Herman Miller, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09080 (S.D. N.Y., November 20, 2017).

Herman Miller, Inc., based in Zeeland, Michigan, is a major
American manufacturer of office furniture, equipment and home
furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HOME ESSENTIALS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Coffee Mugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Menzer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Home Essentials & Beyond, Inc., Case No. 521695/2017
(N.Y. Sup Ct., November 8, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive acts and practices
in connection with its marketing and advertising of its Soho
Cafe Irish Coffee Mugs.

Home Essentials & Beyond, Inc. manufactures and distributes home
furnishings including glass, lighting, ceramics, and other home
decor items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Kane, Esq.
      PEIFFER, ROSCA, WOLF, ABDULLAH, CARR & KANE
      15 Fishers Road, Suite 202
      Pittsford, NY 14534
      Telephone: (585) 310-5140
      Facsimile: (504) 523-2464
      E-mail: jkane@prwlegal.com

         - and -

      Alan Rosca, Esq.
      PEIFFER, ROSCA, WOLF, ABDULLAH, CARR & KANE
      1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216)570-0097
      Facsimile: (888)411-0038
      E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 2223-8887
      E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
              marty@sagwlaw.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Pacheco Suit Seeks to Enforce Healthcare Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTINE PACHECO and VICKI HANSEN, for themselves and others
similarly-situated v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 0:17-
cv-05048 (D. Minn., November 7, 2017), is brought to enforce
collectively-bargained promises of Honeywell-sponsored healthcare
until age 65 for employees, who took early retirement under the
Honeywell-sponsored pension plan.

Honeywell has announced that it plans to terminate the healthcare
of more than 320 retirees, who are under age 65, and the
healthcare of the retirees' families on January 1, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs sue for themselves and similarly-situated retirees and
retirees' spouses, other dependents, and surviving spouses.

Since the 1950s, Honeywell has been a party to collective
bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Local 1145, which governed the currently operating
Minnesota facilities and other Minnesota facilities now closed.

Honeywell International Inc. is a Fortune 100 company. Honeywell
has operations at about 1,250 sites in 70 countries and has annual
sales of approximately $38 billion.  Honeywell operates as a
diversified technology and manufacturing company worldwide.  The
Company operates through four segments: Aerospace; Home and
Building Technologies; Performance Materials and Technologies; and
Safety and Productivity Solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
          John G. Adam, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 South Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
                  jga@legghioisrael.com

               - and -

          Katrina E. Joseph, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL #1145
          9422 Ulysses Street NE, Suite 120
          Blaine, MN 55434
          Telephone: (763) 267-6146
          E-mail: kjoseph@teamsterslocal120.org


IXYS CORPORATION: Horwitz Challenges Merger With Littelfuse Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE HORWITZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. IXYS CORPORATION, NATHAN ZOMMER, UZI SASSON, SAMUEL
KORY, KENNETH D. WONG, JAMES M. THORBURN, S. JOON LEE, DONALD L.
FEUCHT, and TIMOTHY A. RICHARDSON, Case No. 3:17-cv-06472-RS (N.D.
Cal., November 7, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' attempt to
sell the Company to Littelfuse, Inc. and Iron Merger Co., Inc.

On August 28, 2017, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Littelfuse.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each IXYS
stockholder will be entitled to elect to receive, per IXYS share,
either $23 in cash or 0.1265 of a share of Littelfuse common
stock, subject to proration.  The Proposed Transaction is valued
at approximately $750 million.

IXYS is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located in Milpitas, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

IXYS is an integrated semiconductor company that designs,
develops, manufactures, and markets semiconductor products
worldwide.  The Company develops and markets technology-driven
products to improve energy conversion efficiency, generate clean
energy, advance automation and provide solutions for the
transportation, medical, and telecommunication industries.

Littelfuse is a Delaware corporation and the world leader in
circuit protection with growing global platforms in power control
and sensing.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

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


IXYS CORP: "Groce" Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas C. Groce III, and all others similarly-situated v. IXYS
Corporation, Nathan Zommer, Uzi Sasson, Donald L. Feucht, Samuel
Kory, S. Joon Lee, Timothy A. Richardson, James M. Thorburn,
Kenneth D. Wong, Iron Merger Co., Inc., and Littelfuse, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-06489 (N.D. Calif., November 8, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
registration statement to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 26, 2017.

The Plaintiff is the owner of shares of common stock of IXYS.

Defendant IXYS is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware. The Company's principal executive
offices are located in Milpitas, California. IXYS common stock
trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "IXYS." IXYS is a Silicon
Valley power semi-conductor company that develops products to
improve power conversion efficiency.

Littelfuse, Inc. is a multinational company that primarily
produces circuit protection products, but also manufactures a
variety of electronic switches and automotive sensors.

Defendant Merger Sub is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware and is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Littelfuse, Inc.

Individual Defendants are officers of IXYS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 534-2590
      Fax: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com

          - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
      ROWLEY LAW PLLC
      50 Main Street, Suite 1000
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 400-1920
      Fax: (914) 301-3514


KHBJR ENTERPRISE: Sanchez Supplements Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARIO SANCHEZ, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KHBJR ENTERPRISE
LLC d/b/a 4TH QUARTER SPORTS BAR; BOMBAY RANCH, INC. d/b/a 8811
PATIO BAR; 8811 LLC d/b/a 8811 PATIO BAR; KENNETH HENRY BAKER,
JR.; and MICHAEL KEVIN WADE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00811-DAE (W.D.
Tex.), files with the Court a supplement to his motion for
expedited conditional certification of collective action and
judicially-supervised notice under Section 216(b) of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The class is defined as:

     All individuals who worked as servers, bartenders, or
     barbacks at 8811 Patio Bar or 4th Quarter Sports Bar since
     August 23, 2014 who were not paid an hourly wage.

Mr. Sanchez also asks the Court to award the relief outlined in
the amended proposed order submitted with this Supplement to His
Motion for Notice.

The Defendants operate two jointly managed bars -- 4th Quarter
Sports Bar and 8811 Patio Bar.

Mr. Sanchez contends that the employees at both bars are
predominantly younger, mostly in their twenties.  In addition, he
notes the annual turnover rate among the Defendants' employees is
high.  As a result, he contends, it is highly likely that the
individuals entitled to notice in this matter will be relatively
difficult to locate as compared to putative plaintiffs in other
FLSA collective actions.

Moreover, Mr. Sanchez asserts, most, if not all, of the employees
of both establishments have smartphone cell phones with the
ability to view Web sites.  Hence, he says, Sending notice of the
collective action via cell phone will be a very effective way to
increase the awareness of this lawsuit by potential class members.

A copy of the Plaintiff's Supplement is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jibbr0v5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          13590 Ranch Road 12
          Wimberley, Texas 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Telecopier: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com


LALIQUE NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lalique North
America, Inc.  The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lalique North
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09071 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 20, 2017).

Lalique North America, Inc. engages in the manufacture and
distribution of crystalware, jewelry, perfumes, 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


MACY'S INC: "Hawes" Suit Alleges Warranty Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Hawes, and Amy Hill, and all others similarly-situated v.
Macy's Inc., AQ Textiles LLC, Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
and John Doe Corporations 1-100, Case No. 1:17-cv-00754 (S.D.
Ohio, November 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of
a Class consisting of Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated, to redress Defendants' deceptive acts and unconscionable
business practices designed to deceive and mislead consumers and
the public into believing that Defendants' bedding and linen
products had higher thread counts than they actually have and, as
such, were of better qualify, softer, and more comfortable for
sleeping than products with lesser thread counts.

Plaintiff Amy Hill is a resident of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri and a citizen of Missouri. Ms. Hill purchased Fairfield
Square 1000TC Luxury Sateen sheets from a Macy's store in St.
Louis County, MO. She believes she made the purchase in summer or
fall of 2016.

Plaintiff Sara Hawes is an adult citizen of California. In or
around May 2017, Ms. Hawes purchased a Somerset Collection brand
queen-size sheet set, manufactured by Defendant Creative Textiles
and represented to be "900 Thread Count" from Defendant Macy's
retail store located at 8500 Beverly Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.

Defendant Macy's is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 7 West 7th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202. Prior to June 1, 2007, Macy's Inc. was known as Federated
Department Stores, Inc. As of April 2, 2016, Macy's was operating
870 stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto
Rico under the names of Macy's, Macy's Backstage, Bloomingdale's,
Bloomingdale's Outlets, and Bluemercury.

Defendant Creative Textiles manufactures and sells textiles,
including the relevant sheets and bedding products, throughout the
United States, through its subsidiary AQ Textiles.

Defendant AQ Textiles, on behalf of Creative Textiles, imports and
distributes the relevant sheet and bedding products to Defendant
Macy's. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Drew Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 W 9th St #200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (888) 570-3609
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com

          - and -

      Bruce Steckler, Esq.
      Stuart Cochran, Esq.
      Kirstine Rogers, Eq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
              stuart@stecklerlaw.com
              krogers@stecklerlaw.com


MDL 2244: J&J Ordered to Pay $247MM for Defective Hip Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Texas federal jury slapped DePuy Orthopaedics and corporate parent
Johnson & Johnson with a $247 million verdict on November 16 over
its Pinnacle artificial hips that injured six, handing the
companies their third consecutive costly loss on the implants.

The jury unanimously concluded after a two-month trial that the
metal-on-metal hip implants had design and manufacturing defects
and that the companies knew about the flaws but failed to warn
patients. The six injured New York plaintiffs sued for products
liability, deceptive business practices and fraud in 2015.

The jury awarded Ramon Alicea, Uriel Barzel, Karen Kirschner,
Hazel Miura, Eugene Stevens Jr. and Michael Stevens approximately
$79 million in actual damages and $168 million in punitive
damages.

The plaintiffs alleged they were forced to have their implants
removed after suffering from bone erosion, tissue death and
poisoning from metal debris, among other things. Their case is
among the 8,000 that were assigned to U.S. District Judge Ed
Kinkeade in Dallas under multidistrict litigation.

DePuy stopped selling Pinnacle implants in 2013, three years after
it recalled similar metal-on-metal ASR hip implants after reports
of high failure rates.

November 16's verdict comes on the heels of two other bellwether
losses for Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. The companies were slapped
with a $1 billion Pinnacle verdict in December 2016.

The Dallas federal jury in that case also concluded the implants
were defective and that the companies failed to warn of the risks,
awarding $32 million in actual damages and over $1 billion in
punitive damages to six California plaintiffs. Judge Kinkeade
reduced the jury award to $500 million one month later, citing due
process concerns with a massive punitive damages award that went
beyond a "single-digit multiplier" of actual damages.

In March 2016, a separate Dallas federal jury awarded five Texas
plaintiffs $498 million.

In the first Pinnacle case to go to trial in October 2014, a
Dallas federal jury cleared the companies of products liability,
negligence and Montana Consumer Protection Act allegations and
awarded a female plaintiff nothing.

Houston attorney W. Mark Lanier, Esq. represents the plaintiffs in
all three victories against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy.

"We thank this jury for sending a very strong message about the
responsibility the defendants have to take care of their
consumers," Lanier said in a statement after November 16's
verdict.

DePuy spokesperson Stella Meirelles said in a statement after the
verdict the company will "immediately begin the appeal process and
remain committed to the long-term defense" against the lawsuits.
She said the implants were supported by a strong record of
clinical data showing their effectiveness.

Defense attorney John H. Beisner, with Skadden Arps in Washington,
D.C., said in a statement after the verdict that the trial "was a
disservice to everyone involved because the verdict will do
nothing to advance the ultimate resolution of this six-year-old
litigation."

The case is IN RE: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant
Products Liability Litigation, 3:11-md-02244-K (N.D Tex.).


MEDIC HOME CARE: Contreras Sues Under FLSA on Behalf of Providers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA G. CONTRERAS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. MEDIC HOME CARE, INCORPORATED, CRAIG M. HADDAD, SR.
and VICENTA C. HADDAD, Case No. 7:17-cv-00436 (S.D. Tex., November
9, 2017), alleges that the Defendants do not pay their employees,
who work as providers overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Contreras contends that the Defendants pay her and other
Providers an hourly rate with no overtime premium whatsoever when
the Providers exceed 40 hours of work in a workweek.

Medic is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business
in Harlingen, Cameron County, Texas.  Medic is in the home
healthcare business.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
directors, officers and principals of Medic.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE
          & KHIRALLAH, LLP
          3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
          McAllen, TX 78501
          Telephone: (956) 682-5999
          Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
          E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Solis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C. SOLIS, PLLC
          3900 N. 10th St., Suite
          McAllen, TX 78501
          Telephone: (956) 686-9600
          Facsimile: (956) 686-7033
          E-mail: ryan@rsolislaw.com


MELODY LANES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melody Lanes Inc.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Melody Lanes Inc. and
Melody Lanes NY, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09072 (S.D.
N.Y., November 20, 2017).

Melody Lanes Inc. is a Bowling alley offering an arcade, snack bar
& lounge, plus leagues & birthday parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Faces "Glasgo" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Credit
Adjusters, Inc. The case is styled as Genay Glasgo, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants
Credit Adjusters, Inc. a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-02794-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., November 20, 2017).

Merchants Credit Adjusters, Inc. is a Credit reporting agency in
Douglas County, Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
   Desmond Law Firm
   5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
   Vero Beach, Fl 32963
   Tel: (772) 234-5150
   Fax: (772) 231-0300
   Email: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


MID WILSHIRE: Faces "Messerlian" Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
VAHE MESSERLIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MID WILSHIRE CONSULTING, INC. dba
SOCIALWELLNESSTALKS.COM; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-08186 (C.D. Cal., November 9, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
have caused the Plaintiff and the class to incur the costs of
receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via "telephone
facsimile machines" and invading their privacy.

Mid Wilshire Consulting, Inc., doing business as
socialwellnesstalks.com, is a marketer of medical products.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


MOLLIE KALLEN: "Jones" Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JONES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
MOLLIE KALLEN CASE MANAGEMENT INC., a Florida Corporation, and
MOLLIE KALLEN, individually, Case No. 9:17-cv-81235-DMM (S.D.
Fla., November 9, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mollie Kallen Case Management Inc., a Florida Corporation, has its
principal address in Boca Raton, Florida.  Mollie Kallen owns,
manages and operates the Company.  The Defendants provide medical,
disability and vocational case management services for workers'
compensation claims and related business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sells Defective Roundup Herbicide, Koons Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY KOONS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:17-cv-02685-JAR
(E.D. Mo., November 7, 2017), is an action for damages suffered by
the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Ms. Koons alleges that Roundup(R) and glyphosate are defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.  She contends that her
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant engaged in the
business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing,
packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and selling
Roundup.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A Flint, Esq.
          FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 E. Park St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 205-2017
          Facsimile: (618) 288-2864
          E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com

               - and -

          David J. Wool, Esq.
          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376-6360
          Facsimile: (303) 376-6361
          E-mail: david.wool@andruswagstaff.com
                  aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com


MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Sued by Pap's Cafe Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAP'S CAFE, LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MYPIZZA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08038 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2017), challenges
the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Pap's Cafe, Ltd., is an Illinois corporation that owns and
operates a restaurant named Pap's Ultimate Bar & Grill.

MyPizza Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York City.  The identities of
the Doe Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are
not presently known.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


NBA: Retired Player Seeks Pension Boost for Class
-------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal class action against the NBA on November 16 claims its
pension plan cheated retired players of hundreds of thousands of
dollars by skimping on cost-of-living adjustments.

Lead plaintiff Zaid Abdul-Aziz, formerly known as Don Smith, was a
power forward and center for six teams in an 11-year NBA career,
after being a first-round pick in the 1968 draft. He retired from
the Houston Rockets in 1978.

The 27-page lawsuit from his Baton Rouge attorney Jason Melancon,
Esq. with Melancon & Rimes, claims there are steep disparities
between NBA benefit plans.

He claims the sole defendant National Basketball Association
Players' Pension Plan violated ERISA and IRS rules because the
financial difference between the normal retirement pension and the
fixed period actuarial equivalent he chose in August 1991 cost his
family hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.

Abdul-Aziz says ERISA and IRS regulations require that a pensioner
receive the actuarial equivalent of pensioners who choose a life
annuity payable until death.

"Even the most basic of mathematical calculations clearly
establishes that the plan's failure to pay plaintiff and the
putative class a true and correct benefit of equivalent value
equal to and commensurate with the COLA increases to the normal
retirement pension has cost plaintiff and his family hundreds of
thousands of dollars in loss of retirement benefits," according to
the lengthy complaint.

Abdul-Aziz seeks class certification, a jury trial and payments
for all past and future benefits of equivalent value as
actuarially determined.

Abdul-Aziz chose a fixed period actuarial equivalent in the form
of monthly installments for 10 years, payable at $1,813.17 per
month, on July 12, 1991.

From August 1991 through August 2001, he received 10 years of
defined monthly installments totaling $273,098.72.

But he says neither the 1989 plan, retirement application, nor
benefit calculation worksheet expressly advised him that he would
forever forfeit his pension rights to future cost-of-living
adjustment increases, which ERISA and IRS regulations prohibit
anyway.

He says that from 1988 to today, the NBPA Pension Plan has
increased the normal retirement pension from $200 per month for
each year of credited service to $572.12 per month for each year
of credited service; in other words, the plan has increased the
normal retirement pension by more than 186 percent in the past 29
years.

Abdul-Aziz lives in the Seattle area and works as chemical
dependency counselor.

The NBA Players Association made a splash last year when it
announced that its player representatives had voted unanimously to
fund health insurance for all retired NBA players with at least
three years in the league.

Chris Paul, NBPA president and nine-time All-Star said at the
time: "It's important that we take care of our entire extended NBA
family, and I'm proud of my fellow players for taking this
unprecedented step to ensure the health and well-being of our
predecessors."

According to the NBPA website, the average NBA player's career in
the league lasts just over four years.

The NBPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is ZAID ABDUL-AZIZ, Individually And on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION PLAYERS' PENSION PLAN, Defendant, No. CV 17-8901
(S.D.N.Y.).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Jason L. Melancon, Esq.
     Robert C. Rimes, Esq.
     R. Lee Daquanno, Jr., Esq.
     MELANCON | RIMES, LLC
     6700 Jefferson Hwy., Building 6
     Baton Rouge, LA 70806
     Telephone: (225) 303-0455
     Facsimile: (225) 303-0459
     Email: jason@melanconrimes.com


NEW FRENASIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Jin" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xin Jin aka "James" and Jun Wei, individually and on behalf all
other employees similarly situated v. Frenasia Inc., d/b/a
Frenasia, New Frenasia Corp., d/b/a Frenasia, Huang Lin, and Xuan
Lin, Case No. 1:17-cv-06544 (E.D.N.Y., November 9, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to
pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Frenasia Inc., doing business as Frenasia, is a dissolved domestic
business corporation previously organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York and maintained its principal place
of business in Howard Beach, New York.

New Frenasia Corp., doing business as Frenasia, is the successor
to Frenasia Inc. and is a domestic business corporation
organization and existing under the laws of the state of New York
and maintaining its principal place of business in Howard Beach.
The Individual Defendants are the owners, officers, directors
and/or managing agents of Frenasia.

Frenasia is a restaurant located at 163-35 Cross Bay Blvd., in
Howard Beach, New York.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stallworth" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony Stallworth, Parichay Barman, New York Taxi
Workers Alliance and Noor Tani filed an appeal from a District
Court order dated October 10, 2017, entered in their lawsuit
titled Stallworth, et al. v. Joshi, et al., Case No. 17-cv-7119,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the purported
class action lawsuit was filed against City of New York and others
on September 19, 2017.  The nature of suit is stated as civil
rights-other.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Stallworth, et al. v. Joshi, et
al., Case No. 17-3678, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Stallworth, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Parichay Barman,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Noor
Tani, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellees Chris Wilson, Stas Skarbo, City of New York
and Meera Joshi are represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


OIL-TECH CONSTRUCTION: "Ajayi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ajayi, and all others similarly-situated v. Oil-Tech
Construction, LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00228 (W.D. Tex., November 8,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Daniel Ajayi worked for Defendant as a driver in the
Midland area oil fields.

Defendant is an oil and gas services company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
      MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


OREGON: Parents Sue Over School's Transgender Bathroom Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in
a federal lawsuit against Oregon, the United States and a school
district, parents and students say a school district's policy on
gender identity creates the "unavoidable consequence" that their
children will see students of the opposite sex naked.

Parents for Privacy and its members say Dallas School District No.
2, et al., violates children's civil rights by forcing them to
share locker rooms with students whose gender identity does not
match their biological sex.

They claim the government is holding education funding "hostage"
by threatening to cut off Title IX funding to schools that do not
comply with federal policy. Defendants include Oregon's governor,
the U.S. Secretary of Education, and Attorney General Jeff
Sessions and their agencies.

Dallas, Oregon, pop. 15,000, is about 15 miles west of Salem, the
state capital. It is the seat of rural Polk County.

Oregon this year became the first state to allow residents to mark
a "not specified" gender option on state identification cards. Its
Department of Motor Vehicles now allows people to mark an "X" for
a non-binary gender on driver's licenses and ID cards.

Last year, an Oregon judge granted an Army veteran's petition to
be legally considered "non-binary," in a first-of-its-kind ruling.

Advocates for transgender rights praised those decisions in one of
the nation's most politically progressive states, but as in other
states, rural parts of Oregon tend to be more conservative.

The parents object to a May 2016 directive from the Obama
administration. The joint guidance from the Department of Justice
and Department of Education did not create any legal requirements,
but told schools that they must treat transgender students
according to their gender identities.

Around that time, the Oregon Department of Education issued
related guidelines for transgender students. Among other things,
the guidelines recommended that non-binary students should be
allowed to use the bathrooms that match their identities.

The parents claim those guidelines, and policies such as the one
adopted by the Dallas School District, improperly substitute
gender identity for "sex" for Title IX purposes.

"The consequence of the federal rule and the district policy is
unavoidable: adolescent students, in the midst of disrobing within
private intimate spaces, will encounter an adolescent student of
the opposite sex in their midst," the complaint states.

The school district adopted seven policies on harassment and
student safety, which the plaintiffs say are hurting students.

Among other things, they say some students have been avoiding
restrooms and locker rooms out of fear they will encounter someone
who was born of the opposite sex.

The complaint cites "Student A," who identifies as male, and was
allowed to use the boys' locker room and showers at Dallas High
School.

The complaint refers to Student A using female pronouns, and
claims allowing him to use boys' facilities has damaging effects
on male students.

Also, the parents say, "girl plaintiffs and other biologically
female students at Dallas High School face living in ongoing
anxiety, fear, and apprehension that a biological boy will be
permitted to walk in at any time while they are using the school
locker rooms or showers and see them in a state of undress or
while changing."

Dallas High School student Elliot Yoder testified at a school
board meeting in December 2015 after school district officers said
he could use the boys' locker room. Yoder, then 14, used a unisex
bathroom before asking to use the boys' locker room.

"Yes, I was born as a female," he said at the meeting, according
to The Oregonian newspaper. "I disregard that part of myself
completely when I'm in the boys' locker room. I never fully
undress. I don't shower with them. I don't even look at any of
them. I don't look at the person whose locker is directly below
mine. I'm not in there to spy on your kids. I'm not in there for
any other reason but to change in a place that is not completely
separate from everybody else."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and damages for
violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, Title IX,
religious freedom, due process and discrimination.

They are represented by Herbert Grey, Esq. of Beaverton and Ryan
Adams, Esq. of Canby. The Nov. 13 lawsuit is 65 pages long.

Students and Parents for Privacy filed a similar lawsuit in
Illinois last year, shortly after Chicago Public Schools announced
that transgender students would be allowed to use bathrooms and
locker rooms corresponding to their gender identities.

The Dallas School District did not respond to a request for
comment.


PAUL L MARKS: Accused by "Johnson" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Law Office of Paul L. Marks, PLLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-
08748 (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2017), violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by using a false, deceptive and
misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt.

Law Office of Paul L. Marks, PLLC, is a New York Professional
Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in
Orange County, New York.  The Defendant is a law firm, acting as a
debt collector.  The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit,
in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


PNGI CHARLES: "Barrick" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Linda Barrick, and all others similarly-situated v. PNGI Charles
Town Gaming, LLC dba Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races, and
Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00138 (N.D. W.Va.,
November 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
contract and violations of the West Virginia Payment and
Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Linda Barrick worked as a "Dealer" at Hollywood Casino
at Charlestown Casino from about May 2011 to present.

Defendant PNGI, a Pennsylvania for-profit corporation, is a casino
operator and manages operations at PNGI's subsidiary, PNGI Charles
Town Gaming, LLC dba Hollywood Casino at Charlestown Races. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
      114 S. Maple Ave.
      P.O. Box 2281
      Martinsburg, WV 25402
      Tel: (304) 262-4436
      Fax: (304) 596-2474
      E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net


PRA GROUP: "Hepfner" Suit Seeks Redress From Illegal Collections
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY HEPFNER, MARY NEUMER, and ROBERT HOFFMAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PRA GROUP, INC., and
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01572 (E.D.
Wisc., November 9, 2017), seeks redress for the Defendants'
alleged collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

PRA Group, Inc., is a debt collection agency with its principal
offices located in Norfolk, Virginia.  Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of PRA, with its
principal offices also located in Norfolk.

PRA Group purchases and owns consumer debts, and Portfolio
Recovery Associates collects those debts on PRA's behalf.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


PRECISION MOTOR: Ratliff's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Hearing on Dec. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 13, 2017, in the case
titled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Precision Motor Transport Group, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07196 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing is held and continued to December 19, 2017,
      at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff reported that Defendant has not yet been served;
      and

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued.

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


RADIAL INSIGHT: Made Illegal Automated Phone Call, Mey Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RADIAL INSIGHT LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00751-MHL (E.D.
Va., November 7, 2017), alleges that the Defendant, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, made an automated
telephone call to the Plaintiff, despite the fact that it lacked
valid consent, and despite the fact that her number was on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

Radial Insight is a Virginia corporation that does business
nationwide, including in this District.  Radial Insight provides
research services for its clients.  Radial Insight's telephone
efforts include the use of automated dialing equipment to send
automated calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Athanasios Basdekis, Esq.
          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com
                  jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


RTI INTERNATIONAL: Accused by "Mey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RTI INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 5:17-cv-00167-FPS (N.D.W.
Va., November 7, 2017), alleges that, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Defendant made automated
telephone calls to the Plaintiff despite the fact that it lacked
valid consent, and despite the fact that her number was on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

RTI International, doing business as Research Triangle Institute,
is a North Carolina corporation, with its principal place of
business in Raleigh, North Carolina.  RTI provides research
services for its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Ryan M. Donovan, Esq.
          Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  rdonovan@baileyglasser.com
                  skinney@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


RUBY TUESDAY: Gives Misleading Info, Shareholder Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of shareholders
claims in a federal lawsuit that restaurant chain Ruby on November
14 gave misleading financial information about its merger with a
private equity group.

The case is DAVID BRESLAU, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC., JAMES
F. HYATT, STEPHEN I. SADOVE, F. LANE CARDWELL, JR., MARK W.
ADDICKS, KEVIN T. CLAYON, DONALD E. HESS, BERNARD LANIGAN, JR.,
JEFFREY J. O'NEIL, Defendants, Civil Action No. ___ (E.D. Tenn).


SAN DIEGO, CA: Accused of Discrimination by Homeless RV Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
RVs, campers and cars festooned with signs and stickers reading
"Stop the Tickets" packed a parking lot in San Diego's Balboa Park
on November 16 as disability advocates and plaintiffs in a class
action filed this week called on the city to stop targeting
homeless people living in their vehicles.

The class action, filed on behalf of nine named plaintiffs by
Disability Rights California, comes amid a statewide housing
crisis which has had a significant impact on San Diego.

The city has weathered a hepatitis A outbreak this year, which was
exacerbated by homelessness and unsanitary living conditions amid
an uptick in the region's unsheltered population. Earlier this
year, homeless people and advocates filed a separate class action
challenging the city's use of a vague municipal code to jail and
ticket homeless people living in tents on city streets.

But November 16's class action attacks a different city code, one
that prohibits parking RVs and oversize vehicles on city streets
from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. The homeless plaintiffs also challenge a
city law which makes it illegal to live in your vehicle. They say
the ordinances are being used to target more than 800 of San
Diego's "most vulnerable residents," many of whom are disabled and
are low-income, living off of disability or Social Security
benefits.

"For these people, their vehicles are their only reliable, safe
shelter from the elements and only place to store their
belongings. Yet, even though there are no adequate alternatives,
the city has repeatedly ticketed and harassed these individuals
for seeking shelter in their vehicles or simply for owning
vehicles and having nowhere else to park," the plaintiffs say in
their complaint.

The class also claims the city has threatened to arrest and charge
homeless people living in their vehicles with misdemeanor illegal
lodging. They seek a finding that the city's ordinances violate
their civil rights and a permanent injunction barring the city
from enforcing its overnight parking and vehicle habitation laws.

Disability Rights California attorney Ann Menasche told Courthouse
News settlement talks between the city and plaintiffs stalled
after she sent a letter in March asking police officers to stop
ticketing disabled homeless people living in their vehicles while
no "affordable, accessible and medically appropriate housing" has
been made available to them.

The city informed the plaintiffs in August it would not agree to
temporarily halt enforcement of the ordinances, according to the
42-page lawsuit.

While San Diego is taking steps to get people housed temporarily,
the recently created "safe park" lots and camping areas the city
opened up to get homeless people living on city streets into
safer, more sanitary living conditions are not open to those with
RVs.

The class said they have identified city-owned parking lots which
could be used for nighttime RV parking, which the city has so far
not opened to them. The vehicle owners say the city has been
unwilling to make reasonable modifications to the ordinances,
which they say violates their civil rights.

"Rather than adequately accommodating this homeless, largely
disabled group of individuals and complying with statutory and
constitutional requirements, the city has instead chosen to place
the health, safety, and lives of homeless vehicle owners in
further jeopardy, in the hope that the continuing and escalating
harassment will force these residents simply to leave town," the
complaint states.

For plaintiff and life-long San Diegan Benjamin Hernandez, leaving
town isn't an option.

He told Courthouse News he and his wife had their RV impounded in
July after accumulating over $3,000 in unpaid parking tickets for
parking their vehicle overnight in Mission Bay. Hernandez, a
stonemason who became disabled in an accident in 2015, is unable
to work, and he and his wife rely on her income to get by.

Hernandez said he donates blood plasma to get extra money, but
he's having a hard time qualifying for food stamps.

"There could be other ways to handle this. I'm a native and I love
where I'm from, but I don't love how I'm being treated," Hernandez
said.

Since Hernandez's RV was impounded he and his wife have been
living in his truck.

The class points out the city does allow some RV owners to park
their vehicles on city streets -- but temporary overnight parking
permits are only issued to those with a physical address. Those
with permits can park their RVs overnight on city streets for up
to 72 days a year.

"The city allows people who are not homeless to park their RVs
overnight, but imposes penalties against those who are homeless
for the same behavior," the class action states.

San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott said in a written statement
the city has not been served and hasn't seen the complaint.

"We look forward to continuing to assist the city in tackling
issues related to persons experiencing homelessness," Elliott
said.


SEECO INC: Arnett Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Connie Arnett, et al., filed an appeal from a court order
dated October 31, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled CONNIE JEAN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC, et al., Case No.
4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

The Movants-Appellants are Connie Arnett, Cecil Barnes, Jr., Cecil
Barnes, III, James Booth, Lori Booth, David Brown, Edward Bryant,
Roy Bryant, Kim Carrell Gifford, Roby Cassell, Sally Cassell,
Patricia Cates, Isaac Criswell, Jerry Donahue, James Duncan, John
Gottsponer, Myrtle Gottsponer, Clemens Gottsponer, Thomas Gray,
Karri Gray, Robert Hall, James Harrison, John Hart, Kevin Holland,
Hubert Isom, Joyce Isom, Floyd Jerrell, Sherry Jerrell, Kathy
Johnston, Brenda Sue Kay, Bennie Latimer, Junior Latimer, Megan
Lockard, Dana Love, James Williams, Lucretia Williams, Dennis
Cossey, Sandra Cossey, Michelle Gifford, Robert Lee, Juanita
Boone, James Throneberry, Karen Throneberry, Wanda Liddell, Norma
Bryant and Charles Noakes.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
movants have also filed appeals in the lawsuit.

Testimony in the lawsuit began on June 6 with two hours of
questions for an educator from Nashville, Tenn., who sued
Southwestern Energy Co. and three subsidiaries, alleging
underpayment for the use of her land during the natural-gas boom
in north-central Arkansas.  The lawsuit is one of the biggest
class-action lawsuits to emerge from Fayetteville Shale activity.

Connie Jean Smith's case hinges on what a 12-person federal jury
will decide is "reasonable" for SWN Production, formerly known as
SEECO, to deduct from Ms. Smith's promised cut of the company's
proceeds.  Ms. Smith's case is class-action certified to represent
about 12,000 Arkansas landowners whom Smith's attorneys say were
cheated out of $98 million during years of royalty payments for
the use of their land to produce natural gas.  That averages out
to more than $8,000 per lease.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith, et al. v. Connie
Arnett, et al., Case No. 17-3443, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

                          *     *     *

On the Appellate Court's own motion, this appeal No. 17-3443 is
consolidated with appeal Nos. 17-2378, 17-2396, 17-2607, and 17-
2610.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben H. Caruth, Esq.
          Edward Allen Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON, CARUTH & VIRDEN, PLC
          105 S. Moose Street
          Post Office Box 558
          Morrilton, AR 72110-0558
          Telephone: (501) 354-0125
          E-mail: bcaruth@gcvlaw.com
                  agordon@gcvlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
          Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
          Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          210 W. Oklahoma Avenue
          Guthrie, OK 70344
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com
                  tanner@mroklaw.com
                  jackjr@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Erik P. Danielson, Esq.
          DANIELSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          909 Rolling Hills Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 935-8060
          E-mail: erik.danielson@danielsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: shandler@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          SEIDEL LAW FIRM, PC
          6 Hedge Lane
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537-0903
          E-mail: bradseidel@me.com

               - and -

          James Fitzgerald Valley, Esq.
          J F VALLEY, ESQ, P.A.
          423 Rightor Street
          P.O. Box 451
          Helena, AR 72342
          Telephone: (870) 619-1750
          Facsimile: (870) 619-1760
          E-mail: james@jamesfvalley.com

Defendants-Appellees SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, Desoto Gathering Company, LLC, Southwestern
Energy Services Company and Southwestern Energy Company are
represented by:

          Jess Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Daily, Esq.
          DAILY & WOODS, P.L.L.C.
          58 S. Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 1446
          Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446
          Telephone: (479) 782-0361
          E-mail: tdaily@dailywoods.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Ellis, Esq.
          R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER & COLEMAN LLP
          909 Fannin
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000
          E-mail: rellis@yettercoleman.com
                  pyetter@yettercoleman.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq.
          SCHIFFER ODOM HICKS & JOHNSON PLLC
          700 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 357-5150
          Facsimile: (713) 357-5160
          E-mail: mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com

               - and -

          Rex M. Terry, Esq.
          HARDIN & JESSON
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: terry@hardinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, is represented by:

          Frederick H. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew King, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Frederick.Davis@KutakRock.com
                  Andrew.King@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Hansen, Esq.
          Michael Vance Powell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8496
          E-mail: mkhansen@lockelord.com
                  mpowell@lockelord.com


SILVER SPRING: Geller Challenges Proposed Merger With Itron Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GELLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SILVER SPRING NETWORKS, INC., SCOTT A. LANG, LAURA D.
TYSON, WARREN M, WEISS, THOMAS R. KUHN, RICHARD A. SIMONSON,
JONATHAN SCHWARTZ, THOMAS H. WERNER, and PETER VAN CAMP, Case No.
5:17-cv-06532 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2017), alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
proposed merger between Silver Spring and Itron, Inc.

On September 17, 2017, the Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which
the Company's shareholders stand to receive $16.25 in cash for
each share of Silver Spring stock they own, representing $956.6
million in equity value.

Headquartered in San Jose, California, Silver Spring provides
Internet of Important Things(TM) connectivity platforms and
solutions to utilities and cities.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Itron provides metering solutions to electricity, gas, and water
utility markets worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces "Foreman" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solera Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Shelley Foreman, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solera Holdings,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-02002-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.,
November 20, 2017).

Solera Holdings is an American company based in Texas which
provides risk management and asset protection software and
services to the automotive industry and property insurance
marketplace.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Allen Yanchunis , Sr., Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 223-5402
   Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Marisa Kendra Glassman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 222-2413
   Email: mglassman@forthepeople.com


SONIC NOTIFY: Must Face Class Action Over Fan App Recordings
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge refused on Nov. 20 to dismiss a class action
accusing the Golden State Warriors and Signal Sonic Notify fka
Sonic Notify of using a fan app to turn on users' microphones and
record their conversations without consent, but dismissed claims
against the app developer Yinzcam.

The case is LATISHA SATCHELL, Plaintiff, v. SONIC NOTIFY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04961-JSW (N.D. Calif.).


ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. John's
University. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. John's
University, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-09093-CS (S.D. N.Y.,
November 20, 2017).

St. John's University is a private, Roman Catholic, research
university located in New York City, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (917) 796-7437
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


STATE FARM: Faces Spine Care Class Suit Over Insurance Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spine Care Delaware, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. K17C-
11-009 NEP (Del. Super. Ct., November 8, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all persons or entities who submitted claims for
medical-expense-related Personal Injury Protection benefits under
Delaware auto policies issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, where
(i) the claim was not disputed by the insurer on grounds of
insufficient documentation within 30 days of receipt, (ii) the
claim was not paid by the insurer within 30 days of receipt, and
(iii) though ultimately paid in whole or part, the insurer made no
payment of statutory interest on the claim.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of insurance, and
regularly sells automobile insurance within the State of Delaware.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John S. Spadaro, Esq.
      JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
      54 Liborio Lane
      Smyrna, DE 19977
      Telephone: (302)235-7745


STONEMARK MANAGEMENT: Rumph Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRI'YANA RUMPH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STONEMARK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00740-BSM
(E.D. Ark., November 9, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act regarding
alleged unpaid overtime wages.

Stonemark Management is a foreign limited liability company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendant is a multi-
family property management company.  The Defendant conducts
business within the state of Arkansas, operating or managing
apartment complexes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua West, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TDJ OILFIELD: Seeks Okay of Stipulated Notice in "Barnhill" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled CORY BARNHILL, Individually and
on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. TDJ OILFIELD SERVICES,
LLC; and JOEY MOORE, Case No. 7:17-cv-00160-RAJ-DC (W.D. Tex.),
jointly ask the Court to approve their stipulated form of
distribution of notice of collective action.

The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current salaried oilfield employees of TDJ Oilfield, to recover
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Through discussions between counsel, the Parties have agreed and
stipulated to the following:

   a. TDJ Oilfield consents to entry of an Order conditionally
      certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA,
      and authorizing that the notice and consent attached be
      sent to all current and former salaried oilfield workers
      employed by TDJ Oilfield since August 18, 2014.

   b. TDJ Oilfield agrees to produce to Plaintiff within 14 days
      after entry of this Court's Order, an Excel spreadsheet
      listing the names, last known addresses, last known cell
      phone numbers and e-mail addresses (if any), for all
      current and former salaried oilfield workers employed by
      TDJ Oilfield since August 18, 2014.  TDJ also agrees to
      post the notice at the district offices in the same areas
      in which it is required to post government-required notices
      to which the putative class members have access;

   c. No later than 10 days after receiving the list, counsel for
      Plaintiff shall mail the agreed notice and consent (along
      with the Complaint and Answer) via first class mail and
      electronically (via text, or alternatively, e-mail if
      applicable);

   d. The parties consent to a period of 90 days from the date
      Defendants provide Plaintiff with the list for the putative
      class members to file Consent forms; and

   e. Notwithstanding this stipulation to conditional
      certification, TDJ Oilfield continues to deny that it has
      violated the FLSA in any respect.  TDJ Oilfield does not
      concede that Plaintiff and the putative class members are
      "similarly situated" under 29 U.S.C. Section216(b) or
      that this case is appropriate for collective action
      treatment.  TDJ Oilfield specifically reserves its
      right to seek decertification of the conditionally
      certified class at a later time, and its right to
      defend this matter on the merits.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QNcGtb5o

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Carnie, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER LLP
          333 Texas Street, Suite 450
          Shreveport, LA 71101
          Telephone: (318) 562-2700
          Facsimile: (318) 562-2751
          E-mail: brian.carnie@keanmiller.com


TRIAD MEDIA: Invades Class Members' Privacy, "Sloatman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LALA SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRIAD MEDIA SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a
COMPARETOPSCHOOL.COM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-11383 (D.N.J., November 7, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby,
invading her privacy.

Triad Media Solutions, Inc., doing business as
comparetopschool.com, is in the business of providing comparisons
of education institutions.  The Company is domestic corporation
duly organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey with its
principal place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 619-8966
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


TRIVAGO NV: Faces "Oliva" IPO-Related Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE OLIVA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRIVAGO N.V., ROLF SCHR├┤MGENS, AXEL HEFER, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES, LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and GUGGENHEIM
SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-08634 (S.D.N.Y., November 7,
2017), seeks remedies pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Trivago's American
Depositary Receipts pursuant and/or traceable to Trivago's alleged
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or
about December 16, 2016, and/or on the open market between
December 16, 2016, and October 27, 2017, inclusive.

Trivago is a German company headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany.
Trivago provides an online hotel search platform for customers
worldwide.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Underwriter Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Goldman,
Sachs & Co.; Allen & Company LLC; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Cowen and Company, LLC; and
Guggenheim Securities, LLC, act as brokers for corporate,
government, and institutional clients and as a dealer in the
purchase and sale of various financial instruments.  The
Underwriter Defendants all did business within this District in
connection with the IPO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Paid Hackers to Keep Quiet About Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that ride-hail giant Uber paid hackers to keep quiet about a data
breach that compromised the personal information of 57 million
drivers and riders, the company's CEO revealed in a company blog
post on Nov. 21.

Dara Khosrowshahi, who took over as Uber's CEO in September, said
he recently learned of the October 2016 hack and immediately began
investigating the company's data security protocols.

"You may be asking why we are just talking about this now, a year
later," Ms. Khosrowshahi wrote.  "I had the same question, so I
immediately asked for a thorough investigation of what happened
and how we handled it."

Uber fired its security chief Joe Sullivan and one of his deputies
for their roles in covering up the data breach, which included a
$100,000 payout to hackers in exchange for deleting data and
keeping quiet, according to Bloomberg News.

The names and driver's license numbers of 600,000 drivers were
compromised in the breach, along with the personal information of
57 million app users, including names, email addresses, and phone
numbers.  No social security numbers, birthdates, bank account
numbers or credit numbers were downloaded, according to the
company.

"None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses
for it," Ms. Khosrowshahi said in his blog post.  "While I can't
erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that
we will learn from our mistakes.  We are changing the way we do
business, putting integrity at the core of every decision we make
and working hard to earn the trust of our customers."

The ride-hailing company says it will notify every driver whose
license number was downloaded and provide free credit monitoring
and identity theft protection for those drivers. The company says
it also notified the authorities and is monitoring hacked accounts
for any potential fraudulent activity.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has also launched an
investigation into the hack, Bloomberg reported on Nov. 21.

Ms. Khosrowshahi said the company has identified the two
individuals responsible for the hack and "obtained assurances that
the downloaded data had been destroyed."

The Uber CEO also hired Matt Olson, a cybersecurity consultant and
former general counsel of the National Security Agency and
director of the National Counterterrorism Center, to help review
the company's data security policies and safeguards.

News of the hack comes at a time when Uber's new CEO is working to
repair the ride-hailing giant's tarnished image after a tumultuous
year.  Former CEO Travis Kalanick was pressured to step down in
June after the company was rocked by complaints of a sexist
workplace culture and revelations that it used covert programs to
spy on competitors and evade local law enforcement.

Before taking over as Uber's top executive, Ms. Khosrowshahi, 48,
served as CEO of the online travel booking company Expedia, which
saw its gross value quadruple during his 12-year tenure.


US COLD STORAGE: Sued by McGinnis to Stop Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MCGINNIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-08054 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2017), wants to put a stop
to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use, and storage
of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, personal
biometric data.

The complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that the Defendant's
conduct violates Biometric Information Privacy Act; (ii) requiring
the Defendant to cease the unlawful activities; and (iii) awarding
liquidated damages to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

US Cold is a nationwide company, providing temperature-controlled
warehousing and transportation.  The Company is a foreign
corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey with its
headquarters in a state other than Illinois.  US Cold does
business in Illinois, operates at least two locations in Illinois,
and is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com
                  lpeeters@cslaw.com


VENTURE EXPRESS: Ratliff's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Jan. 30 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 13, 2017, in the case
captioned Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Venture Express, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-07214 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion to certify class is entered and continued;

   -- Motion hearing set for November 14, 2017, is stricken;

   -- Because Defendant has until December 11, 2017, to respond
      to the complaint, the parties shall serve their MIDP
      disclosures by January 10, 2018;

   -- Status hearing set for November 14, 2017, is stricken and
      re-set for January 30, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- The parties shall file a joint status report by January 23,
      2018; and

   -- The parties shall indicate in their Initial Status Report
      whether there are any unresolved disputes concerning the
      MIDP disclosures.Mailed notice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DnRay9jn


VERSAR INC: Consoli Files Suit vs. BOD Over Sale to Kingswood
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS CONSOLI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PAUL J. HOEPER, DR. ROBERT L. DURFEE, JAMES L.
GALLAGHER, AMORETTA M. HOEBER, DR. AMIR A. METRY, ANTHONY L.
OTTEN, FREDERICK M. STRADER, and JEFFREY A. WAGONHURST, Case No.
2017-0798 (Del. Ch. Ct., November 7, 2017), is a stockholder class
action brought on behalf of the public holders of Versar, Inc.'s
common stock against members of its board of directors for
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of
the Company to Kingswood Capital Management, LLC, through
Kingswood Genesis Fund I, LLC ("Parent") and KW Genesis Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser").

On September 25, 2017, Versar announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 22, 2017, to sell
Versar to Kingswood.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Purchaser commenced a tender offer on October 6, 2017,
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Versar common stock
for $0.15 per share.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $1.5 million.

Non-defendant Versar is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
headquarters in Springfield, Virginia.  Versar is an international
professional services company, which seeks to identify customers'
needs to develop and implement solutions.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Kingswood is a private equity firm based in Los Angeles,
California.  Parent is a Delaware limited liability company owned
and ultimately controlled by equity funds managed by Kingswood.
Purchaser is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent.  Purchaser is owned and ultimately controlled by equity
funds managed by Kingswood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          Alexandra E. Eisig, 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
                  aeisig@weisslawllp.com


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Misclassifies Workers, "Divine" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR DIVINE v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF ILLINOIS and VOLUNTEERS
OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-08127 (N.D. Ill., November 9,
2017), is a collective action alleging that the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees were misclassified as exempt
employees under federal wage and hour law, including the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Volunteers of America of Illinois is organized under the laws of
the state of Illinois.  Volunteers of America, Inc., is a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kentucky.
The Defendants are nonprofit organizations and the Plaintiff's
employer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin H. Lessner, Esq.
          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: jlessner@axley.com
                  mmodl@axley.com

               - and -

          Paul Kinne, Esq.
          GINGRAS, CATES & WACHS
          8150 Excelsior Drive
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          Facsimile: (608) 833- 2874
          E-mail: kinne@gcwlawyers.com


WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Class Action Claims Sexual Abuse
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action,
apparently the first in this case, accuses Harvey Weinstein and
his movie company of sexually abusing aspiring actresses under
threats of blacklisting and other retaliation.

The case is JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS,
LLC, MIRAMAX, LLC, HARVEY WEINSTEIN, and JOHN DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, No. ____ (C.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

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

        -- and --

     Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Telephone: (213) 330-7150
     Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
     Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com

        -- and --

     M. Cris Armenta, Esq.
     Credence E. Sol, Esq.
     THE ARMENTA LAW FIRM, APC
     1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 300
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Telephone: (310) 826-2826 Ext. 108
     Facsimile: (310) 695-2560
     Email: cris@crisarmenta.com
            credence.sol@orange.fr


WENNER MEDIA: Sullivan Seeks Prelim. Approval of $1.1-Mil. Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KYLE SULLIVAN and JEANNE
SLOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. WENNER MEDIA LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00960-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.), move for preliminary approval of the
parties' class action settlement.

The proposed settlement covers a Settlement Class comprising an
Indirect Subscriber Subclass and a Direct Subscriber Subclass and
establishes a $1,100,000 settlement fund.  The Settlement Class is
defined as:

     "All persons with Michigan street addresses who received a
     subscription to Rolling Stone, Men's Journal, or Us Weekly
     and were subscribers between January 1, 2010, and
     December 31, 2011."

The Settlement Class includes the Direct Subscriber Subclass
Members and Indirect Subscriber Subclass Members.  The Direct
Subscriber Subclass Members are defined as "Settlement Class
Members whose subscriptions were obtained directly from Wenner
online or by returning a 'blow-in' subscription form from a Wenner
Magazine."  The Indirect Subscriber Subclass Members are defined
as "Settlement Class Members whose subscriptions to a Wenner
Magazine were obtained from third-party subscription agents."

To recognize the efforts of the Plaintiffs in achieving the relief
for the Settlement Class, and as appropriate compensation for
their time and effort, the Defendant has agreed the Plaintiffs may
receive, subject to Court approval, an incentive award of up to
$5,000 each ($10,000 in total) from the Settlement Fund.  The
Defendant has also agreed the Settlement Fund may be used to pay
Class Counsel reasonable attorneys' fees and to reimburse expenses
in this Action, in an amount to be approved by the Court.  Class
Counsel have agreed to petition the Court for no more than
$300,000 from Settlement Fund.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Myers, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS
          818 Red Drive, Suite 210
          Traverse City, MI 49684
          Telephone: (231) 943-1135
          E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com


WILLIE LAMAR: "Haynes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Haynes, and all others similarly-situated v. Willie Lamar
Block & Brick Construction and Willie J. Lamar, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00442 (M.D. Ga., November 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid wages, declaratory relief, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was an hourly paid Labor Helper who worked for the
Defendant in Baldwin County, Georgia.

Defendant, Willie Lamar Block & Brick Construction, is a Domestic
Profit Corporation which is owned by Willie J. Lamar, and operates
and conducts a construction business in Milledgeville, Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adian Miller, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 496-7332
      Fax: (404) 496-7428
      E-mail: armiller@forthepeople.com


YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Ninth Circuit panel on
Nov. 21 agreed with a federal judge's dismissal of a shareholder
class action against Yelp, finding the investors failed to
adequately link a drop in Yelp's share price to complaints it
tampered with reviews.

The appeals case is JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated; CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND
POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARY
ADAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC.; JEREMY STOPPELMAN; ROBERT J.
KROLIK; GEOFFREY DONAKER, Defendants-Appellees, v. DRU L. PIO,
Movant, No. 16-15104 (9th Cir.), D.C. No. 3:14-cv-03547-


ZABAR'S & CO: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Southern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zabar's & Co., Inc.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zabar's & Co., Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09057 (S.D. N.Y., November 20, 2017).

Zabar's and Company Inc. owns and operates a food retail
store.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Konatar" of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GORAN KONATAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Case No. 2:17-cv-11493
(D.N.J., November 9, 2017), accuses the Defendant of violating
various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
including violation of the Plaintiff's right to a truthful and
fair debt collection process.

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm and Massachusetts professional
corporation, with its principle place of business located in
Andover, Massachusetts.  Zwicker operates a nationwide defaulted
debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts from
consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the
state of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAWRENCE C. HERSH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com




                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56,400 Claims Pending v. American Optical
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2017, that about 56,400 claims naming American Optical and
numerous other defendants were pending as of July 2, 2017 in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold
respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing.  In
connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities,
including certain asbestos-related and other claims.

"Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in
the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wxh2FU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Suits at July 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 2, 2017.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer
and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wxh2FU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at July 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company remains a defendant in cases
related to the use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017.

Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits
claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products.  In many of these cases, the complaints
are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company
or its products.  The cases vary, but complaints in these cases
generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants.  The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them.  It is not currently possible
to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with
these cases and, accordingly, no accruals have been recorded in
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.  The
Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide
insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing
coverage under some of these agreements and policies, although
there can be no assurance of the results of these efforts.  There
can be no assurance that these cases, whether as a result of
adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will
not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PwGAHd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Jul 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc., still faces
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2017.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named
defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused
by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's
that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QwiSCk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to defend in personal injury suits
related 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there
were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C
on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material
adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been
forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly
or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali
Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is
named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land;
however, there can be no assurance in that regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ggsy3o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Continues at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that it is still in discussions with
Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation regarding insurance coverage
on the asbestos lawsuits that the Company is facing.

The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C
Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those
policies for asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim,
Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to
pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever
reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the
policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land
is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ggsy3o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Still Defends A&F Lawsuit at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
continues to defend itself against the insurance coverage lawsuit
filed by American & Foreign Insurance Company, 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, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  No other purported party was
served.  In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its
attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by
D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled
to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it
has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.  D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim.  D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend.  In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered.  In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali
Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered
by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance
policy at issue in this lawsuit.  In June 2007, the parties
settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of
US$1,618,000.  Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land
in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness noted.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.  Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.  In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients
with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants.  While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ggsy3o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay is still pending in the bankruptcy case of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to Kaanapali's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017.  The bankruptcy court has previously lifted the stay in
2015, but the decision was reversed by the district court in 2016.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has
as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other
things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of
both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable non-
bankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable non-bankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable non=bankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United
States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires
consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit
certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy
of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.
Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court
failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to
liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims
remained subject to the stay.  The district court remanded the
case for further proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such
further proceedings on the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in
pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and
D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies
are concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the
form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of
resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's
Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future
insurance claims.  Kaanapali may consider entering into such
discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will
take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in
whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ggsy3o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to face various asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past.  While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase.  Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal
components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of
this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment.  Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities.  Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute.  While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter.  We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/z16Qda


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends "Edwards" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation still defends itself in the lawsuit
filed by Audrey Edwards against more than 90 defendants, 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 December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix
of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the
Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M
Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company,
alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed,
tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy
Edwards.  The Company received service of process in April 2011.
The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to
the compliant.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect.
Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MdBQoh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
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.

IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number
of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CTEBWl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2017, that from time to time, it faces product liability
lawsuits related to the prior sale or use of former products
allegedly containing asbestos or other restricted materials.

The Company states, "From time to time, as a normal incident of
the nature and kind of businesses in which we are, and were,
engaged, various claims or charges are asserted and litigation or
arbitration is commenced by or against us arising from or related
to matters, including, but not limited to: product liability;
personal injury; patents, trademarks, trade secrets or other
intellectual property; labor and employee disputes; commercial or
contractual disputes; strategic acquisitions or divestitures; the
prior sale or use of former products allegedly containing asbestos
or other restricted materials; breach of warranty; or
environmental matters.  Claimed amounts against us may be
substantial, but may not bear any reasonable relationship to the
merits of the claim or the extent of any real risk of court or
arbitral awards.  We record accruals for losses related to those
matters against us that we consider to be probable and that can be
reasonably estimated.  Gain contingencies, if any, are recognized
when they are realized and legal costs generally are expensed when
incurred.  At June 30, 2017, our accrual for the potential
resolution of lawsuits, claims or proceedings that we consider
probable of being decided unfavorably to us was not material.
Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these
matters with certainty, it is reasonably possible that some
lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of or decided
unfavorably to us and in excess of the amounts currently accrued.
Based on available information, in the opinion of management,
settlements, arbitration awards and final judgments, if any, which
are considered probable of being rendered against us in litigation
or arbitration in existence at June 30, 2017 are reserved against
or would not have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/CjOGFS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Face 42 PI Lawsuits at July 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still defending themselves against 42
pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of July 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products
as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as
building fires.  As a distributor of building materials, we face
an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the
event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past
or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in
economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated
environmental, health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in
design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product,
negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In
particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979.

"Since 2002 and as of July 31, 2017, approximately 954 asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we vigorously
defend against them.  Of these, 905 have been dismissed without
any payment by us, 42 are pending and only 7 have been settled,
which settlements have not materially impacted our financial
condition or operating results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/czUbIt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little, et al., Must Respond to Kaneb Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana directed Plaintiffs, James Little, Donald
Stephens, Larry Smith, Larry Laborde and Lynn Laborde to provide
written responses to the outstanding Interrogatories and Requests
for Production of Documents, and to pay Kaneb Management Company
LLC, n/k/a Nustar Pipeline Company, LLC, $500 for the reasonable
attorney's fees it incurred in filing the Motion to Compel
Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents.

On October 7, 2013, Manuel Garza, Larry Laborde, Lynn Laborde,
Michael Northcutt, Larry A. Smith, Donald Stephens, Wayne Buckley,
Charles Easterling, Steven Goode, Jerry Johnson, James Little,
Paul Luckey and James Wells filed a Seamen's Petition for Damages
in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, seeking recovery for injuries
they allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing drilling mud during their employment with defendants
Rowan Companies, Inc., ENSCO Offshore Company, Harbinger Group,
Inc., Diamond Offshore Company, Nustar Energy, L.P., Kaneb
Management Company, L.L.C. and Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling Co. Also named as Defendants are Union Carbide
Corporation, Montello, Inc., Chevron Phillips Chemical Company,
L.P., Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C. and Nico Supply Company, Inc.,
who allegedly manufactured and/or distributed the asbestos-
containing drilling mud.

On October 16, 2017, Kaneb Management filed the instant Motion to
Compel, asserting that on May 24, 2016, it served written
discovery on the five plaintiffs who still have claims pending
against Kaneb Management, namely: James Little, Donald Stephens,
Larry Smith, Larry Laborde and Lynn Laborde.

The Court finds that Kaneb Management's discovery requests seek
the same information from each of the Plaintiffs, including
information regarding the nature and extent of each Plaintiff's
injuries and damages and information regarding employment history,
past medical treatment, compensation received for the alleged
injuries, prior injuries and illnesses, the underlying accident,
the Diamond M. drilling rig each Plaintiff worked on, Diamond M.'s
alleged negligence, prior litigation and matters related to the
witnesses to be called and the documents to be used at trial.

The Court also finds that the discovery requests also seek to have
Plaintiffs execute releases for health information, medical
records, social security earnings information, employment records,
military records, records from the Department of Veterans Affairs,
workers' compensation records and school/vocational records.

Kaneb Management submitted documentation showing that it
propounded Requests for Production on James Little, Donald
Stephens, Larry Smith, Larry Laborde and Lynn Laborde and
Interrogatories to all Plaintiffs but Lynn Laborde on May 24, 2016
by email. Although Kaneb Management has not submitted any
documentation showing its attempts to contact Plaintiffs' counsel
regarding the outstanding discovery, Kaneb Management asserts that
its counsel called Plaintiffs' counsel on October 3, 2017 and
October 5, 2017 to discuss the outstanding discovery responses,
and also wrote a letter to Plaintiff's counsel on October 15, 2017
to schedule a discovery conference, but each communication went
unanswered.

Despite the Plaintiffs' failure to answer Kaneb Management's
discovery requests and Plaintiffs' counsel's refusal to respond to
messages from Kaneb Management's counsel, Kaneb claims that
Stephens, Smith, Larry Laborde and Lynn Laborde served written
discovery on Kaneb on October 15, 2017.

Kaneb Management further asserts that as of the date the Motion to
Compel was filed, it has not received any answers or documents
responsive to the discovery requests. Plaintiffs were given an
opportunity to respond to Kaneb Management's request for fees, but
failed to file any opposition.

The case is MANUEL GARZA, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL., Civil
Action No. 13-742-SDD-EWD, (M.D. La.).

A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order, dated November 14, 2017
is available for free at https://is.gd/TCgB62 from Leagle.com.

Manuel Garza, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm.

Manuel Garza, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Larry Laborde, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Lynn Laborde, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Michael Northcutt, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The
Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm.

Larry A. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The
Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm.

Donald Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The
Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm.

Wayne Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Charles Easterling, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The
Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm.

Steven Goode, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Jerry Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

James Little, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Paul Luckey, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

James Wells, Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko, The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Union Carbide Corp., Defendant, represented by Deborah Kuchler,
Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, L.L.C., Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C., Michael H. Abraham,
Forman Watkins & Krutz, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner Richeson & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, L.L.C..

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah Kuchler, Kuchler
Polk Weiner, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker
& Carey, L.L.C., Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C., Michael H. Abraham, Forman Watkins
& Krutz & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
L.L.C..

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen F. Drew, Adams & Reese & Gerard Joseph Gaudet, Adams and
Reese LLP.

Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Campbell
Edington Wallace, Frilot, LLC, Allen J. Krouse, III, Frilot,
Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC, Caroline E. Conway, Frilot
L.L.C., Dylan Dennis Lynch, Frilot LLC, Everett R. Fineran,
Frilot, LLC & Krystle Marguerite Ferbos, Frilot L.L.C..

Rowan Companies Inc, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, E. Stuart Ponder, Hailey, McNamara &
Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Baldwin Haspel Burke & Mayer.

Harbinger Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline M.
Brettner, Carver Darden & Lindsay E. Spann, Carver, Darden,
Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman.

Diamond Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Vondenstein, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP.

Kaneb Management Company, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton
Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Bradley Joseph Schlotterer, Kean
Miller LLP, Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP & Sean T.
McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP.

ENSCO Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, E. Stuart Ponder, Hailey, McNamara &
Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Baldwin Haspel Burke & Mayer.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F. Drew,
Adams & Reese.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watson May Pursue Asbestos Claims Under FELA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelly G. Watson appeals the January 25, 2017 Order by
the Eighth Judicial District Court granting Defendant Burlington
Northern and Sante Fe Railway Company's motion for summary
judgment on Watson's asbestos-related disease claim, brought under
the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA").

The dispositive issue in the appeal is: "Whether the bankruptcy
court's Order enjoining claims against W.R. Grace and other
Affiliated Entities, including BNSF, tolled the statute of
limitations on Watson's claim."

Under the FELA, no action may be maintained unless commenced
within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.
Section 27-2-406, MCA, provides: "When the commencement of an
action is stayed by injunction or other order of the court or
judge or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the
injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the
commencement of the action."

Justice James Jeremiah Shea of the Supreme Court of Montana
reverses the district court's order granting summary judgment to
BNSF, finding that the district court erred in its conclusion that
the bankruptcy court's injunction did not bar the commencement of
new actions against BNSF.

Watson was a long-term employee of BNSF in Lincoln County. During
his BNSF employment, he was exposed to vermiculite dust. The
vermiculite mined in Libby and the dust produced by it contains
amphibole asbestos. BNSF transported vermiculite for W.R. Grace &
Company and its predecessors from Libby to various locations.

In July 2000, following widespread news reports on the hazards
posed by vermiculite dust from the W.R. Grace mine in Libby,
Watson sought a health screening offered by the Libby Community
Environmental Health Program. Watson's initial test results for
lung disease were negative.

On April 2, 2001, W.R. Grace filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. The bankruptcy court immediately entered a temporary
restraining order against actions being pursued against Non-debtor
Affiliates and certain third parties arising from W.R. Grace's
mining operations and exposure to vermiculite dust.

Meanwhile, Watson underwent a second health screening in October
2007. On October 22, 2007, a physician advised Watson he had
asbestos-related disease associated with his exposure while
working for BNSF.

On April 11, 2008, the bankruptcy court entered an order expanding
the injunction to include BNSF as a Non-debtor Affiliate.

On August 5, 2010, Watson and two other plaintiffs filed suit
against the State of Montana, three wood products companies,
Montana Light and Power Co., and Robinson Insulation Co., as well
as fictitious defendants, Does A-Z. Watson's complaint contains no
allegations against BNSF. Neither Watson's employment nor BNSF is
referenced in the pleading.

On February 3, 2014, under the bankruptcy court's Order, W.R.
Grace's reorganization plan became effective and the automatic
stays and injunctions, including actions against BNSF, terminated.

On November 28, 2014, Watson moved to amend his complaint to
remove settled claims against the State, dismiss claims against
the wood products defendants and Montana Light and Power Co., and
add claims against BNSF. On December 2, 2014, Watson filed his
First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. He alleged that
he was exposed to vermiculite dust during his employment with
BNSF, which transported vermiculite for the W. R. Grace & Company
and its predecessors from Libby to various locations.

On January 25, 2017, the district court granted BNSF's motion for
summary judgment. The district court held the statute of
limitations barred Watson's claim because Watson's claim accrued
on October 22, 2007, and he should have filed his FELA claims by
October 22, 2010. The district court concluded that "while the
bankruptcy court's injunction stayed pending cases against BNSF,
nothing in the injunction prohibited a plaintiff from suing," and
"there is nothing in the original bankruptcy court injunction,
BNSF expanded injunction, or associated briefing referenced by the
parties that precludes filing new cases to preserve the statute of
limitations." The District Court also concluded that "there is
nothing in the plain language of the bankruptcy court's original
injunction or expanded BNSF injunction that enjoins the
'commencement of an action' to trigger Section 27-2-406, MCA."

Whether the bankruptcy court's Order enjoining claims against W.R.
Grace and other "Affiliated Entities," including BNSF, tolled the
statute of limitations on Watson's claim.

Watson argues that the period of limitations for his action
against BNSF should be deemed tolled because the commencement of
an action against BNSF was enjoined by the bankruptcy court's
injunction and Section 27-2-406, MCA, applies.

Watson asserts the district court erroneously concluded that the
bankruptcy court injunction did not bar the "commencement" of a
new action, such as Watson's, because: (a) the Injunction was
modified on January 22, 2002, to "reinstate the bar against the
commencement of actions"; (b) the Injunction was expanded to bar
not only certain "Montana Actions" but "all other similar actions
that have been or may be filed" against BNSF; (c) the purpose of
expanding the Injunction to include BNSF was to prevent the tender
of defense to Debtor W.R. Grace that would be triggered by the
filing of a complaint against BNSF; and (d) the Bankruptcy Court
and the parties, including BNSF, repeatedly acknowledged the
Injunction as a bar against the "commencement" of actions.

BNSF argues the latest date on which Watson's claim accrued was
October 22, 2007, but because Watson did not file until December
2014, the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper.
BNSF maintains the bankruptcy court's injunction merely stayed the
prosecution and litigation involving claims against BNSF arising
out of W.R. Grace's mining operations in Libby, and did not bar
the commencement or filing of new claims against BNSF or toll the
limitations period.

BNSF contends the district court appropriately determined that
nothing in the plain language of the injunction barred the
commencement of new cases against BNSF while the Injunction was in
place.

The Court finds that the district court's Order failed to
acknowledge the bankruptcy court's January 22, 2002 Order that
modified the May 3, 2001 injunction for the express purpose of
"reinstating the bar against the commencement of new actions
against Affiliated Entities." Furthermore, the bankruptcy court's
April 11, 2008 Order that expanded the injunction to include
actions against BNSF specifically noted that the original
Injunction was modified by the January 22, 2002 Order "to
reinstate the bar against the commencement of new actions against
affiliates arising from alleged exposure to asbestos whether
indirectly or directly cause by W.R. Grace."

The Court points out that Watson's claim accrued in October 2007.
While his claim was still well within the FELA's three-year
statute of limitations, the bankruptcy court issued its April 22,
2008 Order expanding the injunction to include BNSF as a Non-
debtor Affiliate. This Injunction, as modified by the bankruptcy
court's January 22, 2002 Order, "barred... the commencement of new
actions against affiliates." Effective upon the issuance of the
Bankruptcy Court's April 22, 2008 Order, therefore, Watson was
barred from commencing his asbestos-related disease action against
BNSF.

The Court also points out that the bankruptcy court's injunction
was lifted on February 3, 2014, at which time Watson's statute of
limitations resumed running. Watson amended his Complaint to
include BNSF on November 28, 2014. The Court explains that
approximately six months passed between October 22, 2007 (when
Watson's claim against BNSF accrued) to April 11, 2008 (when the
bankruptcy court's injunction was expanded to include BNSF).
Approximately ten months passed between February 3, 2014, when the
bankruptcy court's Injunction was lifted, until November 28, 2014,
when Watson amended his Complaint to include BNSF.

As such, the Court concludes that -- after excluding the time that
Watson was enjoined from commencing an action against BNSF --
Watson amended his Complaint to include a claim against BNSF
approximately sixteen months after his claim accrued, which was
well within the FELA's three-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Court remands the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

The case is KELLY G. WATSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BNSF
RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND
SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY,
and DOES A-Z, Defendants and Appellees, No. DA 17-0229, (S.C.Mt.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion, dated November 14, 2017, is
available for free at https://is.gd/vJiWSc from Leagle.com.

Allan M. McGarvey, John F. Lacey, McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan, &
Lacey, PC, Kalispell, Montana, for Appellant.

Chad M. Knight, Knight Nicastro, LLC, Boulder, Colorado, for
Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim v. Bestwall in "Mullinax" Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC (now known as Bestwall LLC) has
filed a Notice indicating that it filed a voluntary bankruptcy
petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on
November 2, 2017. Accordingly, the Hon. Martin Reidinger of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has
entered an order staying the action styled ROBERT A. MULLINAX,
Individually, as Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh,
Deceased, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.), as to
the Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC (now known as Bestwall LLC) only
until further Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated November 14, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/SR1lvA from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone,
Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert A. Mullinax, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy
Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis
Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP &
William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Defendant, represented by David L.
Levy, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates
LLP & Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Fluor Constructors International, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ray
Kiger, Smith Anderson, Kirk Gibson Warner, Smith Anderson & Addie
K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Shannon
Strickland Frankel, Young Moore and Henderson P.A., Heather B.
Adams, Alston & Bird LLP & Molly Fraser Martinson, Young, Moore &
Henderson.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Grinnell, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
T. Hawkins, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy,
Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP & Gerald Anderson Stein,
II, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C..

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B. Oakley,
Poole Brooke Plumlee PC.

Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Zenith Electronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by E. Elaine
Shofner, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim v. Bestwall in "Lineberger" Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina has stayed the action styled TOMMY
WILLIAM LINEBERGER and spouse MARCELLA WILSON LINEBERGER,
Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00390-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.), as to the Defendant Georgia-
Pacific LLC (now known as Bestwall LLC) only until further Order
of the Court. The Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC (now known as
Bestwall LLC) has filed a Notice with the Court indicating that it
filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code on November 2, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated November 14, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/dN4blQ from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G.
Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Tommy William Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by William M.
Graham, Wallace & Graham.

Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G.
Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice & William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

CNA Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B.
Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by William P.
Early, Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Durez Corporation, Defendant, represented by John S. Slosson,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura Erb Dean,
Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP & Richard T. Boyette, Cranfill,
Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P..

General Cable Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephanie G. Flynn, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, pro hac vice &
Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Graybar Electric Co, Defendant, represented by Stephen B.
Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Andrew
Leach, Orbock Ruark & Dillard & Mary Clift Abdalla, Forman Watkins
& Krutz LLP, pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John S.
Slosson, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Amy C.
Drayton, Dean and Gibson.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarena
Monique Holder, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

RSCC Wire & Cable, LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D.
Scott, Williams Mullen, Elizabeth C. Stone, Williams Mullen, Lynn
Kanaga Brugh, IV, Williams Mullen, pro hac vice & Sarena Monique
Holder, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.

Schnieder Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janice
Holmes, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A..

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by Kelly B. Jones,
Womble Bond Dickinson.

Tarkett, Inc., Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcoat P.C..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy,
Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP & Gerald Anderson Stein,
II, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Siemens in "Lineberger" Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled TOMMY WILLIAM LINEBERGER and spouse MARCELLA
WILSON LINEBERGER, Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00390-MR-DLH, (W.D. N.C.),
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant Siemens Corporation pursuant to the Parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims against Defendant Siemens
Corporation.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated November 14, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/dsX8Zf from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G.
Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Tommy William Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by William M.
Graham, Wallace & Graham.

Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G.
Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice & William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

CNA Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B.
Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by William P.
Early, Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Durez Corporation, Defendant, represented by John S. Slosson,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura Erb Dean,
Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP & Richard T. Boyette, Cranfill,
Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P..

General Cable Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephanie G. Flynn, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, pro hac vice &
Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Graybar Electric Co, Defendant, represented by Stephen B.
Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Andrew
Leach, Orbock Ruark & Dillard & Mary Clift Abdalla, Forman Watkins
& Krutz LLP, pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John S.
Slosson, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Amy C.
Drayton, Dean and Gibson.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarena
Monique Holder, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

RSCC Wire & Cable, LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D.
Scott, Williams Mullen, Elizabeth C. Stone, Williams Mullen, Lynn
Kanaga Brugh, IV, Williams Mullen, pro hac vice & Sarena Monique
Holder, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.

Schnieder Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janice
Holmes, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A..

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by Kelly B. Jones,
Womble Bond Dickinson.

Tarkett, Inc., Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcoat P.C..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy,
Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP & Gerald Anderson Stein,
II, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim vs. Bestwall in "Brown" Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC (now known as Bestwall LLC) has
filed a Notice indicating that it filed a voluntary bankruptcy
petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on
November 2, 2017. Accordingly, the Hon. Martin Reidinger of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has
entered an order staying the action styled DON FRANK BROWN,
Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC f/k/a Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-MR-DLH,
(W.D.N.C.), as to the Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC (now known as
Bestwall LLC) only until further Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated November 14, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/iHLHDu from Leagle.com.

Don Frank Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone, Dean
Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Don Frank Brown, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Owen
Massenburg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, pro hac vice, Cori
Cudabac Steinmann, Bailey Crowe Kugler & Arnold LLP, pro hac vice
& Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Lift Stay in Carilli Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ROGER
J. CARILLI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS
CO., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. THOMAS GALLEN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants. ERNEST GILBERT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., Defendants-
Appellants, Index No. 190343/15, 190198/15, 190252/15, (App. 1st
N.Y.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for
the First Department has withdrawn the Defendants-appellants'
motion to stay of all proceedings pending hearing and
determination of the appeal taken from the order of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered on or about May 19, 2017 in
accordance with the stipulation of the parties, dated September
26, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated November 16, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/Ivuyxa from 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  * * *